Military Review

Wings for stars

42



Thirty years before the first launch of the Space Ship Two rocket flight in the early eighties in the Soviet Union, they came to the need for space-free space launches. No wonder. The military power, which became militarily invincible thanks to the off-launch mobile air defense, no one else understood the importance of flexible mobility of weapons and their means of delivery. The beskosmodromnaya launch system was promising for civilian launches - in this case, the cost of delivering goods to a low reference orbit was reduced tenfold compared to the cumbersome and extremely expensive multi-stage missiles.

The system was called MAKS - a multi-purpose aerospace system. She was supposed to be a two-stage delivery, and both steps had to be fully refundable. They refused from missile execution right away - not because they chose one option and definitely beskosmodromny, but because this performance was implemented in a previous project - Buran-Energy, which eventually also promised to become a fully returnable system (see the following articles in the series Wings for the stars ").

The first stage was the mother plane delivering the rocket glider, the second stage was as high as possible. From there, a rocket glider, with a fuel tank attached to it, was launched along an inclined trajectory. This is called an air start. Next, the fuel tank is disconnected, and the rocket glider along the trajectory enters a low reference orbit, delivering the necessary cargo to it. His own marching engines will allow him to leave the orbit. The rocket glider will descend using its high aerodynamic quality, similar to the descent of the Buran and the American Shuttle. A rocket glider will be able to land on any first-class airfield, from which, in fact, the launch of the mother plane will take place.

By the way, the famous “Mriyu” - An-225, was just built for the beginning of the flight tests of MAKS. More precisely, the “Mriya” became the first experienced mother aircraft to be used for the Buran, and for MAKS they were going to build a more sophisticated and adapted An-325 tractor based on the “Mriya”. In the future, for the development of MAKS, a huge biplane with eighteen engines was planned, which should have put the Tupolev aerospace plane into orbit (this variant is shown on the cover of the article).

The design of the project was entrusted to the Molniya NGO, Gleb Evgenievich Lozino-Lozinsky, who in the sixties had experience in developing the Spiral system, and in the 70-80s he developed the MTWC Buran. The development itself began even before the first flight of the Buran, using all the achievements of past projects. In 1988, a large cooperation of seventy enterprises aviation and the space industry developed a preliminary design in two hundred and twenty volumes. In confirmation of the design specifications, a large amount of experimental research work has been done on aerodynamics, gas dynamics, structural strength and other areas. Full-scale mock-ups of the tail of the orbital plane and the external fuel tank were made. The first instance of the An-225 Mriya base aircraft passed flight tests. The development of design documentation for an orbital aircraft and a fuel tank is almost completed. Over one and a half billion US dollars in modern prices were spent on everything.

In addition to the mother plane, the second stage was planned to be performed in three versions: 1) MAKS-OS with an orbital plane and a disposable tank; 2) MAKS-M with unmanned aircraft; 3) MAKS-T with a one-time unmanned second stage and a load of up to 18 tons.

Orbital aircraft assigned a wide range of responsibilities. It could be used for emergency rescue of crews of space stations and ships, for the repair of satellites and their towing from orbits, for reconnaissance purposes, both military and civil. Of course, the aircraft could also deliver cargoes and crew. But the priority and most desirable scheme of application was, of course, a military one - the orbital plane became a highly invulnerable and omnipresent instrument, both of retaliation and of a preemptive strike. Space systems based at many aerodromes of the country could in a very short time deliver an instrument of space war to orbit. In order to destroy enemy satellites, the stations, in the end, carry out bombardment of land and sea targets directly from space, while remaining inaccessible to any enemy escort, both then and now. The main thing is that the spacecraft could patrol space, remain in orbit for a long time, especially unmanned versions.

Thus, MAKS was the main trump card in the space and military race between the USSR and the USA. It was an incomparably powerful and much more workable project than the advertised President Defense Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative. Having carried out the project for several years, as it was planned, the Soviet Union was obliged to become a global leader in space and a military hegemon on Earth. It may sound pathetic, but it really is. What prevented all this, you know. Already in the nineties, the full-size mock-up of the tank transported from Ukraine was drunk for scrap because there was no money to pay for the parking space for it.

The project, in contrast to Burana, was previously based on the principles of self-sufficiency. According to calculations, the costs should have paid off in a year and a half, and the project itself could have yielded nine-fold profit in the future. At that time this system was unique until the last years, since not a single such device was developed all over the world. In addition, MAKS is much cheaper than missiles due to repeated use of the aircraft carrier (up to 100 times), the cost of removing cargo into low-Earth orbit is about one thousand US dollars per kilogram of payload. For comparison, the average cost of elimination is currently around 8000-12000 dollars / kg. The benefits can also include greater environmental friendliness due to the use of less toxic fuels. The MAX project in 1994 at the exhibition in Belgium received the highest award from the hands of the Belgian president. MAX then, as indeed, now, was undoubtedly a furore.

To this day, the main thing, despite the oblivion of the nineties and zero, is that the project is fully capable of resuscitating the modern Russian Federation. The potential of the idea has not lost its power even now - we also can well again become the first in space and significantly increase our military power by an order of magnitude, if not several orders of magnitude. In the states, this was realized and ordered to the notorious Ilona Mask with his SpaceX an exact conceptual copy of our MAX. The first unsuccessful launch of the light version, Space Ship Two did not become an obstacle to this - Musk announced the construction of the largest aircraft of our time - and this will already be a copy of our planned biplane with eighteen engines. Our “Mriya” cried, now she will be the second. And the United States will finally secure the status of a global now cosmic hegemon. And they will no longer need our “Protons” with the “Unions”, as well as our Soviet engines of forty years ago, with which we praise so much. And there is not far to the space bombardment. I'm not an alarmist, I just soberly assess the situation.
Author:
Originator:
https://vk.com/pbdsu
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rosarioagro
    rosarioagro 3 July 2015 06: 32 New
    +8
    "... Elon Musk with his SpaceX is an exact conceptual copy of our MAKS. The first unsuccessful launch of the light version, Space Ship Two did not become an obstacle on the way to this - Musk announced the construction of the largest aircraft of our time."

    And what does Musk have to do with Space Ship Two, is it actually Virgin Galactic and Burt Rutan?
    1. ogarin
      3 July 2015 10: 08 New
      +4
      Exactly, confused. I apologize. In any case, do not discard the fact that the Americans with the most serious intentions are going to make an analogue of MAKS. It doesn’t even matter who the Virgin and Space X will implement this business as the customer and now the government is speaking to them.
      1. opus
        opus 3 July 2015 12: 38 New
        +5
        Quote: ogarin
        Confused, exactly. I apologize.

        For MAX it’s better to use this animation,


        than that pepelats that on the screen saver /


        And Mriya -225 / 325 (or rather An-225-100) this is a project of ACS "Bizan", worked out in NPO Energia in 1984-1986.
        "System 49", theme "Mizzen" - aerospace system 9A-10485
        The project was practically the first version of the well-known MAKS. In this version, it was supposed to install 3 promising hydrogen liquid-propellant rocket engines with a sliding nozzle in accordance with 90тс (in my opinion, developed by ND Kuznetsov Design Bureau) on an orbital ship. According to the project, these rocket engines had very high characteristics: UI = 473с, specific gravity of all 12kg per ton of thrust! The project was accompanied by the conclusion of one of the leading research institutes on the possibility of achieving such characteristics. The spindle-shaped outboard fuel tank (empty weight about 9t) had combined bottoms and was to be made of the new aluminum-aluminum alloy 01460. The analysis carried out in the Design Bureau (TsSKB, NPOE) revealed a number of errors in the project: the volume of the tank did not allow to place the declared mass of fuel, and the mass of the tank was underestimated by about a ton.
        A-225 appeared, maybe An-124KT (and 3M-T) could not "carry" the largest element of MKTS 11F36 "Energia-Buran" - stage 2 of the 11K25 "Energia" launch vehicle (block "C") (assembled had a dry weight of 65 ... 67 t with a length of almost 59 m). When placed "on the back" of the carrier aircraft, the length and mass of the C block could increase by 4 ... 6 m and 2-3 t, respectively, due to the installation of a fairing covering the rocket engine compartment and equipment that maintains the necessary conditions of the intra-block during transportation ( pressure and temperature in the tanks, in the inter-tank space)

        The total mass of the cargo (Buran on the external sling and a folding loading and unloading device inside the cargo compartment) reaches 220 t. Block “C” of the second stage of the Energia launch vehicle (on the “back” of An-225) with a cowl and a ground loading complex unloading equipment (inside the cargo
        cab) had a mass of 210 tons.
      2. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 3 July 2015 13: 11 New
        0
        Quote: ogarin
        Virgin

        They are engaged in space tourism, and so far they have not been very successful, relatively recently there was an accident, the pilot died, their ship fell apart. While they would have to recapture the money on tourism, they invested heavily.
  2. Nitarius
    Nitarius 3 July 2015 08: 23 New
    +4
    )) A rocket pack was invented in the distant 30s!
    A jetpack for flights in the 50-60s did!
    Flying cars are like prototypes ...

    Here is what I was able to read and rewrite. "In the fall of this year (I think 2002) I was traveling by train to Moscow and behind my back I heard a conversation between two young people. Grebennikov's surname sounded more than once in their conversation. This attracted my attention, and after half a minute, I brazenly intervened in their stormy conversation The feeling I had was as if I had crawled out of the darkness.

    People have been flying for a long time, but I walk on foot. Two guys were discussing how to improve their unit. They go to test the unit in Ruza there, according to the guys, the terrain is the most suitable minimum of field deviations (?). I told them about my observations. For them it was not at all surprising.

    One guy’s name is Aleksey, his friend Andrei is 25 years old. As a child, Aleksey was sent to the village of his grandfather to the Don every summer. There, at the age of five, he first saw such an aggregate. Guys on such units flew fishing. They were made by one local Kulibin from what he could find on the collective farm.

    Kulibin was a veteran of the Second World War and remembers this design from the war. Grandfather Alexei, then still told a little, that he was given the task of destroying the German warehouse in late 1944. The company completed the mission, but grandfather was still able to sketch the design of the enemy unit. The unit flew at a low altitude above the water, this is of course a big drawback.

    And so two friends decided to recreate the enemy's construction. Andrei fell into the hands of a book by Grebennikov, but Alex nevertheless decided to do everything according to the sketches of his grandfather.

    After much persuasion, the guys gave me to look out of the corner of my eye on the structure, which freely fit between the two seats in the train. In a case, it is very similar to a drum kit only flat.

    When I looked at the unit, it seemed very familiar to me.

    A platform with a foot mount, on one cape a toggle switch on the other, a makeshift pedal from which a cable goes inside the platform.

    On the bottom side is a rim with ignition coils and magneto. Inside the rim there are two discs, one external movable, the other internal not movable.

    Four magnets and eight coils are fixed on the movable disk, four horizontally, four vertically.

    The internal disk, if at all, can be called a disk of two types of mesh. Grids are also placed in two planes. One mesh is very thin of stainless steel, the other is copper with fairly large cells about a millimeter.

    To the outer part of the disk, the grids are fixed rigidly through an insulator, and inside the disk are fixed to a movable insulator. The insulator stands on a spring and can be moved 20-25 degrees along the axis using a cable attached to the pedal. Candle wires go from ignition coils to the insulator and each is connected to its grid.

    A tumbler breaks a magneto chain. A movable disk, this is essentially a bicycle wheel whose axis is fixed in the center of the platform.

    They run this thing like that. Holding the unit vertically with one hand, spin the wheel with the other. Turn it over into a horizontal plane, turn on the toggle switch for how many seconds, turn it off and start pressing the pedal. The start is made above the water. "And this is all with regards to this.

    Not a drawing, not a sketch.



    Bottom line: Where is it all? .... Development is fully controlled! No illusions to the people!
    No one will not let you bring to the market what is not needed! But they will tear off your head or you will be bought with giblets, an easy way is simply to go bankrupt!
    that you are like children!
    NO REAL DEVELOPMENT! more precisely, it is BUT people don’t talk about it !!
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 3 July 2015 18: 48 New
      0
      Such bikes periodically appear in the yellow press. smile But you should not take them seriously ...
  3. Engineer
    Engineer 3 July 2015 09: 00 New
    +1
    The picture of the plane in the article from the flight simulator for the PS3. And here are the outline designs:
    1. ogarin
      3 July 2015 10: 10 New
      +2
      The image for the article is taken from buran.ru. This is a slightly modified (in the image of the 24 engine biplane and not the 18) 3d model of the aircraft designed.
  4. Stalnov I.P.
    Stalnov I.P. 3 July 2015 09: 24 New
    +2
    Yes, our power can not be adjusted and ekranoplanes (EKIP), and even such complex systems, how can you keep them in your mind, they can’t even raise GDP growth, but Stalin is in every possible way, and he gave up to 20% of GDP at the time of industrialization per year, snotty boys, neumeiks.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 July 2015 09: 47 New
      +1
      EKIP is a hack, guys gave out wishful thinking. And we are engaged in ekranoplans.
  5. vladimir_krm
    vladimir_krm 3 July 2015 09: 57 New
    +5
    I might be worried if the author did not confuse Mask with Rutan. Well, I would have taken care of the links, otherwise there are none. Why should I believe? And he did not design the article in the spirit of "everything is gone, the plaster is removed, the client is leaving." And about the engines jarred: they are not at all forty years old, and those NK-33s, although old, but the Americans for some reason are they buying? The secret is simple: they still have not been able to do this. Here is an American film where they themselves confirm this:

    And I can advise the author to become as brilliant as Bert Rutan. What problems? It's easy to criticize ...
    1. opus
      opus 3 July 2015 12: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: vladimir_krm
      and even those NK-33, although old, but do the Americans buy them for some reason?

      37 pieces purchased, remade (fittings, fuel and cardan) in AJ-26





      for Antares. While the successful (partially) launches of 3 were


      You are confused with RD-180
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 3 July 2015 13: 14 New
        +1
        How difficult it is to build a rocket, how many small parts are in the engine alone, all these pipes, tubes, how many people are involved in the production process. Oh, and earlier, at the dawn of aeronautics, two people could build an airplane in the garage (Wright brothers).
        Now, if I’m not mistaken, there’s even some kind of grand in the USA, several million dollars, to the one who will be the first to build a manned spacecraft in the garage.
        1. opus
          opus 3 July 2015 20: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          Oh, and earlier, at the dawn of aeronautics, two people could build an airplane in the garage (Wright brothers).


          Well then, the Wright brothers' airplane. You’ll build today's fig
          So missiles in the army of the Russian Empire have been used as much since the 19th century.
          There they were made on the knee, in konbshnoy actually.
          Good against cavalry Basurman (Bayazet)

          On the initiative of Zasyadko in the Russian-Turkish war 1828-29. the production of combat missiles was established directly in the combat area. As a result of this, the 24 Company of the Second Army received about 10 thousands of caliber missiles from 6 to 36 pounds. (The linear caliber 106 mm was the latest to meet.) For their launch, the units had launchers that ensure simultaneous launch of missiles up to 36. These were the "ancestors" of the famous Guards mortars - "Katyush."


          Vladimir Sokolov. Chapter "Missile Weapons of the 19th Century" from the book "Fire-worshipers"

          In March 1829, ships of the Danube Flotilla were armed with rockets of the Zasyadko design. This marked the beginning of the introduction of missile weapons in the navy, which was facilitated by the "Note on the introduction of the use of military missiles in the navy." The author of the note was another prominent Russian missile of the time, Colonel (and soon general) Konstantin Ivanovich Konstantinov (1818-1871)

          The main missile of the Russian Empire


          in the 40s of the XIX century, missiles manufactured by the St. Petersburg Rocket Facility in large quantities firmly became part of the existing military equipment of the Russian armed forces.

          Quote: Lt. air force reserve
          Now, if I’m not mistaken, there’s even some kind of grand in the USA, several million dollars

          Speech (grand) about the lunar AS.
          Google project
          In my opinion in 2018 fly
      2. vladimir_krm
        vladimir_krm 4 July 2015 07: 21 New
        0
        I do not confuse. RD-180, 181 - a separate song.
  6. Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 3 July 2015 11: 04 New
    +1
    laughing this is annealing))) no. this thing will fly of course))) if from CNT everything in it will be bungled completely))
  7. Deedndrey
    Deedndrey 3 July 2015 11: 31 New
    0
    Is there a president in Belgium? I always thought that there was a monarchy, and the country was ruled by a government with a prime minister.
    1. opus
      opus 3 July 2015 12: 51 New
      0
      Quote: DedAndrey
      Is there a president in Belgium?

      Head of Government - Prime Minister

      Quote: DedAndrey
      Always thought there was a monarchy

      Parliamentary Monarchy in a Federal State
      1. Deedndrey
        Deedndrey 4 July 2015 15: 04 New
        0
        So I think so. And the author believes that there is a president.
        "The MAKS project in 1994 at an exhibition in Belgium received the highest award from the hands of the Belgian president."
      2. The comment was deleted.
  8. pensioner
    pensioner 3 July 2015 12: 17 New
    0
    planned a huge biplane with eighteen engines
    I remember B. Chertok once told on TV that when our scientists and designer-rocket designers got acquainted with the materials of German rocket launchers that they got after the war, they were already breathtaking from the breadth and courage of the thoughts of German rocket launchers. In particular, he talked about a rocket plane, which was supposed to fly to New York. And now I read and imagined this aircraft, too, was breathtaking! Where would they be now if the USSR had not collapsed! Oh ...
    1. opus
      opus 4 July 2015 00: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: retired
      In particular, he talked about a rocket plane, which was supposed to fly to New York.

      A-9 / A-10 intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 11000 (according to other sources - 5000) km, subsequently named V-3.




      Second stage "AMERIKA-RAKETE"


      or 3x speed A-12


      =======================
      But this is a myth, a fairy tale. Damn this did not write

      Thrust rocket engine !!! The USSR and the USA took 12 years of PEACEFUL time to solve this technical problem
      / these are just drawings, and what inadequate 64 tons of fuel would be spent to deliver 1 tons of explosives? /

      Chertok B.E.
      H-50 Rockets and people. 2 ed. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1999
      but admired the German rocket men.
      Our EXPERIMENTED with traction in 10 kgs.
      and the Germans SERIES produced v-2 (4 300 launched) with traction under 300
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 4 July 2015 07: 56 New
        0
        Quote: opus
        Damn this did not write

        Read carefully. Damn this said in one TV show.
        1. opus
          opus 4 July 2015 13: 05 New
          0
          Quote: retired
          Damn this said in one TV show.

          I did not watch the transmission.
          I doubtthat Chertok SUCH (
          Quote: retired
          about a rocket plane that was supposed to fly to New York
          ) spoke


          "A survey of Peenemuende in May-June of the 1945 year showed that the actual scope of work on rocket technology in Germany far exceeded the ideas that we had. For us, Soviet specialists, it was necessary to understand the entire scope of work in Germany in the field of rocket technology. But it was equally important to get information about the development history and methods used by German scientists and engineers in solving such difficult tasks as the creation of ballistic guided long-range missiles.
          Before 1945, neither we, nor Americans, nor the British were able to create liquid-propellant rocket engines with a thrust of more than 1,5 tons. Yes, and those that were created had little reliability, they did not go into the series and there was no new type of weapon with their use created.

          And by this time, the Germans had successfully developed and mastered a rocket engine with a thrust of up to 27 tons, eighteen-odd times more! And besides, these engines were produced on an industrial scale.
          "
  9. Watchdog
    Watchdog 3 July 2015 12: 51 New
    +2
    if our money bags are stupid, and do not allow progressive nt-thoughts to develop, to be embodied in products, then their beloved children and grandchildren in 50 will end up in x ... ne! let the mattresses not hope if they let their children and grandchildren go to their elite for a short while. then they just throw it out like garbage. these are closed communities. therefore, the future of them and their families is only on the territory which they so diligently litter and squander. Well, they wiped it in 90, lived for pleasure? Now it's time to get involved gentlemen!
  10. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 3 July 2015 13: 06 New
    0
    To reduce the cost of putting the cargo into space, you need to create a single-stage spacecraft with an external fuel tank that would land by parachute when disconnected. It will be a truly reusable spaceship that will bring humanity closer to the moment when it will be no harder to fly into space than on an airplane.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 3 July 2015 16: 53 New
      0
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      in order to reduce the cost of spacecraft launch, you need to create a single-stage spacecraft

      there will be only very little cargo
  11. srha
    srha 3 July 2015 14: 59 New
    +2
    "The cost of delivering cargo to a low reference orbit was reduced tenfold" - how's that? Uh ... how do you figure out why the economic effect only extends to a low reference orbit? Or is it classified information? And then what if dozens of Western firms that counted the launch from an airplane, and abandoned it, will understand their mistake "dozens of times"? Suddenly the Israeli air launch program from 2006 will be revived - http://www.sem40.ru/index.php?newsid=145409

    Yes, here are the data from WIKI at the cost that I could find:
    - the US air launch of Pegasus in 1994 was estimated at 11 million US dollars, the withdrawal of 0,443 tonnes from the IEO (at current prices, taking into account official inflation for the period - 62%) - 17,8. Underestimated, and okay.
    - Start "Proton" Russia Wait - 50 million US dollars, output 23 t at LEO.

    In total, the unit cost (per ton) of cargo delivery to the LEO of the Proton rocket is cheaper than the Pegasus air launch at 17,8 /, 433/50/23 = 19.

    I repeat, it turned out that 19 times cheaper rocket!

    Interestingly, in the article a typo or in the head?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 July 2015 16: 55 New
      0
      And some in all seriousness want to launch and it seems that they will succeed. The Russian enterprise "Kuznetsov" and the Swiss Swiss Space Systems Holding SA signed a contract under which the possibility of supplying the SOAR shuttle with the NK-39 and NK-39K engines will be studied

      SAMARA, June 30. / Corr. TASS Alexey Sokolov /. The European space shuttle SOAR can be powered by the NK-39 engines developed for the Soviet manned lunar mission program. This was reported by the press service of the Samara enterprise "Kuznetsov".


      "OJSC" Kuznetsov "signed a contract with the Swiss company Swiss Space Systems Holding SA, within the framework of which the Samara enterprise will study the possibilities of providing the program of the suborbital reusable shuttle SOAR with engines NK-39 and NK-39K," the press service noted.


      The document was signed by the executive director of the Kuznetsov enterprise Nikolai Yakushin and the general director of Swiss Space Systems Holding SA Pascal Josse.


      "We expect that the signed contract will become the beginning of a long mutually beneficial cooperation with our Swiss partners, and the space shuttle under development, equipped with Samara engines, will be a major breakthrough in astronautics. The attention of European partners to Russian technologies once again confirms the uniqueness of domestic developments in engine building," press service of the word Yakushin.


      According to the plans of the Swiss company, the first launch of an unmanned SOAR mini-shuttle is due in 2017.


      The company is developing a small satellite launch system based on the use of the Airbus carrier aircraft and the SOAR suborbital reusable rocket plane. Its launch will be carried out according to the "air launch" system
  12. VostSib
    VostSib 3 July 2015 17: 48 New
    +1
    ... this design was proposed by our designers before the development of the Buran, but the country's leadership decided to follow the path of the Americans ...
    ... at the moment, unfortunately, Russia cannot pull such a project alone, we do not have Miriya, a plant in Ukraine, experience and a production base for a heavy transport operator is also lacking, economically the USSR "overstrained" on such projects, and even more so Russia ...
    ... sad ...
  13. fa2998
    fa2998 3 July 2015 18: 35 New
    0
    Quote: ogarin
    The image for the article is taken from buran.ru. This is a slightly modified (in the image of the 24 engine biplane and not the 18) 3d model of the aircraft designed.

    I was surprised, first I counted the engines, and then I read about 18. Actually, I myself can draw beautiful pictures. We have been considering projects for thirty years, pictures, and nothing was sent into space from an airplane. I remember the Americans launched Pegasus. with the B-52 back in the 80s. No. hi
  14. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 3 July 2015 19: 48 New
    0
    in the early eighties in the Soviet Union came to the need for space-free space launches.
    Who came up? Lozino-Lozinsky suggested this much earlier. But the country's leadership was against it.

    The launch-free launch system was also promising for civilian launches - in this case, the cost of delivering goods to a low reference orbit was reduced tenfold compared to bulky and super-expensive multi-stage missiles.
    How is this known?

    The system was called MAKS - a multipurpose aerospace system. It was supposed to be two stages of delivery, and both stages had to be fully refundable.
    And how does this fit with the following quote:
    From there, the rocket plane, with the fuel tank attached to it, started along an inclined path. This is called an air launch. Next, the fuel tank is disconnected, and the rocket plane along the trajectory enters a low reference orbit, delivering the necessary cargo to it.
    But what about the fuel tank - is it disposable, as you can see?
    in three versions: 1) MAX-OS with an orbital plane and a disposable tank; 2) MAKS-M with an unmanned aircraft; 3) MAKS-T with a disposable unmanned second stage and a load of up to 18 tons.
    That is, options 1 and 3 are clearly not fully returned.
    In the future, for the development of the MAKS, a huge biplane with eighteen engines was planned at all, which was supposed to launch the Tupolev aerospace plane into orbit (this option is just shown on the cover of the article).
    And why not 18 and 24 engines, and why not a biplane. And I would like to see the biplane. On Antonov they know how to make biplanes - An-2 are called. Only they have one engine, and in space they are not that - they do not reach a little.
    The project, unlike the Buran, was based in advance on the principles of self-sufficiency. According to calculations, the costs should have paid off in a year and a half, and the project itself could give a ninefold profit in the future.
    Yeah, well, fantasy!
    Today, the main thing, despite the oblivion of the nineties and zero, is that the project is fully capable of reanimating the modern Russian Federation.
    Although Antonov ended up abroad, and unfriendly? Do Ukrainians really agree to make an airplane for "quilted jackets", "Colorados" and these "non-brothers": "You have a tsar, we have democracy, we will never be brothers." I wish I could see it. What faces they will do it with. The propaganda there has probably already done its job. And if they suddenly make peace with Russia, it is unlikely that Antonov has the potential for something more than a corn plant.
    The states realized this and ordered the notorious Ilon Mask with his SpaceX an exact conceptual copy of our MAKS.
    Here is nonsense. Mixed everything in one pile. I heard a ring, but don’t know where he is.
    I am not an alarmist, I just soberly assess the situation.
    Yes, he is unlikely to soberly evaluate it. And now the word that he knows is an alarmist. But it’s good that he is not him. And what would it be - he would have sounded the alarm in us. Terrified!
    In general, an article is an empty set of words, sounds and letters, even though they are on the correct topical topic.
  15. Bayonet
    Bayonet 3 July 2015 20: 18 New
    0
    In California's Mojave, Stratolaunch Systems, founded by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, began construction of the largest aircraft in the history of aviation - Roc. It will become a flying launching pad for launching rockets and spaceships, delivering goods, satellites and people to Earth orbit. Their total weight, together with the aircraft itself, can reach astronomical 540 tons.
    The wingspan of the aircraft is 117 meters; it is powered by six 747-class jet engines. The liner will rise to a height of about 10 kilometers, carrying a launch vehicle with one or two steps between the double fuselage. Having reached a predetermined height and accelerated to a speed of 850 km / h, Roc will launch a rocket that will turn on its own engine and set off for free flight. After that, the aircraft will land on a strip of a special airfield. Launched at a height and accelerated to a certain speed, a rocket will save a lot of fuel. Thanks to this, the Stratolaunch compact launch vehicle will deliver more than 180 tons of cargo into orbit from 2 to 6 thousand kilometers. Sierra Nevada, a large American corporation in the field of aviation and space technology, is currently negotiating with Stratolaunch Systems, which intends to launch its Dream Chaser spacecraft into orbit through the Stratolaunch system. The first test flight Roc will produce next year. And the first test launch of the rocket into space will take place in 2018.
  16. Bayonet
    Bayonet 3 July 2015 20: 23 New
    0
    Currently, the construction of the Roc aircraft is in full swing. In addition to the Stratolaunch Systems specialists, the Scaled Composites company, whose president Kevin Mickey, also involved in the construction of the Roc aircraft, said that his company had already manufactured more than 90 tons of various devices, structures and components of the future aircraft. In addition, the well-known company Sierra Nevada Corporation collaborates with Stratolaunch Systems, which sees in the Stratolaunch launch system the possibility of launching their own Dream Chaser spacecraft equipped with an additional booster stage.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 July 2015 20: 54 New
      0
      Interestingly, they make this plane from titanium.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 4 July 2015 18: 13 New
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        Interestingly, they make this plane from titanium.

        No. Why titanium?
  17. Alex
    Alex 3 July 2015 22: 31 New
    +3
    Gentlemen, I don't know much about these matters, so don't hit hard, but I have a question. I saw what plumes of fire fly out of the same Shuttle at launch. He will not burn this carrier of his at once? Or is there some kind of system?

    If you explain for a long time, give a link or two to the materials, where you could read about it intelligently.
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 4 July 2015 00: 14 New
      +2
      Probably everyone is planning that the orbital stage is first separated, moves away from the carrier, and then turns on the engines at full power.
      1. Alex
        Alex 4 July 2015 09: 51 New
        +3
        That is, something like launching cruise missiles? But then you need to take the start-up module quite far, and, given its mass and location on top, I can imagine the size and power of the devices for this.

        In general, everything is complicated.
  18. rubin6286
    rubin6286 6 July 2015 10: 14 New
    0
    The article is interesting, as are the comments on it. Wings for stars are more exotic than objective reality. An air launch is more expensive than launching a rocket from a spaceport. Why? Because the cosmodrome, today, is already an established infrastructure that has a whole range of structures, systems and equipment designed for the preparation and launch of the spacecraft, reception and analysis of information received from it, trained and prepared engineering staff, and developed technical documentation established by the algorithm of actions of all divisions, departments and services.

    In general, the launch of a space rocket, roughly speaking, includes the following operations:

    • Production of a rocket and a spacecraft at the enterprise and their transportation for subsequent storage in the arsenal, as the enterprise produces equipment samples in specified volumes, and not piece by piece.
    • Delivery of a rocket and a spacecraft, if necessary, from the arsenal to the cosmodrome, their unloading, assembly, and a set of tests in the assembly and test building (MIKE) before transportation and installation in the launch system;
    • “Export” - ie transportation and installation of the product with the spacecraft into the launch system, checking the serviceability and availability of all units and systems before refueling with rocket fuel components (CRT).
    • Delivery to the launch site of the SRT and refueling of the expendable storage, from where they will later be pumped during refueling;
    • Refueling the KRT rocket and launching the spacecraft at the scheduled time according to the flight mission.
  19. rubin6286
    rubin6286 6 July 2015 10: 15 New
    0
    What about the air launch? Let's move from ideas, pictures and drawings to reality. Of course, the Buran will land on the 1st class airfield, similar to the way the MiG-25 and MiG-31 interceptors land on it, and the platform (Ruslan or Mriya)? Just one elongation of the strip. A whole range of issues remains to be resolved.

    For example:

    • The carrier brought an “empty” Buran. How to remove it from the media now? Need a crane. What should it be and how should it drive up to carry out this work. Think about the wingspan of the platform.
    • Let's say that the Buran was still removed. Now it needs to be delivered to the MIC to install the necessary spacecraft in the Buran. Nonsense, hitched a tractor and drove. I assure you, it’s not a trifle, and it is not so simple to do this. Well, let you do that too.
    • Now you need to take out the equipped "Buran" from the MIK, load it onto the platform (carrier aircraft) and ensure its refueling with SRT (for example, kerosene and liquid oxygen). Believe me, this is not the same as refueling an airplane. This is a very dangerous operation and mobile tankers alone cannot do it.
    • Refueling is in progress and the Buran is getting heavier. Is there a guarantee that the aircraft can withstand it in the refueled state? For comparison: the "empty" Soyuz rocket weighs about 9-12 tons, and the SRT in it is 650 tons. Suppose that Buran is the same before refueling, and that the one charged weighs about 45-50 tons (like the MiG-31).
    • Good, refueled and pulled into taxiing. Think about it, because liquid oxygen evaporates and you need constant pressurization of the tanks. Decide what to boost and, most importantly, how?
    • Whether any crew is capable of performing the task - from take-off to arrival at the calculated point and launching the Buran. It is clear that this is a matter of high-class specialists and they also need to be trained.

    I have described only some of the technical problems of air launch. In reality, there are much more. Add more organizational ones. technological, financial problems. Is it worth it to deal with an air launch, consider reading my comment. Ideas, projects, are one thing, and project implementation is another.
  20. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 7 July 2015 00: 51 New
    0
    rubin6286,
    it’s all complicated, but in principle it doesn’t seem to me, personally to me, more difficult than assembling and launching a rocket, and all this also needs specialists. In addition, if the Buran is suspended as actually painted, and not placed on top of the carrier, as both the Buran and the Shuttle were transported, then there is no need for a crane. So they drove them, so there were cranes. What, in our country is now a problem with cranes? If it suddenly became so difficult, then hang up as intended, and winches in the rocker of an airplane or carts with jacks under the Buran / Shuttle will be enough. Personally, it seems to me that the main problem with an air launch is the difficulty of making a completely reusable system. Therefore, they probably do not. And maybe they are afraid of the excessive cost of an extra-heavy self-propelled carrier, and airfields for him, which is also true. In addition, energy benefits from an air launch are small. To shorten the plane is the rounding error of the satellite speed. If it was possible to make a fully reusable vertical rocket with horizontally landing head ship, and landing steps as desired, with the minimum cost of their assembly and maintenance, then the need for an air launch almost disappears. But so far we do not have such a missile and, judging by the press, it is not expected.
    1. rubin6286
      rubin6286 13 July 2015 13: 00 New
      0
      Dear Falcon 5555!

      You are the only one who read my comments. Thank.

      I talked only about some aspects of this problem.

      The Soyuz rocket is transported to the cosmodrome not by air, but by rail in special wagons that look like refrigerators (5-6 pcs.), And spacecraft in special containers on open platforms.

      "Buran" was transported by air, because its assembly at the spaceport was not provided, then its overload to the railway followed. platform and transportation to the assembly and test building (MIC), because the aerodrome and the launch complex at the spaceport are not located next to each other, but at a fairly large distance.

      “Suspension” of “Burana” and “Shuttle” is selected top for a number of reasons, among which there are such as:

      • a simpler scheme of “removal” from the carrier, transportation to the MIC and from the MIC along with the spacecraft to the launch system for subsequent launch.

      Speaking of the crane, it is not enough to say that it must be hoisting. At the launch complex, a railway crane is used, and in the MIK a bridge crane and a beam crane, not to mention various traverses and other devices. In order to train drive to the crane to remove the “Buran”, the railway should be laid at the airport the path and the aircraft must, for this purpose, “land” on the runway or, after landing, be correctly towed. After that, you need to do as much as possible, drain the fuel, undock the planes (both or one) and then remove the “Buran” with a crane, rearrange it onto the railway platform and tow it to the MIC. In words, there is nothing complicated, but in reality? That's it.

      When dealing with the “suspension”, you need to understand that the first atomic bomb weighed 4,5 tons, and now our heaviest air-to-air missile - the “earth” - weighs about 6 tons when equipped. It’s one thing to load in a bomb bay, where there are special holders of several types, it’s another to install 9-12 tons of Buran outside. In a word, this is also a “headache”, as well as the process of releasing it from the holders after landing. Everything is beautiful in the picture, in reality everything is painful and difficult. With the lower "suspension", the "Buran" must then be towed, hoisted by a crane, installed on the train. platform and tow to the MIC. All this is quite complicated and responsible.
  21. rubin6286
    rubin6286 13 July 2015 13: 01 New
    0
    I suggest that you independently comprehend the following:

    • take-off of the platform with a filled “Buran” on the lower and upper “suspension”. There are difficulties there and the platform itself may not survive;
    • after installation in the launch system, specialists constantly monitor the status of the ISS, enter the flight task and start at the appointed time. Who will do this on the plane? It’s impossible to “charge” the crew. They only "carry". If something goes wrong, you can cancel the launch on the ground, drain the fuel, etc. This has been done many times. In this situation with an air launch, will everything be simpler or more complicated?

    Reusable space systems for various purposes cannot be completely such. It is impractical to keep them whole. Usually a reusable ship only, and even that is designed for 5-6 flights and undergoes a series of restoration work after each of them. Liquid rocket engines (LRE), used on space rockets, theoretically can withstand two cycles of "start-off", but knowing their design, no one dares to do it again. The same applies to fuel tanks.

    The need to build reusable space systems (ISS) is determined by the combination of space exploration tasks facing the country and reflected in its space program. From an economic point of view, there is such a criterion as the ratio of the totality of costs for putting payloads into orbit using the ISS with the costs of launching the same load using conventional space rockets. Today they are higher for the ISS, and a significant increase in the payload has not yet been observed.
    The ISS launch system used in the USA and the USSR using a vertical launch of a space rocket (for example, Energy) is much cheaper, simpler, and more efficient than an air launch.

    Here is what I still wanted to tell.

    If you want to know more, go to study at Bauman MSTU, the State Mechanical University of St. Petersburg or to military universities - the Peter the Great Academy (Moscow), the Mozhaisk Military-Space Academy (St. Petersburg).
    1. Falcon5555
      Falcon5555 24 July 2015 16: 55 New
      +1
      SW rubin,
      Thanks for the reply.
      Of course, I'm not an expert, but an amateur in space, so I'm sorry if something is wrong.
      I have no doubt that the issues of loading and reloading are complex, but first they are no less difficult for vertical missiles, and secondly they are a trifle compared to other problems, such as ensuring full reusability. Here I will include your quote:
      Reusable space systems for various purposes cannot be completely such. It is impractical to keep them whole. Usually a reusable ship only, and even that is designed for 5-6 flights and undergoes a series of restoration work after each of them. Liquid rocket engines (LRE), used on space rockets, theoretically can withstand two cycles of "start-off", but knowing their design, no one dares to do it again. The same applies to fuel tanks.

      Let me disagree that it is inexpedient to preserve space systems as a whole. Economic viability is only one of the circumstances. Another is in-flight testing of a ship and a rocket. In addition, the provision of urgent flights and mass flights in case of accidents, political necessity, military and natural crises, such as the threat of asteroids. If for each flight a rocket has to be "built" for many years, then the country will not be able to react in a timely manner. Finally - the development of reusable ships - the development of science, and disposable rockets - the industry - see the difference? The reusable ship arouses interest in science among young people and everyone in general. It would have caused something like, I dare say, pride for the country, and not unreasonable, in contrast to any Olympiads, football and bridges. Including he would increase the competition for the universities you listed, and who is interested in working as a fitter-collector of the vintage Union? Only to those who were not hired for more interesting work.
      Further, as far as I recall, the American shuttles were designed for about 100 flights, and not for 5-6, for which, as you say, reusable ships are usually designed.
      As far as I know, their engines were subjected to complex maintenance after each flight, but did not hear that they were replaced. In addition, I heard that the engines of Russian missiles, all or a specific type - I do not know, are tested before a real start, including at the stand. So on the rocket they turn on at least a second time.

      Sincerely.
  22. vka
    vka 16 July 2015 01: 46 New
    0
    what kind of nonsense is cut into the headband, at least a little read those literature before turning on the fantasy
  23. Tishka
    Tishka 16 July 2015 14: 51 New
    0
    As far as I remember history, space flights were also considered nonsense, you can pierce the celestial sphere, because the earth is flat. like a pancake, and covered with a dome. However, they did not pierce and flew, it seems that the sphere is intact! Then, those. who dreamed of flying like birds. and made wings. put on barrels of gunpowder. offering to fly! However, now, flying by plane, no one is surprised! So, a lot of what was considered nonsense has been successfully implemented! No one denies that there are difficulties in the air launch, but why did no one think about the fact that the construction of the cosmodrome is tens of billions. and not one year of construction, I can recall. that the Vostochny cosmodrome by the scheduled date, it seems, will not be commissioned, and its location is not entirely successful! The best cosmodromes are located on the equator, that's why they came up with a sea launch! But the ocean does not always provide ideal conditions, then a storm, then a wind, then a cyclone. "Buran" was delivered to the cosmodrome on the hump of the aircraft, it was just that it was easier, there was no specialized carrier, therefore, they used what was at hand. Start from the hump is not effective, when leaving the carrier, there is always the possibility of damage to both the carrier and the spacecraft. The Americans understood this, for this reason, all tests were carried out hanging under the belly or plane of the plane. And they were not too lazy, they specially cut a niche in the concrete. both for the suspension of the first bombs and test models of equipment. I came across an article about an air launch from Ruslan, when a rocket in a transport container was located inside the plane, then, when approaching the launch site, the plane made a slide, and the rocket went to the launch position, the plane went to the side, the launch was made, all telemetry , was provided remotely, if a non-standard situation arose, then the carrier plane, along with the rocket, simply returned to the airfield to troubleshoot! Try at the time of the start, return the "Angara" if something went wrong! The only thing that needs to be improved is to raise the plane to a great height, 10 kilometers, problems are not solved, you need about 30-40 kilometers, and more speed. So in my opinion. the system is interesting, you just need to bring it to mind! In terms of finance, I cannot say, well, not an economist. but I know for sure that the engines of the upper stage can provide operation in 400 seconds, which fits well into the concept of 2 use, and this is already a saving! And the plane. can be used multiple times. if equipped with aircraft engines. which also. will be cost effective! Unlike a disposable rocket, where it was fired, and everything, almost 2 lard burned up in the atmosphere!