Military Review

NASA Tests SLS Super Heavy-Duty Launch Vehicle

63
NASA successfully tested the RS-25 engine, which is planning to equip the most powerful super-heavy launch vehicle SLS (Space Launch System) on the planet, reports "Lenta.ru". During testing, the power unit demonstrated operation with 109% rated power.

NASA Tests SLS Super Heavy-Duty Launch Vehicle


According to the nomenclature, the operation of RS-25 with a power higher than 106% of the calculated value corresponds to operation in emergency situations. During tests conducted in several modes, the engineers tested the engine in all ranges of thrust.

Testing was carried out by the specialists of the John Stennis Space Center. RS-25 worked 535 seconds, which was enough to test the operation of its main systems. It is worth noting that 28 May 2015, a similar unit was tested for 430 seconds, and January 9 - 500 seconds.

Engine development deals with the American company Aerojet Rocketdyne. It is planned to be installed on the first stage of the super-heavy SLS booster created by Boeing.

“SLS will have a length of more than one hundred meters and a mass of about three thousand tons. He is expected to be able to bring up to 130 tons of payload into low-Earth orbit. His first tests are scheduled for 2017 year, ”- noted in the material.

NASA plans to use this rocket to launch the reusable Orion spacecraft, which they plan to send to Mars in the 2030s.

The closest analogues to the SLS are the American Saturn V rocket and the Soviet H-1 and Energia.
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.or
63 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alexandr2637
    Alexandr2637 21 July 2015 08: 32
    -2
    Hopefully at the start of the overhaul of the pad .... lol
    1. Penetrator
      Penetrator 21 July 2015 08: 38
      +18
      What for? Let them fly. Better peaceful space than world war. And import substitution will not hurt them either - you look, and ours will not be allowed to rest on their laurels. And then relaxed - "you will start from the trampolines!" Healthy competition is one of the driving forces of scientific and technological progress smile
      1. VseDoFeNi
        VseDoFeNi 21 July 2015 08: 51
        +1
        Quote: Penetrator
        Healthy competition is one of the engines of scientific and technological progress

        The main engine of "scientific and technological progress" is the uncontrolled emission of money. All this, willingly or unwillingly, is aimed at destroying our only habitat - Nature. Nothing (maybe almost nothing) that would not harm us directly or indirectly did not create in its history.
        1. War and Peace
          War and Peace 21 July 2015 09: 27
          +2
          Quote: VseDoFeNi
          All this, voluntarily or involuntarily, is aimed at the destruction of our only habitat - Nature


          uncle hydrogen engines with the combustion product have only water vapor, water, therefore they do not cause any harm to nature, but if they attach TTU, and this is smoke from the combustion of gunpowder, then of course there will be a lot of dirt ...
          1. VseDoFeNi
            VseDoFeNi 21 July 2015 16: 16
            0
            To get hydrogen, a huge number of ecosystems are crushed. This is metallurgy, and transport, etc., etc.
            1. crazyrom
              crazyrom 22 July 2015 01: 31
              0
              somehow everything is strange. They depend on our engines and cannot do anything themselves. That successfully test the engine on 100500 tons.
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 22 July 2015 09: 31
                0
                They have a bunch of launch vehicles that are independent of our engines. Delta, Minotaurs, Falcons
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 22 July 2015 15: 29
                  0
                  It certainly is, but why did Obamov jerk so much about developing a replacement for the RD-180?
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 23 July 2015 12: 02
                    0
                    Because because of the sanctions war, one private company suffered, which launched its missiles on our engines, as it was forbidden to buy the RD-180. And thus, in order to compensate for the damage, they began to be hampered by the development of the most accurate copy of the RD-180, since the pH of this company was made for the RD-180 and American engines could not be put on it.
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 24 July 2015 00: 53
                      0
                      What has she suffered? The sanctions war was not launched by Russia, and this ban applies only military launches, not NASA. Russia under "similar sanctions" in general since the times of the USSR, as he was under them all the time! That is, such sanctions restrictions against us by the United States and its allies have ALWAYS been in effect.
                      And is the US going to pay Russia for patents in this "maximally accurate copy"? Instead of making an analogue of the engine, it is easier to make another launch vehicle, if of course there are such engines. lol
                      1. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 24 July 2015 10: 14
                        0
                        The company bought Russian engines, the Senate banned it, and thereby the government must compensate for its losses. And as for the exact copy, all the documentation and permission for licensed production they received before using the engine. The only thing they need to redesign the engine to their production standards, and begin its production.
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 July 2015 15: 16
                        0
                        The Senate then thought and made an exception (allowed). I have not heard about the license, but they can come up with this retroactively. On the same Yak-41, go AV-8B they somehow did not need it (although Pegasus was purchased or licensed, but it was ours).
                        They continue to display military satellites since they still have pre-sanctioned engines. For some reason, it is impossible to freeze them as Russian assets (more precisely, American ones).
                      3. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 24 July 2015 19: 55
                        0
                        The license is and there is documentation. And the Senate allowed to buy already paid. And then spin yourself.
                        So why freeze already paid and purchased, it will not do the slightest damage to Russia. Therefore, they do not make sense.
                      4. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 July 2015 21: 35
                        0
                        License is not documentation.
                        And how can (before) buy something without paying in advance? The Senate was told that guaranteed US access to space (neither more nor less) is more important than its sanctions.
                        They buy and 2 more orders are placed.
                      5. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 24 July 2015 21: 38
                        0
                        So Minotrade, Falcons, and Deltas easily provide guaranteed access to space for the United States. They all have American engines. It's just that one company has Russian engines, and they need to be replaced with an analog. And until an analogue is developed, this company is required to fulfill the contracts, engines have already been purchased and paid for under these contracts, and their delivery has been allowed as an exception. And so their purchase is prohibited. That is, they should plan new launches on new American counterparts or on other launch vehicles.
                      6. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 July 2015 22: 11
                        0
                        It is guaranteed that something flies only on the "Seven" (passenger) or on the RD-180 (by the way, it is also "passenger" and can be used up to 10 times).
                        The United States now has nothing human-rated except the low-power and expensive RS-25 left from the shuttle.
                        Purchase of taxiways is allowed (as well as sale), they are not delivered at 100% prepayment (well, at least until the sanctions it was - otherwise they would suddenly arrest lol).
                        Unmanned not to the ISS, the probe to Pluto and the rover to Mars are guaranteed to fly off all on the same RD-180. When "Cassini-Huygens" was not allowed to them, then all ESA "shook". for the same reason, Arian was not used - all of them then were and are much less reliable than even Proton.
                      7. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 25 July 2015 09: 01
                        0
                        Flies and Delta-4, and the Minotaur, and Falcons.
                        And launched for a simple reason, our bureaucrats happily sell engines below cost. Why not buy a couple of engines.
                        MOSCOW, May 11 - RIA Novosti. OJSC NPO Energomash sold Russian RD-180 rocket engines for American Atlas-5 launch vehicles for half the cost of their production costs, according to the Russian Audit Chamber.


                        RIA Novosti http://ria.ru/economy/20110511/373020049.html#ixzz3gsdp60IW
                      8. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 25 July 2015 13: 05
                        0
                        For the reason that they do not have similar ones in terms of reliability, shaking, and traction.
                        Nothing "inhabited", and little that is especially valuable, the Americans, these have launched.
                      9. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 26 July 2015 10: 20
                        0
                        Many valuable things have been launched. Delta 4 has 5 launches over the past 18 years.
                        It's just that when the enemy, thanks to the venality of officials, sells engines at a loss, and at the same time they are just ridiculous in price, why not use it?
                      10. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 26 July 2015 22: 11
                        0
                        It is possible to compare what was launched and how?
                        The price for the development and manufacture of launch vehicles for these engines is still not ridiculous, so this is a "trifle", albeit a "pleasant" one. The point is different. It's just that some loads cannot withstand the shaking of the Delta (the wheels of the same rover would fall off), or if it explodes, the window for a good gravitational maneuver of the interplanetary probe will wait a long time.
                        In terms of price, hydrogen cryogenics is also much funnier than oxygen.
                      11. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 27 July 2015 09: 11
                        0
                        So in the Deltas calmly launch military communications and navigation satellites, launched the prototype of Orion. Ie there are no problems.
                        And the price is another question. The choice between environmental friendliness and price in the West is biased toward environmental friendliness. NASA then receives money from the attitude of voters towards it. The more important the cosmos issue for voters, the more NASA will get money
                      12. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 27 July 2015 09: 37
                        0
                        So it’s not with them, and the prototype of Orion was generally a ballistic blank. An astronaut with such a launch in the Delta will not even live for 10 seconds. Even on the eco-friendly Saturn-5, they barely saw the dashboard from vibration.
                        It is shifted to a completely different one, otherwise the launch of the shuttle on a toxic thiokol would not be so often debugged due to the weather.
        2. Grandfather bear
          Grandfather bear 21 July 2015 09: 57
          0
          Interestingly, we sold our engines to them and then they "invent" their own engine. It is interesting girls to dance!
          1. VseDoFeNi
            VseDoFeNi 21 July 2015 16: 19
            0
            Quote: Grandfather Bear
            Interestingly, we sold our engines to them and then they "invent" their own engine. It is interesting girls to dance!

            But didn’t they have a lunar program working on their engines? Do not underestimate the sworn partners. As long as they stamp loot all over the world, they will have a great advantage on many issues.
            1. soviet skytourist
              soviet skytourist 21 July 2015 18: 30
              -1
              “SLS will have a length of more than one hundred meters and a mass of about three thousand tons.
              not so long ago it was stated that the lunar material was lost [and there were not a couple of dozen kilos] and all the photo documentation regarding the project disappeared. in the 60s they made a rocket engine with a starting thrust of about 700 tons, and now the RD-180 is bought with a thrust of 390 tons. how many engines will be needed - one made with a thrust of 3000 tons or again they make a sucker, as is the case with Saturn. who yesterday did a rocket engine with the characteristics of F-1 from the Russians will not buy http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/33046
              Americans are very pragmatic. In the 1990s, at the very beginning of working with us, they realized that in the energy field we were far ahead of them and we needed to adopt these technologies. For example, our RD-170 engine in one start due to a larger specific impulse could take out payload two tons more than their most powerful F-1, which meant at that time $ 20 million in gain. They announced a competition for a 400-ton engine for their Atlases, which our RD-180 won. Then the Americans thought that they would start working with us, and in four years they would take our technologies and reproduce them themselves. I immediately told them: you will spend more than a billion dollars and ten years. Four years have passed, and they say: yes, it takes six years. Years passed, they say: no, it takes another eight years. Seventeen years have passed, and they have not reproduced a single engine. Now they only need billions of dollars for bench equipment. We have stands at Energomash where you can test the same RD-170 engine in a pressure chamber, the jet power of which reaches 27 million kilowatts.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 21 July 2015 19: 17
                0
                It is very good that they bought engines from us, and they lugged the lunar soil all over their homes - it’s the same exotic, and the F1 engine is real, admire
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 21 July 2015 22: 25
                  0
                  Only now he is not reliable to disgrace and there were too strong vibrations from him. So much so that they now do not even make unmanned launches. The main reason why the Apollo porogram was terminated prematurely.
              2. VseDoFeNi
                VseDoFeNi 22 July 2015 06: 19
                0
                That is, you do not want to think hard. See space shuttle details.
                The shuttle itself ~ 68 tons + payload ~ 24 tons - a total of 92 tons of output mass.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 22 July 2015 08: 32
                  0
                  three of these same RS-25 engines, which gave only 25% of thrust at the start compared to solid fuel boosters.
                  1. VseDoFeNi
                    VseDoFeNi 22 July 2015 10: 40
                    0
                    Quote: Scraptor
                    in comparison with solid fuel boosters.

                    And were the accelerators WITHOUT engines? wink
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 22 July 2015 15: 57
                      0
                      Solid fuel - no. And with very little throttle throttle, which the RS-25 has (for which they are needed).
                      It would be much wiser to make the first stage of this "SLS" entirely from six or seven accelerators in a circle, especially since they are now making them also disposable, and not sculpt only two on the sides, but fans of shows at NASA are also fans of perversion. Just like it was with the Shuttle for launching satellites, and not for service flights, when it barely carried itself into orbit (too heavy Columbia even never flew to the ISS), or with Saturn-5 to launch both Apollo modules at once , although they could (and it would be easier) to launch them into orbit separately.
                      For breeding, with the goal of preserving reusable RS-25 engines of the second stage, you could just pick them up in a heat shield and not put a shuttle for it. Now, on the contrary, they push these expensive reusable engines into a disposable launch vehicle.
                      1. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 23 July 2015 12: 07
                        0
                        They were redesigned, now they are disposable. First, all the engines remaining from the last shuttles will be spent, and then there will be a modification of the RS-25E
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 July 2015 00: 56
                        0
                        They were redesignated so that less Americans were indignant that flickering reusable engines were fired in a single-use rocket.
                      3. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 24 July 2015 10: 14
                        0
                        Redesigned, so it is written. If there are proofs for information that they were not redone, then links to the studios.
                      4. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 July 2015 15: 12
                        0
                        On the fence, go to the commission report 9-1-1 also says ... How can you redesign the finished product? lol
                      5. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 24 July 2015 19: 53
                        0
                        The Chinese are constantly doing this. You take the product, and then change everything long-lasting for any cheap alternative and voila, one-time copies are ready laughing
                      6. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 July 2015 21: 33
                        0
                        Do not confuse new grated jeans with ready-made rocket engines.
                      7. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 24 July 2015 21: 41
                        0
                        But what are you talking about, the manufactured engines that were made for the Shuttles will be launched as they are, and new ones will already be made disposable. Engines RS-25D (Old Version) and RS-25E (New Disposable)
                        And so we take a design that should hold for example 10 flights, and recount it for one flight, reducing wear resistance due to cheaper materials, or reducing their weight. And vaul
                      8. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 24 July 2015 22: 23
                        0
                        Do you just understand? But in my opinion - not quite. It’s like it’s wrong to shoot reusable engines to nowhere, especially something disposable on the way. In the RS-25E, in general, the throttle window is simply increased, which allows you to get a little more thrust with a decrease in resource - that's all "voila". laughing
                      9. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 25 July 2015 09: 02
                        0
                        You suggest they just rot in warehouses? wassat
                      10. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 25 July 2015 13: 01
                        0
                        Stand until they do Energy instead of the Angara, or something else, here.
                      11. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 26 July 2015 10: 21
                        0
                        Ie wait for the new Shuttle program? Do not hesitate to them? wassat
                      12. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 26 July 2015 22: 01
                        0
                        Those. To stand until they make superheavy Energy instead of a heavy saw-hangar (drawings still remain), or something else. lol
                        She could deduce what you want, not only Buran (which partly survived).
                      13. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 27 July 2015 09: 13
                        0
                        The drawings remained, but the production base was crushed under them. You can read the articles (This resource is available) for how many years they will do one documentation for the resumption of production of Tu-160, and you are talking about Energy. I can’t survive, even if they start.
                      14. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 27 July 2015 09: 37
                        0
                        Half a year. Partially on the production facilities of the Angara, why not? bully
      2. theadenter
        theadenter 21 July 2015 09: 22
        -1
        There is no competition and will not be.
        Russia abandoned all superheavy projects. All that remains is the superheavy Angara (which looks like a toy, even against the backdrop of the American Saturn 5), and then they want to replace it with another modification of the Union (there are such conversations).
        1. VseDoFeNi
          VseDoFeNi 22 July 2015 10: 48
          0
          And let's listen to Rogozin.
        2. VseDoFeNi
          VseDoFeNi 22 July 2015 10: 48
          0
          And let's listen to Rogozin.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. theadenter
      theadenter 21 July 2015 09: 19
      +3
      And I wish you good luck. We in Russia constantly refuse such projects and do not even have them in the future - they do not want to do them. The superheavy rocket is designed to bring heavy objects into orbits or beyond Earth's gravity. The withdrawal of military satellites and the delivery of nuclear warheads is not the fad of this rocket. Excessive and irrational.
      If we do not want to explore the moon and Mars - this does not mean that it is necessary that the Americans collapse in this.
      1. the polar
        the polar 21 July 2015 11: 23
        +2
        Quote: theadenter

        If we do not want to explore the moon and Mars - this does not mean that it is necessary that the Americans collapse in this.

        In the end, let them at least repeat the "landing on the moon." There were plenty of rehearsals in Hollywood, and now the whole World would watch with interest how it looks in reality
    5. War and Peace
      War and Peace 21 July 2015 09: 21
      +3
      pc25 hydrogen engine 70s
      thrust 180 tons declared specific impulse - thrust divided by flow rate per second 363 s
      engine weight 3390kg

      our ENERGY engine rd0120 for comparison
      thrust 180 tons specific impulse 353с
      weight 3450kg
      Apparently Amersky is even a little better, is it true that they served it as if it were a new engine and they were going to launch a 3000 ton racket on this engine? this is how many engines will have to be delivered?
      Isn’t it better to remove the famous F1 from oblivion and solve all problems at once?
      1. theadenter
        theadenter 21 July 2015 09: 25
        0
        This is not the engine that was on Saturn 5?
        1. ohtsistem
          ohtsistem 21 July 2015 09: 51
          0
          And I wish you good luck. We in Russia constantly refuse such projects and do not even have them in the future - they do not want to do them. The superheavy rocket is designed to bring heavy objects into orbits or beyond Earth's gravity. The withdrawal of military satellites and the delivery of nuclear warheads is not the fad of this rocket. Excessive and irrational.
          If we do not want to explore the moon and Mars, this does not mean that it is necessary that the Americans collapse in this.

          Who will answer when the stripes had a peaceful cosmos?
          NASA plans to use this rocket to launch the reusable Orion spacecraft, which they plan to send to Mars in the 2030s.

          Here, too, there will be colonization in order to create a base and, as always, military
          1. theadenter
            theadenter 21 July 2015 10: 45
            +1
            There is no point in making a military base there. Too far from the earth. But colonization is possible.
            From our wishes their program will not be bent. It is necessary to create competition, but we do not want to create such missiles.
            We don’t fly ourselves and we won’t let others. So what?
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Fox
          Fox 21 July 2015 10: 18
          0
          Quote: theadenter
          This is not the engine that was on Saturn 5?

          Used in the "space shuttle" system, if it is of course the engine!
          1. theadenter
            theadenter 21 July 2015 10: 46
            0
            Yes, I understood already, read it below.
      2. Fox
        Fox 21 July 2015 10: 16
        0
        Quote: War and Peace
        our ENERGY engine rd0120 for comparison
        thrust 180 tons

        I wonder where such data came from, it seemed to me that the RD0120 thrust at sea level is no more than 160 tf!
        Quote: War and Peace
        this is how many engines will have to be delivered?

        Yes, no more than four !!
        our ENERGY engine rd0120 for comparison

        Hurry! Buranovsky!
        1. War and Peace
          War and Peace 21 July 2015 11: 54
          +1
          Quote: Volpe
          I wonder where such data came from, it seemed to me that the RD0120 thrust at sea level is no more than 160 tf!


          yes you are right no more than 160t

          Quote: Volpe
          Yes, no more than four!


          How did you find this? if 3000 tons are divided by 180 tons then 17 engines come out, they must be put on a promising Amer racket ...




          Quote: Volpe
          not more than four !!
          our ENERGY engine rd0120 for comparison

          Hurry! Buranovsky!


          on Buran stood, what small shunting engines for space I can’t find, as they are called, and rd0120 is just the first stage engine ...
          1. Fox
            Fox 21 July 2015 12: 30
            0
            Quote: War and Peace
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%94-0120

            It is written that ur. seas155,6ts
            Quote: War and Peace
            How did you find this? if 3000 tons are divided by 180 tons then 17 engines come out, they must be put on a promising Amer racket ...

            laughing SLS is the same "space shuttle" only without the "shuttle", the output "cargo" will be located not from the side, but "from above", my opinion is that it will be puffed up from the same launch tables, with minor changes. Yes, even in the picture everything is drawn laughing In short, well done Americans, do not invent a bicycle!
            Quote: War and Peace
            on Buran stood, what small shunting engines for space I can’t find, as they are called, and rd0120 is just the first stage engine ...

            Here I messed with the "shuttle" smile but in my defense I can say that there were versions with the installation of RD0120 directly on the "blizzard" itself!
    6. The comment was deleted.
  2. Engineer
    Engineer 21 July 2015 08: 33
    +6
    NASA pulled out a 40-year-old engine from the Space Shuttle from the looters and reported on a successful engine test for a new launch vehicle. Impressive.
    1. akribos
      akribos 21 July 2015 08: 37
      +2
      Predictability, all the same, is a good feature of them.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 21 July 2015 22: 28
        0
        In terms of using expensive reusable shuttle engines for disposable rockets? bully
    2. 4 wheels
      4 wheels 21 July 2015 09: 02
      +4
      Quote: Engineer
      NASA pulled 40 years ago from the engine

      A technological breakthrough in the middle of the 20th century still feeds our country.
      And now we use the best practices of the 60-70s and everything goes perfectly, swims and flies.
      That’s just to attach to the past developments of technology of the 21st century ...
      1. theadenter
        theadenter 21 July 2015 09: 32
        0
        21st century technologies are less reliable through the use of less reliable substitutes for materials and more vulnerable components. If they are applied to Soviet reliability, the technologies of the 21st century will come out with all the consequences.
  3. Trailer
    Trailer 21 July 2015 08: 34
    +3
    Ahead of even larger fireworks
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. MolGro
    MolGro 21 July 2015 08: 38
    +1
    The RS-25 is a shuttle engine; there is nothing new in it!
    Apparently, with the development of a new one, they decided to go out on the old one, let's see what happens!
  6. Vasily
    Vasily 21 July 2015 08: 47
    -1
    I am happy for them.
    1. War and Peace
      War and Peace 21 July 2015 09: 00
      0
      Quote: Vasily
      I am happy for them.


      with such a muzzle only and rejoice for pin_dosov ...
  7. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 21 July 2015 08: 48
    +1
    The Shuttle engine as an achievement? This is cooler than the first female American astronaut! Everything is correct. To develop a new engine, you need to DEVELOP it, you need a design bureau, experienced specialists, methods of calculations and tests, well, where to get them "out of the blue"? "If you put 9 pregnant women together, the baby won't appear in a month!"
  8. evil partisan
    evil partisan 21 July 2015 08: 49
    +1
    Bolt them in the tank am . And donkey urine a bit feel .
    1. the polar
      the polar 21 July 2015 11: 29
      0
      Quote: wicked partisan
      Bolt them in the tank am . And donkey urine a bit feel .

      I wonder why good wishes are minus, or is it the "partners" who dream of "friendship and cooperation" noted?
      I set +
      1. evil partisan
        evil partisan 21 July 2015 11: 34
        +1
        Objectivism bursts. yes
        Quote: Polar
        I set +
        fellow
  9. stayer
    stayer 21 July 2015 08: 49
    +9
    Here are recent vicious comments about the passage of an American station near Pluto, of which no filth was poured. One way or another, the United States, like Russia, remains a space power. And there is no reason to doubt that they will find a replacement for the RD-180 engines. And it doesn’t matter at all how long this unit was manufactured (invented). RD-180 is also from the distant Soviet past. It is much better to concentrate on your own developments. To develop promising types of engines and new developments that will give impetus in the future.
    1. evil partisan
      evil partisan 21 July 2015 10: 26
      +3
      Quote: stayer
      And there is no reason to doubt that they will find a replacement for the RD-180 engines.

      And still: bolt them in all holes.
      Quote: stayer
      about the flight around Pluto

      Yes, it's a shame. recourse If it were not for "perestroika" ... Where would you already be !!
      By the way. They say Gorbachev was paralyzed.
      1. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 21 July 2015 10: 48
        +1
        Quote: Angry Guerrilla
        By the way. They say Gorbachev was paralyzed.

        There is nothing and nobody eternal on this planet! This is the fate of each living and those who will live. Something similar awaits everyone, in one way or another. Medicine is not able to save humanity from strokes, heart attacks, oncology, or old age. Nothing but empty talk !!!
      2. NordUral
        NordUral 21 July 2015 12: 15
        +2
        By the way. They say Gorbachev was paralyzed.

        It would be good if this TV-art lay for many years paralyzed for all this creation that was deleted, including in our cosmonautics.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. bromine
    bromine 21 July 2015 08: 57
    +3
    Type in a search engine "Mars is filmed in Devon".
    Another cut. A superheavy rocket is needed only for a specific load, which the capitalists must repel the spent loot with a surplus. What is Mars, what is the benefit? They cannot decide anything on the Moon, despite the deposits of fuel for the reactors - since there are no reactors working on helium-3.
  12. valokordin
    valokordin 21 July 2015 09: 27
    +2
    A new engine, a new carrier is a prestige and a technical and industrial breakthrough. Whatever our people said, if such an achievement were in Russia, there would be something to be proud of. With a photograph of Pluto, isn't that an achievement? It is time for us to do something like this to show the world that we are not too fast-witted and that it is always possible to apply the achievement.
    1. the polar
      the polar 21 July 2015 11: 38
      0
      Quote: valokordin
      achievement? It is time for us to do something like this to show the world that we are not too fast-witted and that it is always possible to apply the achievement.

      Don't we do it? Just recently, two trillion were "poured" into the Banks, and in 2008 as many as three trillion were "poured" into the same Banks. Now we need to be patient and wait for these trillions to seep into science, astronautics, medicine, agriculture, engine building, shipbuilding, etc. And then the achievements will sprinkle like peas out of leaky pants.
  13. Old26
    Old26 21 July 2015 09: 29
    +3
    Quote: Engineer
    NASA pulled out a 40-year-old engine from the Space Shuttle from the looters and reported on a successful engine test for a new launch vehicle. Impressive.

    Damn, again we take the statements of our media, more precisely "LENTY.RU" and on the basis of this we build all our posts. The Americans have never said anywhere that they have made a new engine. It has been said that this is a NEW SERIES engine. With a modified control unit. The engine became disposable and therefore cheaper. Even on those engines that are now being tested, there are various control systems.
    And why reinvent the wheel? What they are working on right now can be safely done by buying engines from us for now ...
  14. srha
    srha 21 July 2015 10: 36
    +2
    Quote: War and Peace
    they brought it as if it were a new engine and they are going to launch a 3000 ton racket on this engine? this is how many engines will have to be delivered?
    In fact, 4, and these are the main engines of almost one and a half stages, although they are called the first or main ones, at the first stage they are cut just so that they do not hang ballast for 127 seconds, solid fuel boosters providing ~ 70% of thrust, by the way, again from the shuttle. The RS-25s themselves continue to work for some time (you saw the tests - 500 seconds)

    In general, this is a new, cheaper, i.e. the circumcised reincarnation of their Ares-5, an ultra-expensive rocket based on shuttle and engines and solid fuel boosters. Because of their overcost, they were abandoned. Now they simplify and reduce the cost, as they have refused reusability.
  15. NordUral
    NordUral 21 July 2015 12: 13
    0
    Something does not fit:
    1. Saturn-5 is the 5 of the F-1 engines with a thrust of each 695 t (approximately 3500 t).
    2. RS-25 - thrust 228,6 tons
    Conclusion - everything is new - it is the abandoned old.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 22 July 2015 09: 34
      0
      Happiness is not in cravings, but in specific impulse and price wink
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 22 July 2015 15: 32
        0
        And also in reliability ... And in absolute thrust, because a lot of small engines it is not good.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 23 July 2015 12: 08
          0
          4 RS-25E engines is a lot?
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 24 July 2015 00: 58
            0
            Better one RD-170, or another solid fuel accelerator to the two existing in the project SLS.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 24 July 2015 10: 11
              0
              At RD-170, the specific impulse is much worse.
              Specific Impulse: Vacuum: 337,2 s (3308 m / s)
              Sea level: 309,5 s (3036 m / s)
              And the RS-25E
              Specific Impulse: 452,5 s in vacuum
              363 c at sea level

              Thus, they will spend significantly less fuel on the same traction
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 24 July 2015 15: 52
                0
                Where will you take this "extra" fuel with a lack of traction? Have you ever tried to fly directly from the ground on plasma engines with their high specific impulse? RD-170 is the most powerful engine (even more powerful than F-1). Especially at sea level (because it is kerosene). Vodordnye are the second, transatmospheric stages. Or there it is necessary to make a large nozzle nozzle or switch to rapidly burning hydrogen. On Saturn 5, the first stage was also kerosene. If the SLS RS-25s were turned on in the upper atmosphere, then they would be of use (and for good, their engine compartment would be returnable). On a bad shuttle, just put them on the hydrogen ones by necessity, because it is "such a shuttle" (it would have been absolutely necessary to stuff kerosene ones there), and because in general it was mostly driving myself, so "it doesn't matter". lol But why on SLS? Because there are only two accelerators from the shuttle and they unevenly load the hull? laughing
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 24 July 2015 19: 58
                  0
                  4 RS-25 traction more than one RD-170, so where is the lack of traction then?
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 24 July 2015 21: 52
                    0
                    At a height greater than 15%, at sea level even a little less (because hydrogen). Lack of reliability - 4 engines give the same traction and not one.
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 25 July 2015 10: 08
                      0
                      So they were modernized for a long time, for a long time 104.5% of the nominal value of their normal mode fellow
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 25 July 2015 12: 55
                        0
                        This is taken into account.
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 26 July 2015 03: 03
                        0
                        Even the fact that 109% of the "disposable" RS-25E is already taken into account.
                        If you twist the throttle on the RD-170 in the same way without giving a damn about its resource and reliability, then you can achieve "outstanding results" in general, even against four RS-25Es in a spherical vacuum, not that at sea level. laughing
                      3. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 26 July 2015 10: 18
                        0
                        RD-170 is already twisted, as a disposable engine.
                        A 104,5% was received with the preservation of reusability.
                      4. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 26 July 2015 22: 25
                        0
                        RD-170 has a minimum life of 10 launches. laughing
                        104,5% "was received" when they realized that the shuttles were overweight, and 109% was "in the event of a contingency". Even 106% of the resource was consumed, so Columbia never flew to the ISS, and 104,5% were not always used.
                        see there "Upgrades".
                      5. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 27 July 2015 09: 16
                        0
                        Ie RD-170 reusable engine, which the USSR used on disposable media? And you suggest that in order not to spend reusable engines on one-time starts, put reusable engines on one-time starts? wassat
                      6. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 27 July 2015 09: 38
                        0
                        About "Energy" read the wiki article about the 10-fold reusability of its first steps.
                        Not at all, let’s better stand in Russia. Although now half of them are used in a one-time atlas-5.
                        The RS-25 is more reusable and therefore longer.
                  2. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 25 July 2015 02: 33
                    0
                    The shuttle would also be much better and more reliable if it had 1 or 3/4 of the RD-170, and not 3 RS-25. In the case of ballistic descent vehicles, the failure of the second stage is very bad - it happened once on the Soyuz and the crew nearly died. A shuttle with developed aerodynamic surfaces had the ability to land or leave it in case of failure of a different number of RS-25s at different flight stages, but the SLS to which the Orion is molded is not a Shuttle - it will not be able to glide on the stratosphere, it will bury itself in the dense layers of the atmosphere and 50 % will either burn up or the crew will be crushed by overload. So it goes...
                    On the "Soyuz" then they were tricky to raise the survival rate to at least 75%, but on the "Orion" there is nothing like that.
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 25 July 2015 09: 03
                      0
                      But the shuttle could not stand the casing; everything was fine with the engines.
                      fellow
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 25 July 2015 12: 59
                        0
                        Due to the liquid RS-25, it did not explode even once, but there were several unsuccessful launches and interrupted flights after launch.
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 26 July 2015 02: 54
                        0
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine
                        see "incidents"
                        and again, with Colombia (STS-93, in general, it was lucky then) and with Challenger (STS-51-F, it flew suborbitally) after leaving the launch pad, there were the most dangerous or serious incidents.

                        almost all of the other incidents listed there resulted in the shutdown, removal and bulkhead or replacement of these engines, with cryogenic fuel draining, shuttle transportation to the assembly shop and its decoupling from the external tank and TTU. to "overhaul", in short ...
                      3. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 26 July 2015 03: 55
                        0
                        ... that I don’t remember in the Soviet cosmonautics such a matuta in order in most cases to simply derive the payload, even a ton less than for example Proton.
                        Due to the weather, shuttle launches were delayed because the exhaust of its solid fuel boosters is toxic - so that the wind blows toward the sea, from the stands with the public. But yes - it was spectacular, grazing and grazing, though few even NASA know why the shuttle turned around after launch with its belly up (well, so that astronauts could see the Earth, and all that wink )

                        but if you want a thrill then all the same you are here
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjXS-SDXOTE
                        and here
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tub_cBjh00
                      4. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 26 July 2015 10: 23
                        0
                        They always do this with engines, go to the astronautics news forum for an example, and ask the local people there, or read the news on preparations for some significant launch.
                        There were a lot of things in Soviet cosmonautics, just read the details on specialized resources.
                      5. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 26 July 2015 21: 57
                        0
                        Can share the links? The truth is interesting ...
                        They do not do this with disposable engines - it flew away, or exploded. Some subtleties could only be at the Seven between the broaches, but there is nothing toxic, cryogenics from the time of the Second World War and this is just one railway car.
                      6. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 27 July 2015 09: 21
                        0
                        http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum10/topic14815/
                        We take the first topic and read it.
                      7. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 28 July 2015 00: 19
                        0
                        Specifically, which?
  16. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 22 July 2015 08: 55
    +2
    Another Amer gigantomania. Reusable ship to Mars. What's the point? There is enough technology for research, which our scientists have proved perfectly on the moon. And it’s still a little expensive to roll people to Mars and back. Not the same technology. I think so (s)
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 22 July 2015 09: 47
      0
      A lot of their rovers are riding on Mars, it’s not enough to see, since they decided to launch a man.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 26 July 2015 04: 03
        0
        Bullshit, by the way, even in the rover, the main device is Russian (not only the engines on which it flew there).

        I hasten to upset you, if you find yourself there, you will die very quickly, and without options, Therefore, it is better to leave the "lunatics" there alone.
        Astronauts who have been in low Earth orbit for more than 1,5 years fly from there half disabled. For them, even glaucoma is the norm. sad
        And do not worry at all - there will be anything, and the crisis and pestilence and peace and war, but no one will even fly there.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 26 July 2015 10: 25
          0
          It is not the main device, just one of the ordinary devices. Read the composition of the Rover and the purpose of the instruments.
          The problem of astronauts in orbit is the lack of gravity, there is gravity on Mars. And to hide from radiation there is where, not behind the millimeter walls of the station, but under a thick layer of soil.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 26 July 2015 21: 45
            0
            He is the main device - the Americans have always been bad with neutron and plasma physics. I read it before he flew there and saw how they circled around the author of this device on tiptoe in circles on a gray carpet.
            There is weak gravity on Mars and this is an even bigger problem because it cannot be simulated there. Severe diseases after 1,5 g, death after 2,5.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 27 July 2015 09: 08
              0
              Where can I read about it? They always had a nuclear program one step ahead, and fusion went nose to nose.
              Um, where did you read? There most likely there was a world competition for the placement of devices on Marshod, such that the authors of the devices beat each other in the face to place their device.
              Can I link to research on the effects of weakened gravity?
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 27 July 2015 10: 06
                0
                In the same place where it is told and shown how on the eve of Reykjavik, from the Soviet boats from a long distance we measured the type and quantity of nuclear warheads on American ships using slow neutrons and not gamma radiation. According to the fusion of the USSR they were ahead of them immediately, and then for a long time. Plasma engines on American spacecraft are also all Russian.
                This device went without competition, they found him, his author and his institute in the Russian Federation themselves. The young man "misunderstood" them when they wanted to negotiate with him personally laughing Then they shook when he sat at the prelaunch conference once again checking his calculations, and only then went to the podium laughing laughing laughing
                The Soviet NIF is much more compact and was made a long time ago. Moreover, purely for the study of the behavior of materials when exposed to them "this very" at close thermonuclear microexplosions. belay Recently, there was a transmission over the zombie man as his armored camera was transported with the analysis of even high-voltage power lines (wires interfered).
                About weakened gravity there is but not everything even on the NASA website. You can read to search and read again for a long time, start here:
                http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/30sept_spacemedicine.html
                in the first half of this year there was a kind of final disappointing article, although in the USSR it was already known in Zastoi (because they flew for a long time and rather thoroughly prepared for this).
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 27 July 2015 19: 30
                  0
                  The first atomic explosion in the USSR, the USA was instantly detected. Therefore, it is about nothing.
                  Of course overtook wassat
                  On November 1, 1952, the United States detonated the world's first thermonuclear charge on the Envetok Atoll.

                  On August 12, 1953, the world's first hydrogen bomb was blown up in the USSR - the Soviet RDS-6 at a training ground in Semipalatinsk.

                  And even 10.4 megatons in the United States versus 400 kilotons in the USSR.
                  The lag is obvious.

                  And let's analyze fewer facts at a time, otherwise we’ll go to the infinity of posts. Take turns like this. And in one place.

                  In Energy, as I recall, they did not manage to realize the reusability of the first stage. This time, and secondly, you suggested replacing one reusable engine with another in a non-salvage stage wassat


                  Half a year. Partially on the production facilities of the Angara, why not? bully

                  Not half a year, read the articles, in the 202x there will be only documentation.
                  So it’s not with them, and the prototype of Orion was generally a ballistic blank. An astronaut with such a launch in the Delta will not even live for 10 seconds. Even on the eco-friendly Saturn-5, they barely saw the dashboard from vibration.
                  It is shifted to a completely different one, otherwise the launch of the shuttle on a toxic thiokol would not be so often debugged due to the weather.

                  A full prototype, stuffed with sensors that analyzed how the astronauts would be there. Ie it is quite normal. Plus, give an article comparing vibration on Delta-4 and Energy
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 27 July 2015 21: 03
                    0
                    Not instantly, but how does an explosion leading to radiation pollution of the atmosphere not be detected by a geiger counter? This is not to find the recumbent JabCh behind seven lead locks.

                    The USSR tested a real transported bomb and not an experimental cryogenic device the size of a 3-story building.
                    On the contrary, they lagged back then.

                    All had time. It is easy to save the splashed TTU. The airborne landing technique somehow drops.

                    The documentation was ready 30 years ago.

                    A heat shield was tested.
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 28 July 2015 00: 24
                      0
                      Not instantly, but how does an explosion leading to radiation pollution of the atmosphere not be detected by a geiger counter? This is not to find the recumbent JabCh behind seven lead locks.

                      Yes yes for 7 lead locks. Calculate what layer of lead is needed so that the bomb cannot be detected by conventional neutron detectors? Nobody will put such on Ships.

                      The Soviet bomb was also not accepted into armaments in the USSR, please why?
                      And if you do not like the size of a 10 megaton device, then keep another.
                      In 1951, a series of tests was conducted under the general name "Operation Greenhouse", during which issues of miniaturization of nuclear charges with increasing power were worked out. One of the tests in this series was an explosion codenamed “George”, in which an experimental device was detonated, which was a nuclear charge in the form of a torus with a small amount of liquid hydrogen placed in the center. The main part of the explosion power was obtained precisely due to the hydrogen synthesis reaction, which confirmed in practice the general concept of two-stage devices.


                      Only now no one in the world has realized the salvation of the first stage. And the stupid head of SpaceX is doing some kind of stupidity and is not parachuting. The first stage is not an armored personnel carrier in which even the crew prefer not to be put inside when resetting.

                      The documentation for the Tu-160 was also ready for a very long time, it was coming off and found that in 2021 the documentation for the Tu-160 would finally be ready. That is, one restoration of documentation for the aircraft will take 6 years.

                      And a huge bunch of other things, like radiation protection and so on and so on and so on.
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 28 July 2015 00: 59
                        0
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        conventional neutron detectors

                        They are now "ordinary" for you. The Americans did not even have such detectors until the humpback "gave them" them.

                        The serial bomb was tested. Then they took it even better.

                        Quote from where? Was the country the first to launch a monkey into space (by the way homosexual) did it chemically with liquid hydrogen back in 1951? wassat
                        Thor mine is not compact even once. And something will squeeze out of him ...

                        There are a lot of "saved" first steps. The same TTU Shuttles.
                        Maybe he’s not only stupid, but maybe they’re all doing iota. laughing Why not parachute in an airy space? And at the same time, specially hit by a rocket in a small cold solid platform located in a large warm and soft Ocean? wassat

                        In the first stage there is no crew, as with the first Mars rovers, nothing particularly complicated.

                        How is it "restored" on Tu-160? Translated into English?

                        If so, then shaking the Delta from which the astronauts will have their brains knocked down or the wheels of the rover fall off is not dangerous for this defense.
                        Delta USA what living space launched when? Excessive shaking did not even benefit Apollo 13.
                      2. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 28 July 2015 19: 03
                        0
                        They are now "ordinary" for you. The Americans did not even have such detectors until the humpback "gave them" them.

                        Mmm, slow neutron detectors were invented in the early 20th century. Enrico Fermi actively worked with them, who then dumped in the USA, where he led the atomic bomb project. Before the Second World War.
                        The serial bomb was tested. Then they took it even better.

                        Serial bomb produced in 1 instance? wassat Let’s when the USA and the Soviet Union adopted the arms compare? In what year did the USSR deal with this?
                        Quote from where? Was the country the first to launch a monkey into space (by the way homosexual) did it chemically with liquid hydrogen back in 1951? wassat
                        Thor mine is not compact even once. And squeeze something out of him

                        Vika, I can distribute other sources, if necessary. And so they snapped an uncontrollable synthesis back in 1951.
                        There are plenty of rescued "first steps. The same TTU Shuttles."
                        Maybe he’s not only stupid, but maybe they’re all doing iota. laughing Why not parachute in an airy space? And at the same time, specially hit by a rocket in a small cold solid platform located in a large warm and soft Ocean? wassat

                        Read what you then have to do with these saving steps. winked
                        And you will understand why all these difficulties are necessary.
                        In the first stage there is no crew, as with the first Mars rovers, nothing particularly complicated.

                        No, there is no difficulty in dealing with vibrations, if there is such a problem. They are protected from any drunken movers, but it’s impossible to shake directly from shaking winked
                        How is it "restored" on Tu-160? Translated into English?

                        Ask the mine defense and our bureaucrats.
                        If so, then shaking the Delta from which the astronauts will have their brains knocked down or the wheels of the rover fall off is not dangerous for this defense.
                        Delta USA what living space launched when? Excessive shaking did not even benefit Apollo 13.

                        And that they should live then dragging? First they flew on the Shuttles, on the same engines, and then they used our missiles while the Dragon and other ships were preparing.
                        The dragon should launch Falcon-9, Orion SLS with the same engines.
                        That is, people on the shuttles flew on these engines, and they will fly on the SLS.
                      3. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 28 July 2015 20: 14
                        0
                        And why then the United States could not determine with them relatively from a distance whether there are nuclear warheads on the ship? They "immediately detected" an explosion in the USSR?

                        Why in one? Do you think someone will waste time and energy just to bang? In Alamogardo, it was not what was later tested on Nagasaki (Hiroshima was already tested, trophy - you don’t think that they would throw the untried lol ) Compare, it always turns out so interesting for you ... wassat

                        Leave ... Just forget it again - what’s the compactness of the torus, and so forth? laughing

                        You just have to refill. "Difficulties" to make of people iliotes and not to look for easy ways. So to land the rocket all the way back on its tail on its thrust would make sense only on the Moon. On Mars, even then a parachute is used.

                        There is such a difficulty. And why didn’t you figure it out? No way ...
                        "vibration was so intense you couldn't see instrument panel"
                        2:43-2:46
                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXIW1eEzrFM
                        This can be seen from the outside by the way the ice poured and by the inhomogeneities of combustion at the same seconds
                        It can be compared with launches of other launch vehicles.

                        I ask you to think ...

                        For example astronauts now bully But are the same engines on the Delta?
                        And why not put the "wonderful" F-1s on the SLS? In fact, just attaching the TTU Shuttle to Saturn-5? Or their national pride does not allow them to transfer to a rocket half a century ago (with minor changes), but on a Soviet 60-year-old with someone else's chauffeur?
                      4. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 28 July 2015 20: 42
                        0
                        And about the Falcon - well, Dragon (a returning truck, which was not tested with astronauts) would fly on it now, and would explode beautifully.
  17. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 1 August 2015 11: 10
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    And about the Falcon - well, Dragon (a returning truck, which was not tested with astronauts) would fly on it now, and would explode beautifully.

    The manned Dragon has an emergency rescue system.
    Quote: Scraptor
    And why then the United States could not determine with them relatively from a distance whether there are nuclear warheads on the ship? They "immediately detected" an explosion in the USSR?

    Who says they couldn’t?

    Quote: Scraptor
    Why in one? Do you think someone will waste time and energy just to bang? In Alamogardo, it was not what was later tested on Nagasaki (Hiroshima was already tested, trophy - you don’t think that they would throw the untried one). Compare, it always turns out so interesting for you ...

    Trophy? Lol here? wassat
    Quote: Scraptor
    Leave ... Just forget it again - what’s the compactness of the torus, and so forth?

    You can lay on the route of the Soviet armored armada or bring to the port
    Quote: Scraptor
    You just have to refill. "Difficulties" to make of people iliotes and not to look for easy ways. So to land the rocket all the way back on its tail on its thrust would make sense only on the Moon. On Mars, even then a parachute is used.

    The thrust was also used when landing on Mars. Moreover, it also flew away after landing on the Marshod ropes, sideways.

    Quote: Scraptor
    There is such a difficulty. And why didn’t you figure it out? No way ...
    "vibration was so intense you couldn't see instrument panel"
    2:43-2:46
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXIW1eEzrFM
    This can be seen from the outside by the way the ice poured and by the inhomogeneities of combustion at the same seconds
    It can be compared with launches of other launch vehicles.

    I ask you to think ...

    Can I have specific numbers? What are the vibrations on different rockets for comparison? And then we are not cool specialists to determine such things by eye.



    Quote: Scraptor
    For example, astronauts now. But on the Delta, are the same engines worth it?

    ??
    Quote: Scraptor
    And why not put the "wonderful" F-1s on the SLS? In fact, just attaching the TTU Shuttle to Saturn-5? Or their national pride does not allow them to transfer to a rocket half a century ago (with minor changes), but on a Soviet 60-year-old with someone else's chauffeur?

    For the same reasons why they do not put RD-170, a low specific impulse. By mass, it’s easier to put a triple supply of engines than to pull extra tons of fuel, due to the low specific impulse.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 1 August 2015 13: 59
      0
      Yes, only she does not always help. Did you find anything from the last time you flew away? fellow

      And why were they then surprised when they were told from the Soviet side how many ships they had, where and why? ... It was a raffle !!! belay

      Yes, imagine. Trophy and tested. Would the enemy be given special ammunition? lol

      And what is smaller than a torus - is it impossible? Or was he needed to play "rings"? crying

      And why didn’t the previous one sit down? Or now money for a parachute is simpler and more was not enough?

      About "by eye" from the professionals in that video is ... You can also ask how human-rated differs from non-human-rated PH and the numbers may not even be needed, especially since they may be secret. But in terms of "labor protection" there are some, so you can indirectly determine which ones where ...

      ??? - That living that should drag ... (astronauts).

      They have already explained to you that this is not so, all the more so on Atlas-5, on the contrary, is put half of the RD-170.
      It's just better with a chauffeur or something more reliable and calmer than the "wonderful" F-1. (by the way, also kerosene like RD-170 and low-impulse).

      And the fact that you have a parachute in the picture. And no water.