Military Review

Narrow departmental traction

74
Roscosmos is working on a rocket into which 40 doctors are harnessed

The problems of effective functioning of our rocket and space industry and, in particular, the choice of carrier for the exploration of near-earth space are aggravated. Judging by how the situation is developing, in the near future Russia will be an outsider in the development of the Universe.

The preparation of the Federal Space Program (FKP) is being completed. It is oriented for another 10 years of refinement of the Angara-5, bringing its carrying capacity to 34 – 37 tons and the beginning of flight tests in the 2024 year. The authors and defenders of this option are Roskosmos and GK NPTs named after Khrunichev, who have launched a broad advertising campaign that repeatedly exaggerates the capabilities of this launch vehicle (PH). But according to independent experts, even in the revised version of the "Angara" will not provide what is required.

Flown from the last century


The Angara's inherent disadvantage is a weak first stage and weight category that will lose relevance by 2020 year.

This is evidenced by a comparison with foreign developments, which will appear in the next five to six years.

Boeing plans to launch SLS (Space Launch System) super heavy rocket in 2018 year. In March, 2015-th successfully conducted the first fire test of solid-fuel booster engine for the first stage of this rocket. SLS capacity when installing two to four boosters (boosters) will be from 70 to 130 tons, which is almost four times higher than the limits of the "Angara".

At one time, the USSR made two attempts to create competitive super-heavy rocket launchers. The first relates to 1960 – 1977 years. During this period in the USA, the RV Saturn with the estimated payload mass of 118 tons (Werner von Braun) is being developed for the lunar program. In the USSR, they are working on the Н1 rocket (Sergey Korolev, Vasily Mishin). Americans make 12 trouble-free flights, including three manned flybys of the Moon and six successful landings on it (the first in the 1969). We get four explosions of the first stage.

The second attempt is made in 1976 – 1994, when “Energy” - “Buran” with a carrying capacity of up to 100 tons (Valentin Glushko) and “Space Shuttle” with a carrying capacity of 25 – 30 tons appeared. This time the USSR won a brilliant victory. In the first flight, "Energy" went with a mock-up of a military orbital platform (a Polyus object with a mass of 80 tons). The second flight of "Energy" in November 1988-th - the launch into orbit of the spacecraft "Buran" and its brilliant landing in automatic mode. The United States had nothing to answer, since the Space Shuttle was three times weaker than Energy.

Having spent enormous means and efforts, the USSR created five missiles - a reserve that would have been enough for three to four years. It remained only to reap the benefits of space dominance. But after the collapse of the USSR, the project was closed, and the reserve was dumped in a landfill, saying that for Energia there are no worthy tasks in space.

We first sent the enemy to a deep knockdown, and then failed to take advantage of it.

In an atmosphere of 90-x chaos, an enterprise was assigned a simple task to the enterprise of Khrunichev Research and Production Center: in the Angara, repeat the characteristics of its own Proton, replacing heptyl with oxygen. This was the first victory of the narrow departmental and private interests over the state ones. In 1994, by the decision of the then head of Rosaviakosmos, Yuri Koptev, and with the consent of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the formerly appointed RK Energia after Korolev and the Makeyev City Center were excluded from the list of contractors of the Angara project.

As can be seen from the 1 table, despite the use of more high-impulse fuel, Angara did not manage to bypass the Proton grandfather by the main criterion - thrust-to-weight ratio and its already low value dropped another two times - from 15,6 to 7,1 percent. With a further reduction, the rocket simply does not come off the launch pad.

Table 1
Narrow departmental traction


Insufficient thrust-to-weight ratio is a chronic deficiency of all stages of liquid-propellant rocket engines (LRE). When creating super heavy rocket launchers, this became a critical inhibiting factor and required a fundamentally new approach to the first stage.

The results of the work on the "Angara" lead to the following conclusions.

1. In no modification will it be able to protect our satellites and ensure Russia's full-fledged presence in space with the advent of the American SLS SL. Too unequal forces: "Angara" is not in the weight category. We need a jump - another rocket built on new principles. Only the solid propellant rocket engine (solid propellant rocket motor), the first stage SLS accelerator, is equal in mass to the whole “Angara” together with the payload and is more powerful than it by 25 percent. And there can be four such accelerators on the first stage.

2. By requesting the Angara-5 debugging for another 10 years, its developers have resigned to the fact that in its current state it cannot be considered as a ready carrier. But more than 30-year work on this rocket is unprecedented from the point of view of world practice. This is absurd, the deceleration of domestic rocket production. "Angara" in the last century was not enough lifting.

3. The PCF with “Angara” will be the last strategic mistake for the country, with the really impending threats and sanctions pressure on Russia.

Neither extreme nor guilty


We note in particular that the specialists and experts with whom the VPC newspaper works in no way consider Angara to be a bad rocket. The initial impulse for its development was flawed when, in 1992, we were aiming not at parity with the likely adversary, but at business in the interests of the more backward countries in this area. For South Korea, the launch of its first satellite on Angara engines is a giant step forward. An even greater success will be the opportunity to get a modernized analogue of the 35-tonne "Hangars". Perhaps this is precisely the source of the energy with which the Angara developers so aggressively push through it in the FKP, although this goes against the state’s defense tasks.

Without a doubt, the Pentagon should feel a sense of deep satisfaction, watching Russia lead further and further away from the creation of modern super-heavy rocket launchers.

Since the closure of the Energy project, the threat to the United States has passed and they got a breather, which they naturally took advantage of.

After the triumph of the Saturn rocket launcher, American engineers realized that super-heavy rockets had a weak link - the first stage with LRE. It is all about the same lack of thrust at the start, which can not be compensated by the main trump of the LRE - a high single mass impulse. The way out was found in the application at the first stage of powerful large-sized solid propellant solid propellant accelerators - start accelerators, sometimes called booster engines.

In the 2 table it can be seen that the share of the hangars of the Angara, spent on self-elevation, is 91,2 percent, and only 8,8 remains for the entire rocket. In a solid fuel accelerator (TTU), this residue is 40,4 percent. That is, the effectiveness of TTU as a means of ensuring an energetic start is 4,5 times higher than the LRE.

Table 2


Based on this property, the Americans since the 60-ies of the twentieth century, launched work on the creation of powerful sectional solid-fuel engines. These developments were implemented as TTUs consistently on the “Titan-4”, then on the “Space Shuttle”, and only after that the monsters of the PH SLS and the even more powerful family of the PH “Ares” with a payload from 25 tons on the “Ares-1” to 188 appeared tons on the "Ares-5". It was the use of the combined first stage (LRE + TTU) on the “Titan” and the “Space Shuttle” and the purely solid first stage on the “Ares” LV that made it possible to increase their load capacity in steps.

Following the United States, the European Space Agency countries followed, along with India and Japan. In the USSR, with a slight lag from the United States, work also began on a TTU for the 11А52 rocket, but the topic was closed in 1970, although the cost of it can be estimated as miserable, since the studies were in the "paper" stage. Today it is obvious that at that time another stupidity of a strategic level was made.

Squeezing "Angara" in the PCF promises the country, according to slogans, prosperity and peace. It is said, in particular, that this rocket guarantees Russia's presence in space for decades to come, blows up the global space market, is the best rocket of the Russian Federation in all the years ...

These spells were repeatedly repeated by very high leaders from the inner circle of the president. But all their words, independent experts are convinced, are as far from reality as the lecture of Ostap Bender given to chess players from Vasyukov.

The ultimate goal of the FKP with “Angar” is to raise its carrying capacity by 40 – 50 percent. Not only does this not give Russia any advantage in space, the achievement of this insignificant goal is carried so far (in the 2024 year it is only the beginning of the Angara A5 flight tests) that it will simply not be anyone to ask for failures.

On the question of who made the decision to make a bet on Angar, the highly experienced Yuri Koptev joked that 40 doctors of science took part in the April Scientific and Technical Council (NTS) of Roskosmos, who voted unanimously. No wonder. First, all 40 doctors are directly or indirectly subordinate to Roskosmos. Secondly, they do not want to repeat the fate of the 41 member of the NTS. A month before the vote, in their eyes, they easily, as they say, were dismissed from the post of the first deputy general director of the Khrunichev Research and Production Center and the Angara General Designer Yury Samokhvalov. Now the composition of the NTS for a long time insured against the appearance of dissent.

When forming the PCF, the following fundamental points are not taken into account:

ignored the requirement of the revised Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation on the development of means to counter possible non-nuclear threats from outside;
the fact that there is a critical gap between the capabilities of space rocket launchers at home and abroad is ignored, which will work against Russia in the next five to seven years;
the presidential demand, known from his conversation with the head of Roskosmos, is missed: “You have already promised a heavy RN, you need an extra heavy one.”


In connection with the above, it would be highly advisable to instruct military strategists and experts to make a medium-term technical forecast of the results of the upcoming confrontation between Russia and the United States in space, based on the characteristics of the Angara and the SLS, respectively.

Today, the country's armament is based on solid-propellant rockets. The exception is the cosmic RN. That is, the scientific and technical potential allows us to proceed to the domestic super-heavy RN based on new principles, taking into account world achievements.

The only new technology admissible on this path can be considered the creation of a large-size solid-fuel engine — an accelerator of start. Problem, matured and solvable. Throughout the world, this is seen as a way to increase reliability and carrying capacity, as well as reduce costs.

Following the adoption of the necessary political decision, the team should follow up on the development by the military of a short tactical-technical assignment, form cooperation of the design bureaus and institutions, present the general appearance of the missile, consider it by a special independent commission, and designate landmark deadlines and funding.

Considering the time trouble that has been created, the solution of technical problems should be accompanied by a clear organization of all levels of management and control, a resolute refusal of less urgent work.

Consideration of this problem should be redirected from Roskosmos to the state level. Target ministers, the VKS, the MIC, the Defense Council, the centers for strategic research and forecasts should organize a comprehensive and independent analysis of the problem in order to either put a solid base under the choice of the president, or offer a reasonable alternative solution that will meet the interests of the country, rather than Roskosmos.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/26185
74 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. Days
    Days 22 July 2015 14: 59
    +9
    Again, an emotional "let's like the Americans! 11", "catch up and overtake! 11".

    Need a leap - another missile, built on new principles.

    So what is the leap for? To send to the moon and Mars, as well as to high orbits? So with what fright do you need to carry the whole mass from the very surface of the earth? Why is Rosatom now building an interorbital nuclear tug, a single charge of which will last for 5 years of non-stop operation. To throw him away and fly like Americans - from a gravity well from the surface of the planet? Maybe we’ll upgrade the T-14 and push it inside the tower of the Negro-loader?
    1. Tambov Wolf
      Tambov Wolf 22 July 2015 18: 58
      +2
      You read carefully about the "nuclear tug", and then make comments. And it turns out, I heard a ringing, but does not know where it is. An article about engines that lift loads from the Earth, and not about low-thrust ones used for maneuvers and acceleration of micro and low-tonnage devices.
      1. Days
        Days 22 July 2015 19: 35
        +5
        I carefully read and follow the news of astronautics for a long time. The article is about the fact that Russia is developing incorrectly, and that everything must be done like the Americans do.

        These super-heavy launch vehicles are needed either to launch 80-ton platforms (eg SKIF-DM) to LEO, or to send light loads to high orbits, to the Moon, to Mars. So no one will produce "Scythians", and for long-distance flights it is more profitable to throw a load on LEO with existing missiles and then pick it up with a reusable nuclear tug.
      2. demon1978
        demon1978 22 July 2015 19: 36
        -3
        Quote: Tambov Wolf
        You read carefully about the "nuclear tug", and then make comments


        Well, yes, there is not everything as good as we would like !!!

        http://kosmolenta.com/index.php/new-tech/nuclear-proplusion-module
        1. Days
          Days 22 July 2015 20: 09
          0
          This article with kosmolenta - distorted facts and just lies, was made by the next all-conspirators or the fifth column in order to spread the myths "everything is bad in Russia."

          If you want to read about YEDU, then here: http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum13/topic11908/

          And here is the latest news directly from the site of the main developer: http://www.nikiet.ru/index.php?view=article&id=756
    2. Grandfather bear
      Grandfather bear 22 July 2015 20: 02
      +3
      Cosmonautics is the point where fantasy and technology converge into a single whole, the flight of thought and accurate calculation, perhaps and surely.
      Correctly calculated proportions of unlimited thinking and technical capabilities, in conjunction with scientific calculations - give the result.
      But! There is one "but". Which one?
      "We lost (space) to the Russians at the school desk" Kennedy.
      The complete destruction of the Soviet SCHOOL is the destruction of the ROOTS of the plant, the fruits of which the Russian Federation still consumes!
      BUT! the tree is dead. Fewer fruits. And soon it will not be at all.
      By this, no wonder that we are behind somewhere! And to be surprised that somewhere else is still completely out of place.
      In five years, falls may become commonplace. And then, after another five, take-offs will be "on holidays" (Christmas).
      But, after all, all hurt right?
    3. renics
      renics 22 July 2015 21: 10
      +2
      The Saturn-5 launch vehicle is being developed in the United States, only a test flight of this carrier rocket was carried out only once and very unsuccessfully. And right after that, to the moon and all flights supposedly ended safely and without accident. And if you look closely, then everything is not clean and misinformation predominates. And the author is not quite in detail apparently familiar with the history of astronautics. Then the question is to the author of this article, so where is this outstanding carrier rocket now, and why are NASA purchasing engines from Russia and not using their abandoned Saturn-5 rocket. Yes, at least the engines from this rocket.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 22 July 2015 22: 01
        +1
        In general, Saturn 5 had 2 test flights, the first was successful, the second was not very, the third was already with astronauts, and for engines of the SLS rocket they use a compressor with an F1 engine.
  2. Ruslan
    Ruslan 22 July 2015 15: 00
    +13
    in order not to dissipate forces, it seems to me that we need to rely on MAKS (super-cheap access to space, for launches up to 5 tons) and resuscitation of "energy" (super-heavy launches), and also to finish the "hangar" or "proton" to remake, 30 tons. You can sit on these three projects for 10 years, restoring potential and educating the staff. and under no circumstances stopping the search for new ways to space.
    and damn it, maybe you need to luster space bosses ?!
    1. varov14
      varov14 23 July 2015 02: 32
      -2
      It is necessary to lustrate power, but God is not up to us, and there is nobody else to do, and the authorities are running to church, either to sinn, or to seek advice.
  3. NordUral
    NordUral 22 July 2015 15: 04
    +2
    The main profit, because all through one place. Nobody needs the interests of the state and people. And they all lie, for the sake of a warm and well-fed place. It is necessary to sweep away this trash, liberal from all layers of power, so that the techies, and they will not be transferred to us in spite of any educational reforms, can return the country to a worthy place in the world.

    Now, as I understand it, about the bluff of the Americans:
    At one time, the USSR made two attempts to create competitive super-heavy rocket launchers. The first relates to 1960 – 1977 years. During this period in the USA, the RV Saturn with the estimated payload mass of 118 tons (Werner von Braun) is being developed for the lunar program. In the USSR, they are working on the Н1 rocket (Sergey Korolev, Vasily Mishin). Americans make 12 trouble-free flights, including three manned flybys of the Moon and six successful landings on it (the first in the 1969). We get four explosions of the first stage.

    Where are their F-1?
    1. Mihail29
      Mihail29 22 July 2015 16: 23
      +7
      Techies won't translate ... And at the international mathematics Olympiad in the first 50 years, our students did not take more than one gold medal. Another 20 years of such reforms and our outstanding techies will appear in our country as an exception, although despite everything.
      1. varov14
        varov14 23 July 2015 02: 35
        0
        Just for the whole country there will be one Kulibin, a homemade product.
    2. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 22 July 2015 18: 46
      +1
      Quote: NordUral
      Where is their F-1

      In the museum of astronautics
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 22 July 2015 22: 05
      +4
      The compressor from F1 is already installed on SLS engines, and F1 itself
  4. monk10
    monk10 22 July 2015 15: 04
    0
    Apparently, the author of the article from the state space feeder was torn off both the nipples and now he talks about how everything is bad in Russia and how in Great America everything is promising.
  5. hydrox
    hydrox 22 July 2015 15: 06
    +17
    Half of the shares of the Khrunichev Center belong to non-residents and non-citizens, who therefore can afford to pursue such a treasonous production policy.
    It is very good if Putin’s new decrees will allow nationalizing this snake nest and making it truly GNSC.
  6. sv68
    sv68 22 July 2015 15: 09
    -5
    enter the Russian Aerospace Agency or, as this office is now called, Putin, and seven years later, a superheavy Russian rocket will launch a modular Martian spacecraft into orbit.
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 22 July 2015 15: 50
      -3
      Quote: sv68
      enter the Russian Aerospace Agency or, as this office is now called, Putin, and seven years later, a superheavy Russian rocket will launch a modular Martian spacecraft into orbit.

      Why Putin? We have a "specially trained" person - Shoigu's surname! smile
    2. varov14
      varov14 23 July 2015 02: 49
      +1
      And you believe that, Putin is a bluff, a horror story for the western man in the street, but for our icon, respectively. His gut is thin, otherwise he would have had order in the country a long time ago, and he doesn’t need him, he observes the interests of oligarchs.
    3. varov14
      varov14 23 July 2015 02: 49
      0
      And you believe that, Putin is a bluff, a horror story for the western man in the street, but for our icon, respectively. His gut is thin, otherwise he would have had order in the country a long time ago, and he doesn’t need him, he observes the interests of oligarchs.
  7. Engineer
    Engineer 22 July 2015 15: 18
    +17
    Original article of course! Compare superheavy SLS and A-5 Angara. Well, why then not the A-7 Angara, if only if you follow the logic of the author? What kind of nonsense with shuttle boosters - they themselves wrote that Energy with a liquid first stage is much more powerful than a shuttle with a solid fuel, but right then you compare this solid fuel with the Angara, blaming it for the weaknesses of the first stage? Some kind of verbal diarrhea, sorry. The United States, if the author is not up to date, has no real competitor to our Angara rocket carrier family. And turn on your brains already, or read the tasks of the SLS program and our Angara in Wikivraki at least. And yes, where is your boasted Ares now? And the Angara flew !!!
    1. nvn_co
      nvn_co 22 July 2015 16: 04
      +12
      Speak correctly! I would like to add to your words that if we take the "hormulki" and substitute the values ​​of the parameters of the missiles described in the article, we will get completely different values, based on which the author did the analysis. And for some reason, they are different, even in a zero estimate. (so to speak, in a zero approximation - whoever is familiar with this term will understand. So beautiful, blue plates were taken from somewhere ... Like, as somewhere they were already printed, in an article that should say that everything is gone and the hangar is full of "wow .. .. ", excuse the moderators. Well, to compare the hangar with the shuttle, in my opinion, how to compare the SMZ S-3D with the MT motorcycle - two different concepts, two different directions, etc., etc.
      "As can be seen from table 1, despite the use of higher-pulse fuel, Angara did not manage to bypass the grandfather of Proton according to the main criterion - thrust-weight ratio"- who told you that the designers were given the task of getting around? Yes, you broadcast so confidently on the air! Have you read the TK? Why does it seem to me that Oleg Falichev just tried to sit on the internet and decided to write an article smart and strong, but it turned out to be a student an essay on the topic: "What would it be to write, what would be a thread to shit, and an example to take the great and strong, who still buy RD-180 in Russia, because they are fucking fucking!" ". I am not a" urapatriot ", I respect not only Russian technology, I respect all good technology, even if it is bourgeois. Yes, we have problems in astronautics, but we should not offend the people who made Angara. You are not suitable for them in terms of level intelligence and knowledge !!!
      This is not a technical analysis, tables from somewhere ..., and a worn out picture ..., modified quotes. "-" I haven't convinced you.
      Angara has problems and there are many and more significant problems than what you wrote. But you did not notice them, apparently you will never notice them because to write about "the breeding of raccoons in the middle part of Antarctica, you need to go to Antarctica, to find out that there is no middle part and that raccoons do not live in it!" cheap rag and that's it.
      1. Days
        Days 22 July 2015 16: 14
        +2
        Quote: nvn_co
        in an article that should say that everything is gone and the hangar is full of "woof ...."

        This is his article by the same author: http://vpk-news.ru/authors/18
        He consistently criticizes the current path of development of the space industry of the Russian Federation, apparently wants the industry to never get out of the pit that fell after Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
        1. nvn_co
          nvn_co 22 July 2015 16: 34
          +3
          So, if the criticism was justified, by whatever approach, preferably scientific, if this person worked in this industry (judging by the terminology, he probably ran about, but I can be wrong, probably did not go by the fence either), if I noticed the real disadvantages of this complex! Yes, at least he knew what Angara came out of! ... why "the diameter is about 3 m" (again, who in the course will understand !!!), then it was possible to write an analysis. Yes, an ordinary envious person of Western civilization, with an "iPhone" addiction to life ... He spat in the face of people and is glad ...
          What has he developed in life? - I would like to ask a question.
          I apologize for the errors in the previous comment - literacy did not have time for thoughts and fingers ...
          1. varov14
            varov14 23 July 2015 03: 34
            0
            Personally, I perceive such articles not as criticism, although most likely it was written from this position, but as the existence of several ways to solve the problem. Separation of opportunities at the international level is the best of opportunities, but unfortunately our partners are more likely enemies, therefore, given the limitations of our capabilities, it is better to measure seven times and then cut it off, somehow I react to such articles.
            1. nvn_co
              nvn_co 23 July 2015 13: 17
              0
              The article was written from the point of view of criticism and was "not bad". Since, if it were written as a review or research normal article, then the following sections would be seen in it: analysis, designation of the problem, solution options and, possibly, suggested ways to help solve (in one form or another). And in the article there is confusion and a "busurmansky" liberal-technological-populist opus: "About something and how." I don't know, roughly, not roughly, I said, but I think that's right. Yes, everyone has their own point of view and each point of view has the right to life, but according to the mind, and not as I wanted. And what is the ending ...?! "Consideration of this problem should be redirected from Roskosmos to the state level. Target ministers, the VKS, the MIC, the Defense Council, the centers for strategic research and forecasts should organize a comprehensive and independent analysis of the problem in order to either put a solid base under the choice of the president, or offer a reasonable alternative solution that will meet the interests of the country, rather than Roskosmos.". Well, they say, you guys look, you have to redirect there, do it yourself, decide for yourself ... If you took up such an article - come on, offering, walking would describe the possible ways out of this situation! And then everything and everyone gov .... (forgive the moderators), but I'm so cool ... "Turgenev" blin. He has all such articles, especially yesterday turned gray, looked and read ... Our students called such writers "irons" - I iron something, I iron, but what I don’t know, and I don’t understand, because iron and I don’t care. But I don’t care this, but I’ll show you the appearance of work!
      2. varov14
        varov14 23 July 2015 03: 07
        0
        I don’t know, don’t know, I immediately admit to rocket engines that I’m a complete ignoramus, but I’m a techie, they offer me two units based on completely different operating principles, but they perform one function and I choose what is best for production - in performance, in maintenance, in repair etc. But you advocate for one car, and suddenly it is truly a failure, this is not the right approach in technology.
        1. nvn_co
          nvn_co 23 July 2015 13: 20
          0
          Why did you decide or did the author decide that the hangar failed? What are the criteria? After all, they are unknown to us? Even if it failed, then you, and I, and Ator, and I’m sure that everything here can’t assert and suck it. because we didn’t see the task on the car !!! And initially for what the Angara was created we do not know.
  8. maxim947
    maxim947 22 July 2015 15: 25
    +14
    Why compare the hangar with sls and energy ??? This is the same as comparing KAMAZ with Lada! A missile is created for certain tasks, well, now there is no necessary load of 70 tons, why then a rocket? There was a blizzard made energy, what a hangar for a long time and hard done so everyone has long been aware of this. But the rocket is good and the engine has a great future. And yet - the Americans themselves admitted that the path they chose for solid-fuel engines is a mistake, the operation of this engine is uncontrollable, it is almost impossible to throttle the operation of the engine in operating mode. And now they are correcting it, an example of this is NK-33 and RD-180. But in the hydrogen theme, they are, on the contrary, great fellows; here they have an advantage, even a monopoly of its kind. Bullshit Article
    1. Days
      Days 22 July 2015 15: 45
      +9
      Moreover, it is believed that the approach that came from the last century to send heavy loads into high orbits with one super-heavy rocket with a short starting pulse is also a mistake.

      It is much more profitable to lift a heavy load with a lighter rocket only into a low reference orbit, and from there pick it up with a universal towing vessel, sending it to any higher, as well as to near-moon and heliocentric orbits. To drag every time the whole mass of chemical fuel that is necessary for this, wading through the atmosphere and attraction, is completely superfluous and even too expensive.
  9. Concealer
    Concealer 22 July 2015 15: 39
    +2
    And whoever argues, an extra-heavy launch vehicle is definitely needed. But we need it only when we understand that without industrial space exploration there will be no qualitatively new technologies and there will be a constant lag in our industry. The principle "who is higher has more opportunities" here must be understood literally. If the United States, using an ultra-heavy launch vehicle, can begin industrial space exploration, puts high-tech industries into orbit, the rest of the world will ALWAYS have to buy their products. This is what they are striving for. The industrial leader gets everything, and no “earthly difficulties” are fearless in factories in orbit.
    But the launch vehicle really needs a fundamentally new one. Maybe enough to indulge in chemistry, and it's time to remember about the NRE? Here we are truly leaders. :)
    Also, methane is lighter than air, and used tanks can float in the atmosphere like balloons. ;)
    1. Days
      Days 22 July 2015 15: 50
      +4
      No one seriously thinks about NRE yet, but they think about YaEDU - a nuclear electric propulsion system: http://topwar.ru/38546-razrabotka-yadernogo-buksira-prodolzhaetsya.html
    2. Svetlana
      Svetlana 22 July 2015 22: 27
      +1
      At the first stage, NRE is undesirable - it is fraught with radioactive pollution of the atmosphere. Russian scientists have proposed accelerating rockets with a laser, see http://lenta.ru/news/2014/10/30/laserpropelledrockets/
      The future lies with the microwave launch into space: this is when instead of the aforementioned laser, a microwave phased active phased array antenna AFAR is used, and instead of laser ablation, absorption of microwave radio waves in the magnetized plasma of the first-stage torch of an extra-heavy launch vehicle. The power supply of the AFAR is from super-flywheels buried underground for protection against nuclear explosions. In the intervals between starts, these super-flywheels can be used to regulate the balancing electricity market. Their implementation will reduce the number of start-up stops of turboelectric generators, hydroelectric generators, which lead to rapid wear of the units and accidents like Sayano-Shushenskaya. And at hour X, super-flywheels will be able to provide power to the Strategic Missile Forces command posts and the Perimeter system.
      1. Svetlana
        Svetlana 22 July 2015 22: 53
        +1
        Microwave AFAR - you can still use it to remove asteroids from encountering the Earth by microwave ablation of the surface of asteroids. The launch of a superheavy launch vehicle (flying saucer) into space might look something like this from the Earth’s surface:
      2. Svetlana
        Svetlana 25 July 2015 10: 00
        0
        Microwave startup is already being developed in the USA - see http://www.dailytechinfo.org/space/7212-kompaniya-escape-dynamics-razrabotala-si
        stemu-zapuska-kotoraya-ispolzuet-energiyu-luchey-mikrovolnovogo-izlucheniya.html

        But their technology is limited by the temperature of the microwave heating of the working fluid through the solid state wall of the on-board heat exchanger through heat conduction. This heating temperature cannot exceed the melting temperature of the solid wall. Hence, the flow velocity of the working fluid will also be limited to 5..6km / s
        It is more promising to directly heat the outflowing magnetized working fluid-plasma in a magnetic nozzle - then the braking temperature of the working fluid can be raised to 7000 ... 12000K, and the velocity of the working fluid from the magnetic nozzle to 10..15km / s
  10. engineer74
    engineer74 22 July 2015 15: 41
    +9
    ... replacing heptyl with oxygen.
    Further it was possible not to read ...
    But I was also pleased with the passage about the "efficiency" of the TTRE in front of the LPRE! Especially for manned launches - let the author tell the Challenger crew when they meet!
    PS And "Energy" needs to be reanimated, but what about # MARSNASH!
    1. Serg8888
      Serg8888 22 July 2015 16: 11
      +1
      the author can meet, but not quite from that crew, two more changed their names - Carl Mc Nair and Claude Onizuka.
    2. demon1978
      demon1978 22 July 2015 18: 58
      +6
      Quote: engineer74
      ... replacing heptyl with oxygen.

      laughing
      Yesterday I read this "work" on another site, I did not notice this blooper !!! laughing The fuel component was "replaced" with an oxidizer request
      To be honest, I was quite upset with the conclusions of the article and started to google about the "Energy" of the "Volcano" and other Soviet developments, I got completely confused, because the conclusions did not grow together at all !!! request I decided to wait until they lay out here and apparently not in vain fellow Literate people, immediately figured out the "competence" of the author !!! negative
      1. rosarioagro
        rosarioagro 22 July 2015 19: 04
        +3
        Quote: demon1978
        The fuel component was "replaced" with an oxidizer

        It happens that the film "The Taming of the Fire", the phrase "It is necessary to add oxygen to the oxidizer" :-)
        1. engineer74
          engineer74 22 July 2015 19: 21
          +3
          EMNIP, the director and screenwriter of "The Taming of Fire" did not try to accuse the leadership of the Industry, 40 doctors of sciences and the President of complete incompetence, all over the country! laughing
          I really like the film ...
    3. Svetlana
      Svetlana 22 July 2015 23: 20
      +2
      He had to write this: replacing nitrogen tetroxide with oxygen, and heptyl (asymmetric dimethylhydrazine UDMH) with kerosene ..
  11. maxim947
    maxim947 22 July 2015 15: 46
    +4
    And yet - the Angara is completely Our rocket, and this is independence.
  12. Ishell
    Ishell 22 July 2015 15: 51
    +3
    After reading the last 4 paragraphs, the question arises, does the author of the article think that 40 doctors of sciences do not know how to organize work on planning the task and where and how to draw up an appropriate plan. If there are specific proposals, I would suggest. And crush water in a mortar, meaning?
    1. Days
      Days 22 July 2015 16: 08
      +5
      Quote: IShell
      And crush water in a mortar, meaning?

      It makes sense, there are always a lot of such articles. By distorting the facts and emotions, they are trying to spread the opinion that everything is bad and everything is done wrong, it is urgent to do the Maidan. If the author had sensible suggestions on what to do, then he would go to these laureates, and not complain to someone at the visited forum, and even without suggestions, with one emotional criticism.
    2. Tambov Wolf
      Tambov Wolf 22 July 2015 19: 07
      -4
      Actually, if there are doctors of science such as Chubais, and in our country there are half with diplomas bought (there are a dozen in one State Duma), then there will be a nanoangar, a nanonuclear engine and everything else.
      1. Serg8888
        Serg8888 22 July 2015 22: 30
        +1
        [quote = Tambov Wolf] Actually, if doctors of sciences, such as Chubais, and in our country half with purchased diplomas (in one State Duma there are ten), then there will be a nanoangara, a nano-nuclear engine and everything else.[/ Quote]
        It may be useful for you to find out about the real affairs of Rusnano, and not from the OBS:
        http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/65088/
        http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/63457/
        http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/64742/ и т.д.
  13. GRAY
    GRAY 22 July 2015 15: 57
    +5
    The picture from KSP is a cool game.
  14. Signaller
    Signaller 22 July 2015 16: 14
    0
    It just touches me
    Consideration of this problem should be redirected from Roscosmos to the state level. Target ministers, the air forces, military-industrial complex, the defense council, strategic research and forecast centers should organize a comprehensive and independent analysis of the problem in order to either provide a solid base for the president’s choice, or to propose a reasonable alternative solution that will meet the interests of the country and not of Roskosmos.
    On the same Angara, money was collected for all suseks. They did it on their knees. Flew. Thank God. Where is the series ???? No, and when will ????. It will certainly not be soon, then the money will be. But we still have a crisis. That oil will again cost 100 bucks and then fence the garden. In the meantime ... For now, let's see. I think it’s time to look. And where does the president in principle ???? He may not be re-elected for a new term. A new one will come - and everything else, other than that, will happen.
  15. AIR ZNAK
    AIR ZNAK 22 July 2015 16: 25
    +7
    Papers that were left from Energy There is no production, but there is development on paper. And if necessary, then let’s reproduce the second question. What to launch with energy? the whole world is on the path to reducing payload through the use of new technologies and new compact electronic systems and devices The time when the Vostoks were launched with antediluvian instruments and equipment by modern standards has passed. There is still such a thing as a docking station. What can the ISS be assembled, launched with one super-rocket and that’s it? So, you need to think first and not just think, but in the future. And then do it.
    1. Svetlana
      Svetlana 22 July 2015 23: 41
      +1
      What to launch with energy? - for example, there is a heavy payload - a laser installation for cleaning up near-Earth space debris (using fiber-optic solid-state lasers). Of course, disagreements may arise - what is considered space debris ..
  16. nvn_co
    nvn_co 22 July 2015 16: 39
    +1
    This is exactly the problem with us! You must first think what to do, and then do it right, but with us everything is just the opposite. And we also have a bunch of specialists who, wherever they go, still know where to go, but why they don’t.
  17. Dejavu
    Dejavu 22 July 2015 16: 39
    +12
    A hangar with a carrying capacity of 35 tons will cost 20 times cheaper than 130 tons of amersky. That's all the math. Our horses will carry goods to everyone and everything, because not everyone needs a 130-ton truck for their needs (as a rule it is a communications satellite, nothing more). So, most likely they found the device, ideal in price and carrying capacity, and bring it to the ideal for the needs of our country and other countries. Moreover, if we talk about conquering the solar system, at least it is necessary to solve the problems that are diametrically opposed to the problems of the carrying capacity of carriers. In particular, radiation and travel speed in space are higher than the third space. One way or another, when it comes to travel, it is necessary to build a ship in space itself because no launch vehicle is able to deliver a solid structure into space. Here the main question arises - price. The cheaper the trucks or lorries, the easier it is for a country to be able to explore space. Previously, when Apollo type flew to the moon, there was no technology to create computers the size of a smartphone. I had to shove all the huge cars into a tiny booth. With the invention of micro and now nanoelectronics, this problem was solved. However, they could not solve the radiation problem in this way. The version that the Americans were on the moon from all sides is bursting at the seams. A little more and an unsightly truth may be revealed. But this is a different story. One way or another, most scientists and experts agree that space will be mastered by robots, not humans. I think our scientists are not fools. They always proceeded from the issue of price and problem solving. They have never been led to outperform any there at all costs. Everything was done within the framework of a particular goal. Yes, it so coincided that when they launched Gagarin, it resulted in a race, but meaningless populist decisions were never made.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 22 July 2015 18: 57
      +3
      Quote: dejavu
      . The version that the Americans were on the moon from all sides is bursting at the seams. A little more and an unsightly truth may be revealed.

      Keep - http://geektimes.ru/post/253106/ I thought so when I bookmarked that this material is useful :-)
      1. Mik13
        Mik13 23 July 2015 04: 14
        0
        Quote: rosarioagro
        Keep - http://geektimes.ru/post/253106/ I thought so when I bookmarked that this material is useful :-)


        ABOUT! Thank you Informative.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  18. Glaz8000
    Glaz8000 22 July 2015 16: 40
    0
    Quote: Dagen
    Nobody seriously thinks about NRE yet, but they think about YEDU - a nuclear electric propulsion system:


    Quote: Dagen
    Why is Rosatom now building an interorbital nuclear tug, a single charge of which will last for 5 years of non-stop operation.


    Alas, no one is building anything:
    "At the end of 2014, a difficult situation with the project results in its sequestration within the framework of the Federal Space Program for" 2016-2025 ". It remains funding for R&D, and mainly in the line where there are some results - the actual nuclear reactor and turbomachine converters. Space launch of TEM is removed from the plans "

    Source (and comprehensive article on nuclear power sources):
    http://geektimes.ru/post/253368/
    1. Days
      Days 22 July 2015 17: 07
      +6
      This is not a source, this is an article by the all-propagator without reference to the source. There is nothing in the primary source of Igor Komarov’s statement about the cancellation of the launch of the nuclear power plant: http://www.roscosmos.ru/21431/
      The budget sequestration did not touch the lunar program (flyby of the Moon), and the interorbital nuclear tugboat is part of this program. As well as modifications of A5 with new accelerating blocks, for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons and lunar inhabited modules.

      And here is the source of Roscosmos plans: http://www.roscosmos.ru/19818/
      Key event 1.2.3 is the end of 2018. The nuclear weapons system has been assembled, autonomous tests have been carried out, and the readiness for flight tests has been obtained (only launch into orbit, nuclear weapons will not be able to fly in the atmosphere).
      1. Glaz8000
        Glaz8000 22 July 2015 18: 00
        +1
        Thanks, I really was in sorrow thinking that the project was rolled out.
        1. Days
          Days 22 July 2015 19: 55
          +3
          Two news was on the same day, with a difference of 2 hours: at first an anonymous source in Roscosmos said that they stopped developing nuclear power plants, then almost immediately the press service of Roscosmos officially issued a refutation.

          But the super-heavy launch vehicle was sequestered. This news was on April 24, 2015 - then the program of the Federal Space Agency for the coming years was determined, apparently someone who was glad for the extra-heavy launch vehicle celebrated his victory too early and spoke out to everyone about the abolition of the nuclear tug.
  19. Wildfox
    Wildfox 22 July 2015 16: 49
    +4
    The author is apparently not aware that the American turbojet engines release a couple of tons of lead oxide into the atmosphere and refuse heptyl due to toxicity. The fact that they can not yet solve the problem of energy efficiency of engines is yes ... Unlearned but I think to cope. And another big part of the calculations is in the virtual version, you have to wait until the software pulls up the subcontractors.
    By the way, at the expense of the Angara, she is not from another weight category; she is from another galaxy for modular !!! From the modules already developed, a rocket will be assembled both for flights to the moon and for launching satellites. IMHO the unification of parts is its main plus and naturally the fuel for them should also be unified.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 22 July 2015 19: 01
      +1
      Quote: WildFox
      By the way, at the expense of the Angara, she is not from another weight category; she is from another galaxy for modular !!! A rocket will also be assembled from already developed modules for flights to the moon

      Flying to the moon with oxygen kerosene is a bad idea :-)
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. mosquito
    mosquito 22 July 2015 17: 59
    +3
    Today, the country's armament is based on solid-propellant rockets. The exception is the cosmic RN. That is, the scientific and technical potential allows us to proceed to the domestic super-heavy RN based on new principles, taking into account world achievements.

    At one time, the "chase" for the TTRD led to the monstrous "Typhoon", as a result, today's APF is armed with a BR on the "Sineva" rocket engine. The new missile for the mine-based Strategic Missile Forces will be a liquid-propellant engine ...
    And in general, in the matter of space exploration and defense, a scientific approach is needed, and not some kind of principle! hi
  22. Temples
    Temples 22 July 2015 18: 23
    +2
    Not only does this not give Russia any advantages in outer space, but also the achievement of this paltry goal was taken so far (in 2024 - only the beginning of flight tests of the Angara A5)


    The newest Russian environmentally friendly heavy-class launch vehicle Angara-A5 was launched on December 23 from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in the Arkhangelsk region. This is the first test launch of the heavy "Angara".

    Or was it in another life?
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 22 July 2015 19: 00
      +1
      Quote: Temples
      The latest Russian environmentally friendly booster

      The second stage of "Energy" was environmentally friendly, there is water vapor in the exhaust
  23. MolGro
    MolGro 22 July 2015 18: 23
    +6
    Well, the article was written by a person far from the topic!
    A5 is just one of the assembly options)
    So sls should be compared with A7 they are in the same category.
    But the author is interested in comparing the heavy and superheavy SLS with the average a5)



    Well, if it’s already quite interesting, then a heavy and super heavy rocket makes energy this is their topic! Although there is little accurate information
    1. MolGro
      MolGro 22 July 2015 18: 40
      +3
      put the wrong picture) Here is the energy project!
  24. ferdiperdozzz
    ferdiperdozzz 22 July 2015 19: 34
    +1
    replacing heptyl with oxygen

    I did not read further.
    Authors, write articles - do not allow blunders of this kind.
    The devil is in the details.
  25. ilya_oz
    ilya_oz 22 July 2015 19: 56
    +2
    Illustration - a screenshot from the game Kerbal Space Program. Hmm ...
  26. Indifferent
    Indifferent 22 July 2015 21: 12
    +4
    The article is not relevant! Needless to say, there are problems in the space industry, but there is no point in doing something expensive and thoughtless? The heavy hangara will launch 35-40 tons of cargo into orbit. Do you need more? The Americans, although they were not on the Moon, were planning to re-dock their modules in orbit, before actually flying to the Moon. It didn't work otherwise. So is it not easier to launch several 40-ton elements of a ship into orbit, dock in orbit like the Salyut or Mir stations and send such a ship to the Moon or Mars? After all, a liquid-propellant rocket has its advantages. Fuel burns evenly! It is easier to control a rocket. And most importantly, if the Vostochny cosmodrome finally begins to function, each launch will become several times cheaper, on kerosene and oxygen, then it will be much cheaper to send several rockets into space and assemble an interplanetary spacecraft in orbit. For this, 40 doctors of sciences are sitting to calculate this question And so again the race for the Americans? Well, it's funny. We went through all this and ended up buying engines from us!
    Now about the super-heavy solid-propellant rocket. You need to hang it with accelerators like a Christmas tree. These are not two, as on the Châtelet. And there the astronauts "teeth were crushed" at the start from vibrations! And then there will be five seven accelerators ... What kind of vibrations will there be when starting two or three thousand tons of total weight? It can just fall apart in the first meters of the flight. In fact, this is just an estimate. It will not. And we have already grabbed our heads! Outrun !!!
    We are constantly deceived with all sorts of star wars, flights to the moon and other nonsense. And we, like schoolchildren, are scared and crap one's pants like young bears!
    In fact, the problem of the passage of radiation belts and sudden coronary flares on the Sun is not solved. The astronauts can fly away and back we get corpses that died from instant radiation sickness. And here is our misfortune.
    There is no sane program until at least the 30s of the development of cosmonautics. Well, what UNTIL we do not need superheavy rockets - a fact. We need to build defense from outer space in order to sleep peacefully.
  27. kotev19
    kotev19 22 July 2015 22: 47
    +1
    It’s hard to learn, easy in battle! hi
  28. Old26
    Old26 23 July 2015 00: 33
    +2
    Quote: Dagen
    He consistently criticizes the current path of development of the space industry of the Russian Federation,

    He does the right thing when he criticizes. The leadership of Roskosmos, represented by Popovkin, closed the Rus-M program with its own power, since it was a competitor to Angara. And this is despite the fact that "Rus-M" twice won competitions, the TTZ of which were written for "Angara". As a result, we will get a rocket in 10 years, which by and large will become obsolete, having never flown. Moreover, abandoning Rus-M "we will put ourselves in a deadlock. An accident of any of the launch vehicles of the Angara family will lead to the termination of all flights of all modifications pending investigation and elimination of the causes. It is clear that Popovkin, being in Roskosmos as a representative of the customer (MO) pushed this product. For the needs of the Ministry of Defense this rocket was sufficient in the early 2000s. But not for Roskosmos. The tasks are different. And after becoming the head of Roskosmos, he continued to push it.
    Moreover, starting from Vostochny, the main part of the rocket's trajectory will pass over the ocean. And here's another, significant miscalculation. The second stage of the launch vehicle has one engine, in contrast to Rusi-M, where there are 4 of such engines. That is, in a manned version with a new spacecraft, the safety of cosmonauts along the entire launch route (which is 8000 km) cannot be guaranteed. The characteristics of the second stage of "Rusi-M" made it possible to launch the ship into orbit if one engine failed, or to direct it (the ship) to a certain area of ​​the ocean, where rescuers would be located if 2 or 2 of the four engines failed. It is not known where the ship launched by the "Angara" will fall. And try to quickly find him in the Pacific Ocean.
    Well, all subsequent projects - Cupids and Yenisei - it’s generally not clear what

    Quote: indifferent
    So is it not easier to launch several 40-ton elements of a spacecraft into orbit, dock in orbit like the Salyut or Mir stations and send such a spacecraft to the Moon or Mars?

    Not easier. It is because of this that Korolev took the risk of creating the N-1, since the withdrawal by smaller carriers and then numerous dockings are not economically profitable. Besides. Are we going to build stations for the future? Where will it be possible to collect ships for flights to other planets? And there the modules will not be 30-40 tons. The Martian manned complex will have a sufficiently large size and mass. What is more profitable to display? For example, five launches with a lifting capacity of 100 tons or 12 to 40?

    And the mass and dimensions of orbital objects will gradually grow. We want to stay in the backyards so that the same Chinese pass us by? So get around. They already have plans to create a carrier with a carrying capacity of 70-110 tons
    1. Days
      Days 23 July 2015 09: 05
      0
      Quote: Old26
      An accident of any of the "Angara" launch vehicles will lead to the termination of all flights of all modifications pending investigation and elimination of the causes

      We still have Protons and Unions continue to fly.

      Something you went too far about the mass of modules. The huge ISS has 14 main modules, 410 tons total weight, an average of 30 tons per module.

      And the Americans are going to launch Orion (25 tons) + an ATV-based service module (20 tons) + third-stage engines to Mars. For all this, the usual A5 (three launches), which had already flown, without upgrading to 37 tons at the IEO, would have been enough. But they have no experience in nuclear tugboats.

      So why do we spend big money on super-heavy launch vehicles for which there are no tasks? After all, the United States does not have Angara with the Unions, they fly on our rockets, and they throw money for the development of superheavy so that at once with one launch they send all components into orbit and give another impulse. If there were missiles and developments in nuclear tugboats, they would not be perverted like that.
  29. Old26
    Old26 23 July 2015 00: 46
    +1
    Quote: AIR-ZNAK
    the whole world is on the path to reducing payload by applying

    And so the whole world is building more load-carrying launch vehicles.
  30. World Cup 2014
    World Cup 2014 23 July 2015 01: 30
    0
    I'm certainly not a specialist, but how can you compare the heavy Angara and superheavy SLS, a delusional article is like comparing a Lada and Kamaz
  31. Old26
    Old26 23 July 2015 21: 38
    +1
    Quote: Dagen
    We still have Protons and Unions continue to fly.

    AND? Will the Union be able to launch a new ship with a mass of 14-18 tons into orbit? And how many more Protons will be competitive? Year? Two? Five?

    Quote: Dagen
    Something you went too far about the mass of modules. The huge ISS has 14 main modules, 410 tons total weight, an average of 30 tons per module.

    Read for a change how many modules were planned for Mir-2. You will be pleasantly surprised that the individual modules had to be 80 tonnes ...

    Quote: Dagen
    And the Americans are going to launch Orion (25 tons) + an ATV-based service module (20 tons) + third-stage engines to Mars. For all this, the usual A5 (three launches), which had already flown, without upgrading to 37 tons at the IEO, would have been enough. But they have no experience in nuclear tugboats.

    I don’t know where you got such data, but our publication on a manned flight to Mars gives the mass of the ship about 600-800 tons (with an over-the-air trajectory). 45 tons that you wrote about - maximum for flights around the moon, no more ... Some products will require as many, if not more, how many service module do you have

    Quote: Dagen
    So why do we spend big money on super-heavy launch vehicles for which there are no tasks?

    Will we plan and build superheavy carriers 10 years after they are needed? A very interesting way of developing domestic space exploration. Leading to a dead end from which there is no way ...
    1. Days
      Days 26 July 2015 01: 41
      0
      No, this is only in case you voiced if the hangar flights are temporarily suspended. And in fairness, the Star module (20 tons) was displayed just by Proton. What will happen to Protons? After 5 years, they will turn into a pumpkin and will not be able to fly parallel to the Angara if the Angara and the Unions cannot cope (and if an extra-heavy Russian LV is not developed)?

      Yes, they planned to launch Mir-2 with the help of Energy. Now the Energy is gone (which of course is bad).

      I searched and read about the plans for the Russian flight to Mars: http://www.federalspace.ru/130/. On the very first page of the 4th chapter (Interplanetary orbital spacecraft), the use of the existing infrastructure is separately specified, with output modules of 20-35 tons each. If it were Energy, it would be removed by Energy. I didn’t write it, some American academics wrote them, but I just cited the official data. Total for the currently planned expeditions superheavy launch vehicle is not a blocking factor.

      We again returned to the same point. Again emotions and loud statements. Of course, cosmonautics will continue to develop in the future, more powerful power plants will appear. But now and in the near future there are no tasks. You can’t spray and throw away billions on what will be in demand in the distant future, if we still can’t provide the current one. Not to mention the fact that superheavy carriers will need new launching tables, which are generally not found anywhere in Russia. Even for the A7, new tables and infrastructure will be needed, which has become another plus specifically for upgrading the A5 to 37 tons at the IEO.
  32. Old26
    Old26 23 July 2015 21: 39
    +1
    Quote: Dagen
    After all, the United States does not even have Angara with the Unions, they fly on our rockets, and they throw money for the development of superheavy so that at once with one launch they send all components into orbit and give another impulse. If there were missiles and developments in nuclear tugboats, they would not be perverted like that.

    Do not repeat the nonsense so popular on the Internet. The Americans bought about 100 engines from us. Some have already been received, some have not. On the Atlas-5 carrier - 1 engine, if it is in the HEVI version - there will be 3. Since 2000, the Americans have made 61 launches with our engines out of 295 launched. As you can see - 1/5. That is, in 80 cases out of 100 they fly on their rockets. Do not exaggerate the importance of the delivery of RD-180 engines for the American space program. They just made the optimal move. They buy ours while they bring their own. And believe me, they have much more engine options than they do with us. And why bother, investing extra billions for speed, when you can use "taxi drivers" and calmly, without straining to make your own.
    They have their own developments, and their carriers, and what is most unpleasant for us - they test their ships. A total of 5 options. Moreover, more carrying capacity than our "Soyuz" and "Progress", our new ship is now planned almost for 2024, and they are going to test all of their own in 2016-2018, and 4 of them are in the manned version. And where, in what well ... e we find ourselves in five years with our "Unions" ??

    Quote: WWWeek-2014
    I'm certainly not a specialist, but how can you compare the heavy Angara and superheavy SLS, a delusional article is like comparing a Lada and Kamaz

    Not a heavy Angara is compared with a superheavy SLS. We are talking about the fact that we made a fetish from the Angara and do not want to admit that the choice was unsuccessful, deadlock. A promising safely poh ... whether
  33. Old26
    Old26 23 July 2015 21: 39
    +1
    Quote: Dagen
    After all, the United States does not even have Angara with the Unions, they fly on our rockets, and they throw money for the development of superheavy so that at once with one launch they send all components into orbit and give another impulse. If there were missiles and developments in nuclear tugboats, they would not be perverted like that.

    Do not repeat the nonsense so popular on the Internet. The Americans bought about 100 engines from us. Some have already been received, some have not. On the Atlas-5 carrier - 1 engine, if it is in the HEVI version - there will be 3. Since 2000, the Americans have made 61 launches with our engines out of 295 launched. As you can see - 1/5. That is, in 80 cases out of 100 they fly on their rockets. Do not exaggerate the importance of the delivery of RD-180 engines for the American space program. They just made the optimal move. They buy ours while they bring their own. And believe me, they have much more engine options than they do with us. And why bother, investing extra billions for speed, when you can use "taxi drivers" and calmly, without straining to make your own.
    They have their own developments, and their carriers, and what is most unpleasant for us - they test their ships. A total of 5 options. Moreover, more carrying capacity than our "Soyuz" and "Progress", our new ship is now planned almost for 2024, and they are going to test all of their own in 2016-2018, and 4 of them are in the manned version. And where, in what well ... e we find ourselves in five years with our "Unions" ??

    Quote: WWWeek-2014
    I'm certainly not a specialist, but how can you compare the heavy Angara and superheavy SLS, a delusional article is like comparing a Lada and Kamaz

    Not a heavy Angara is compared with a superheavy SLS. We are talking about the fact that we made a fetish from the Angara and do not want to admit that the choice was unsuccessful, deadlock. A promising safely poh ... whether
    1. Days
      Days 26 July 2015 02: 37
      0
      We are talking about the absence of missiles in relation to the withdrawal of heavy loads. Your version of "HEVI" with three URM for Atlas-5 should output just 29 tons to LEO. But he still does not fly. The maximum configuration with which the Atlas-5 flew is 9 tons. "Delta IV Heavy" was launched: once from 1 tons at LEO and 26 times from 7 tons at LEO. The large number of launches you cited are light commercial satellites.

      Please note: both configuration options for missiles are maximum, and they give a load like our already flying A5. The upgraded A5 and A7 (in the case of the construction of the necessary launching sites on the East) will output more. That’s why I’m saying that they don’t have missiles to carry a heavy load, we have a much better situation with this - we have an Angara. Therefore, they immediately develop superheavy, which is suitable only for lunar and Martian missions, and which awaits the fate of Saturn 5 and Energy: one and a half launches, oblivion and loss of the technological chain.

      We will not end up in any w..e, only your conceit and the old soviet "overtake the USA!" The same Unions / Progress will fly in parallel with the PPTS for a long time. Well, you are wrong about American vehicles: Orion - 2021 manned flight tests; CST-100 first unmanned test launches postponed to 2017, piloted later; Dragon V2 - The first launch is planned for 2016, also unmanned.

      Let's put aside the opinion "everything is lost!" as untenable and return to the superheavy launch vehicle. The total cost of its development is 800 billion rubles (1 trillion rubles for the full implementation of the necessary infrastructure for the lunar mission). The cost of modernizing the Angara to A5B is 60 billion rubles (150 billion rubles with the entire ground infrastructure). And remember also that, as we discussed above, A5B is quite enough for both lunar and Martian missions. So why are you repeating that "everything is lost", that we will find ourselves in well ... and that we need to throw out a trillion?