Military Review

Space in open access

49
The state needs more than one super powerful launch vehicle


As you know, the main document defining the interests of the state, the main goals, priorities and tasks of Russia in the field of research, exploration and use of space is approved by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in April 2013 “The foundations of state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of space activities 2030 of the Year and the Future. ”

In accordance with this document, the main priorities are to ensure the guaranteed access of Russia to space from its territory with the development and use of space technology, technology, work and services in the interests of the socio-economic sphere and national defense, as well as state security; the creation of space assets in the interests of science; activities related to manned flights, including the creation of a scientific and technical reserve for manned flights to planets and other bodies of the Solar system in the framework of international cooperation.

Space in open access


Realization of these goals is ensured through the use and development of existing scientific, technical and production potentials for the creation of promising means of launching, interorbital tugs, target and service systems of automatic space vehicles (KA), manned spacecraft of new generation, infrastructure elements for deep space activities and breakthrough technologies for solving target problems and production technologies.

The result will be the preservation of Russia's status as one of the leading space powers, confirmation of self-sufficiency in ensuring its own space activities across the full range of tasks requiring the creation of an orbital group of spacecraft based on an economically efficient fleet of Russian launch vehicles.

The need to maintain stable positions and competitiveness in the launch services market is an incentive for improving the technical and economic indicators of HR, above all, increasing their energy capabilities.

Most clearly, all these factors manifested themselves on the example of the most economically successful product of the Russian cosmonautics - the heavy-class Proton PH. It was the launch of the Proton launch vehicle on the international launch services market and its continuous modernization that allowed the GKNPTs to them. MV Khrunicheva survive in 90-s and "zero" and maintain industrial cooperation, ensuring the maintenance of the Russian orbital grouping of the spacecraft and participation in international projects.

Payload on competition scales


In order to decide which SVs to develop in the FKP-2025, it is necessary to understand that the energy capabilities of the PH are determined by the mass of the payload being put into the working orbit. Often, though not entirely correctly, the low-Earth orbit with an altitude of 200 kilometers and an inclination equal to the latitude of the starting point is used to estimate the energy of the PH. This orbit as a working one is not used for the functioning of a spacecraft, because, due to the deceleration of the atmosphere, the spacecraft's lifetime does not exceed a week on it. Among the diversity of spacecraft the most expensive and resource-intensive market of telecommunications spacecraft operating in geostationary orbit.



There are two features of the commercial launches of telecommunications spacecraft. The mass of commercial spacecraft is growing faster than that launched by federal programs. But as you can see on the graph, even the mass of commercial spacecraft is far from endless and their launch does not require a super-heavy rocket class (RL STK) type SLS.

There are also differences in the ballistic scheme of commercial launches. It so happened that, in contrast to domestic spacecraft, foreign spacecraft are not immediately put into geostationary orbit, but into an intermediate high-legged “standard geo-transitional orbit”. The spacecraft separated from the PH on it, after a ballistic pause for about five hours at the apogee of the orbit, with the help of its own propulsion system, it processes the impulse ensuring the formation of a geostationary orbit. Taking into account the fuel consumption, the mass of the payload put into the intermediate geo-transition orbit should be approximately 1,6 times more than in the working orbit, that is, geostationary.

But back to Proton, the need to maintain competitiveness in the launch services market led to four stages of modernization from the Proton-K initial version to Proton-M and development for the Proton launch vehicle, the new Briz-M upper stage, which made it possible to increase the mass of the payload put into geostationary orbit from 2,6 to 3,5 tons and to geo-transition orbit from 4,5 to 6,3 tons. But no matter how good a carrier Proton is, its launches are not made from the territory of Russia. There are problems with the supply of fuel for Proton, a highly toxic heptyl used on combat missiles and belonging to substances of the first, highest class of danger.



The country's leadership has set the industry the task of ensuring guaranteed access to space from its territory - spacecraft launches should be made by rockets designed and manufactured in Russia. In addition, it is necessary to improve the environmental safety of launches by eliminating the use of toxic fuels.

These tasks should be accomplished by the program to create a heavy-duty Angar rocket launcher, which will ensure the delivery of telecommunication and meteorological spacecraft and spacecraft to the geostationary orbit, ensuring the defense and security of the state.

Unfortunately, the Angara carrier rocket was created for quite a long time. A government decree on the development of a heavy class space rocket complex (KRK) was made based on a tender held for 22 year before the first launch of the launch vehicle. Real financing of the program began after 2005. It made it possible to conduct two successful test launches in 2014, and to plan launch launches with target payloads from 2016. When launched from the Plesetsk cosmodrome, the Angara-A5 PH with cryogenic RB KVTK will provide the 4,5 tons of the payload 7,5 tons to the geostationary orbit, and the BNZ-X UNT-XNNXN-XNXXN to the standard geo-transfer orbit (when using the Breeze-M ”-X NN XNNX X orNTX) respectively).

When deploying the Angara Aerospace Complex at the Vostochny cosmodrome, the Angara-A5 PH with the oxygen-hydrogen RB KVTK will ensure that the payload of up to five tons to the geostationary orbit and up to eight tons to the geo-transfer orbit. This energy reserve is sufficient in the near future to launch spacecraft under federal programs, but it does not allow competing for launching high-end spacecraft with new foreign heavy-duty heavy-duty rocket class Delta-IVH, Ariane-5ECA and Atlas-5. In particular, the Atlas-5 500-series PH puts the geo-transfer orbit up to 8,7 tons, and the most powerful of the PH used to launch the US Department of Defense spacecraft (Delta-IVH), provides payload weights up to 13,1 tons to the geo-transfer orbit.



After a comprehensive analysis of the priorities and requirements for energy capabilities of the SV, as well as the state of the space services market, the Roscosmos NTS determined that to solve tasks in outer space, including the removal of promising spacecraft weighing at least seven tons into a geostationary orbit and 12 tons into a geo-transitional spacecraft The PH capable of outputting at least 35 tons of payload to a low near-earth orbit.

Such a PH - "Angara-A5В" can be created by replacing the oxygen-kerosene third stage of the PH "Angara-A5" with an oxygen-hydrogen stage of a new development. The Angara-A5В PH is most unified with the Angara-A5 PH created, including on the ground-based space infrastructure facilities. For the energy capabilities of the Angara-A5В, the PH will correspond to the foreign high-capacity Ariane-6 (Europe), Vulkan (USA), CZ-5 (China) and H-3 (Japan) under development, and will provide near-term competitiveness of the Russian heavy-duty aircraft in the global space services market.

Our heavy "Proton-M" and "Angara-A5" LVs with liquid rocket engines (LRE) are commensurate with foreign RNs in terms of load capacity and the mass of the payload put into given orbits.

With or without gas


At present, the fleet of domestic military aircraft consists of the Rokot light class RN, the Soyuz medium class RN with the Fregat RB and the Proton heavy class RN with the DM and Briz RB.

In the near future, the “heptyl” PH “Rokot” and “Proton” will be replaced by environmentally friendly PH of the Angara family. At the same time, it is planned to improve the technology and reduce the cost of the Angara-A5 serial launcher. Work is also planned to replace the “heptyl” RB “Fregat” with a small-sized RB “ML” with environmentally friendly components. It is also planned to replace the veteran of the national rocket technology of the Soyuz launch vehicle with a promising middle-class launch vehicle, created as part of the Phoenix development work. During its development, it is planned to implement promising technologies that will improve operational performance, including the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a rocket fuel.

Space in open access


What is interesting LNG? The main advantage is the fundamental possibility of reducing the cost of a propulsion system (RL) due to a radical decrease in the operating pressure in the engine combustion chamber (from 250 – 260 to 160 – 170 atmospheres) with a slight (≈4%) increase in the void specific impulse. The increase in the last parameter allows you to maintain the achieved level of energy-mass characteristics of the PH stages, despite the doubly lower LNG density compared to kerosene. The peculiarity of liquid rocket engines for LNG is the possibility of developing a recovery circuit engine that is less prone to transient explosive emergency situations. In general, preliminary technical and economic assessments show that we can expect a reduction in the cost of a remote control for LNG by about 1,5 times as compared to a remote control based on existing high-pressure kerosene rocket engines, which will increase the competitiveness of domestic LVs.

Assessing the experience of creating a super heavy-duty carrier rocket, it should be noted that Energia - Buran is undoubtedly the apogee of domestic rocket technology, an outstanding program in terms of organization, concentration of resources, achievements in the development of new structural and heat-shielding materials, the development of powerful technology kerosene and hydrogen engines, production and transportation of large volumes of liquid hydrogen, hypersonic aerodynamics, etc. The whole country worked on it, but deployed this space system in orbit the state did not have the means, strength and targets. At the same time, over a third of the funds allocated for space activities were spent over 10 years of work on the creation of the “Energy” - “Buran” complex, which affected the efficiency of the implementation of its other areas.

During this period, the European Space Agency (ESA) developed and began launching the Ariane-4 medium-class PH. The Arianspace company with this rocket took more than half of the market of commercial launches into geo-transfer orbit and, earning money, created a heavy-duty Ariane-5 class RN, which still provides for the implementation of ESA space programs and holds over 40 percent of the global launch services market.

The newspaper "Military Industrial Complex" (No. 27) wrote: "... 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", but estimates show that all military tasks in the foreseeable future The Pentagon will solve using a heavy-class PH type Delta IVH and Atlas-5, rather than the SLS PH, created for interplanetary flights. The energy capabilities of the 25-tonne PH class of the Angara-A5 and the PH of the 130-tonne class of the SLS are incorrect to compare - it’s like saying: “The 130-ton dump truck is better than KamAZ, and Gazel is not a machine at all”. Not at all: any vehicle - a car or a rocket, to be effective, must be operated near the upper limit of its energy potential. If the PH is run empty, the specific cost of removing the payload increases, and this is one of the main indicators of the effectiveness of the PH. Therefore, the state needs not one superpowering PH, but an optimally balanced CB park of various payloads for specific payloads. If there are no such payloads for the PH, then it risks dividing the fate of Energia. By the way, it is indicative that at the end of the program to fly to the moon, NASA and the US Department of Defense sent the museum to the museum without finding a payload for them.

The question of the target use of the STK launch vehicle was considered at the Roscosmos NTS - they came to the conclusion that there was no need for the withdrawal of single-cargo mass 50 – 70 tons before 2030 – 2035. The priorities of the space industry of Russia, we repeat, are defined in the “Fundamentals of state policy in the field of space activities ...” The primary tasks are the development of orbital spacecraft groupings for scientific, socio-economic and dual use. That is why, in the direction of developing a super-heavy-duty PH class, Roskosmos Scientific and Technical Council decided, prior to 2025, to limit the development of scientific and technical potential and the development of promising technologies.

It must be admitted that now the state of the Russian orbital spacecraft is, to put it mildly, not the most prosperous. In particular, the remote sensing satellite (Earth remote sensing) satellite grouping consists of only seven spacecraft and satisfies the needs of domestic consumers at the 20 – 30 percent level, whereas the remote sensing spacecraft groups of the USA, European countries and China consist of more than 35 spacecraft each, providing global control surface of the Earth, including in the radar range. Even in India, the remote sensing spacecraft cluster includes 17 spacecraft. This is where the PCF-2025 should go first - to the development of communications, navigation, remote sensing, meteorology satellites, including satellites with high all-weather spatial resolution, which is especially important for Siberia, the Far North, the Arctic and the Far East.

As the ballistic calculations, when you start from the cosmodrome Vostochny optimized version RN "Angara-A5V" with upgraded cryogenic RB KVTK-B will provide injection into geosynchronous transfer orbit payload mass of up to 11,9 tons and in geostationary orbit - to 7,2 tons, as well as the possibility of implementing the initial phases of the lunar manned program using the four-launch scheme (see fig.): two paired launches of the launch vehicle providing separate delivery to the lunar orbit of the lunar landing and take-off complex (LPVM) and The transport ship is being piloted (PTK) with their docking in orbit of an artificial satellite of the Moon (OISL) and the subsequent landing of LPVK with the crew on the surface of the Moon.

Typical pair launch includes payload to the ballistic trajectory of the PTK or LPVK and small-size interorbital oxygen-kerosene tug (MOB2), created on the basis of RB "DM", which will ensure the removal of the payload to the low near-earth orbit and subsequent docking with a thyrahumy syley. tug (MOB1), developed on the basis of the reserve for RB KVTK. MOB1 with a starting mass of more than 38 tons is displayed according to the scheme with the second launch of the Angara-A5B. After docking in low-Earth orbit and phasing, the assembled lunar inter-orbit ship due to energy MOB1 is first displayed in a highly elliptical orbit. After the production of fuel hydrogen MOB1 is separated and the kerosene MOB2 completes the formation of the departure trajectory. Further, MOB2 provides correction of the trajectory on the flight to the Moon and the transfer of the payload to the circumlunar orbit. The project FKP-2025 provides for work on these funds.

Of course, the multi-trigger scheme is quite complicated, it requires the highest coordination: the starting team must work simultaneously on two PUs, like a clock. Preliminary technical and economic assessments show that the use of a multipurpose high-capacity 35-ton class instead of a specialized super-heavy 80-ton PH will make it possible to reduce financial costs by more than an order of magnitude at the initial stage of the lunar manned program, and saved resources can be used in the interests of the development of the Russian orbital spacecraft socio-economic, scientific and dual use.

With regard to the use of solid fuel boosters (TTU) as part of the LV, it should be noted here that solid propellant rocket engines (RDTTs) have not only advantages, but also disadvantages compared to specific thrust impulses, worse than ~ 10 – 30 percent weight perfection of the design, fire and explosion hazard of production and equipment of the fuel charge, limiting the operating time, thrust control, temperature conditions during start-up, the harmful effects of combustion products on the environment. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the increased 30 – 40 percent cost of a PH with RTDT compared to a PH with a LRE and the need to invest significant funds in the development of the production, technological and testing base for creating large-sized solid propellant drives.

The use of large-size solid-propellant solid rocket motors as part of the LV was repeatedly considered in domestic projects, but taking into account the factors listed above, based on the comparison of alternatives, the choice was always made in favor of the LRE. Russia is a leader in the development and production of sustainer rocket engines, which are acquired by customers, including those from the United States. In the project FKP-2025, it is planned to develop the technology for creating a starting solid propellant solid propellant with a load of approximately 100 tons. The expediency of using solid propellant solid propellant rocket engines in prospective launch vehicles, for example, in the same Phoenix, will be determined later, based on the results of detailed analysis.

In conclusion: it is clear that the project FKP-2025 can continue to be improved, nevertheless, in terms of development of launch vehicles, this document is quite balanced, it reflects the real state of affairs and determines the prospects for the development of this branch of the industry to 2025, taking into account the established priorities of space activities and opportunities state to finance it.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/26713
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rosarioagro
    rosarioagro 29 August 2015 07: 31 New
    +1
    with the help of SLS, they plan to send a research mission to Neptune with Uranus, it will turn out faster than using gravitational maneuvers from Jupiter and Saturn, tasks for an extra-heavy rocket can be found
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 29 August 2015 13: 38 New
      0
      all the same, there was a substitution of the concepts of spacecraft KA - this is American, and according to our SATELLITE, the authors have already forgotten about this in the pursuit of market "efficiency" ...
      1. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 29 August 2015 21: 06 New
        +3
        Quote: Sveles
        all the same, there was a substitution of the concepts of spacecraft KA - this is American, and according to our SATELLITE, the authors have already forgotten about this in the pursuit of market "efficiency" ...


        No, the spacecraft is not an "American-minded zum", but the definition of an entire CLASS of devices (from nanosatellites to lunar modules). What is the name of the Soyuz ship? Satellite, or what?

        So your untruth. I understand that the soul hurts, but do not put a shadow on the wattle fence.
        1. Sweles
          Sweles 31 August 2015 22: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: CT-55_11-9009
          What is the name of the Soyuz ship? Satellite, or what?


          SPACE SHIP, so called Korolev ...
  2. lotar
    lotar 29 August 2015 07: 48 New
    +4
    Once again, I’m convinced that in the era of Korolev we were closer to the Moon than now, many technologies are irretrievably lost. That’s what we are told on the telly can not be called bragging. Where breakthrough technologies can open the way to space exploration. Our politicians love more to cut financial pies than to invest in business. One is glad that not only in our country such disgrace is happening.
    1. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 29 August 2015 21: 13 New
      +2
      Quote: lotar
      Where breakthrough technologies can open the way to space exploration.


      In order to create breakthrough technologies, equally breakthrough discoveries in fundamental science are needed. Many (oh, many) projects got bogged down due to, for example, the lack of a compact powerful source of energy. And he will not be created without curbing fusion or breakthroughs in fundamental energy.
      And now we are squeezing the last crumbs from the fundamental achievements of science 40-50 years ago.

      Quote: lotar
      Once again, I am convinced that in the era of Korolev we were closer to the moon than now, many technologies are irretrievably lost.


      For example? H-1 does not count, many ideas from it migrated to other missiles.

      Quote: lotar
      .Our politicians are more fond of cutting financial pies than investing in business.


      But I will subscribe to this.
      1. rosarioagro
        rosarioagro 30 August 2015 16: 03 New
        0
        Well, immediately give the fusion, but what about atomic hydrogen? :-)
      2. opus
        opus 31 August 2015 02: 02 New
        0
        Quote: CT-55_11-9009
        For example? H-1 does not count, many ideas from it migrated to other missiles.

        what kind?
        H-1 had hanging tanks and a supporting body, like the FAU-2. Dead end forgotten by SP Royal on P-2 ...



        and for some reason implemented on H-1.
        Everything else on the H-1, from the P-7 (printsip)
  3. bistrov.
    bistrov. 29 August 2015 08: 19 New
    +3
    Yes, the use of space shuttle spacecraft of the Shuttle type has so far turned out to be a dead end and is now not in demand due to its extreme high cost, technical unreliability and the requirement for a crew. Soviet "Buran" worked in automatic mode. Even the Americans were forced to return to the old Soyuz-Progress type scheme. The USSR, chasing the United States, heading for the use of reusable spacecraft, threatened a lot of money and, as it turned out, wasted. But we had to go our own way, now we would already have their stations on the moon. Interestingly, the Americans really flew to the Moon, or it’s a “duck.” Because the spacecraft’s controls made it possible to track the spacecraft’s motion up to the Moon even then. I think that the Americans would hardly have decided on such an impudent deception.
    1. shonsu
      shonsu 29 August 2015 18: 00 New
      +2
      that’s exactly what I have no doubt about because the USA lies brazenly and constantly. and especially if it’s difficult to check.
    2. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 29 August 2015 21: 19 New
      +1
      At least, the facts are as follows: the Americans absolutely accurately filmed the "moon landing" in the Hollywood pavilion (this is for television, this fact was explained this way) and WERE NOT on the moon in 1969. And then we think for ourselves. Personally, I doubt that they were there at all.
    3. Aljavad
      Aljavad 31 August 2015 03: 44 New
      0
      Interestingly, the Americans really flew to the Moon, or it’s a “duck.” Because the spacecraft’s controls made it possible to track the spacecraft’s motion up to the Moon even then. I think that the Americans would hardly have decided on such an impudent deception.

      Do you believe Leonov Alexey? He says they flew. And he was the commander of our first lunar euipage (not flying). Sensing deception - would he endure? Would be silent? I don’t think so.
    4. 2nd 12th
      2nd 12th 2 September 2015 17: 18 New
      0
      Quote: bistrov.
      And interestingly, the Americans really flew to the moon, or is it a "duck"

      Some see it like this
      http://www.free-inform.com/
  4. pat
    pat 29 August 2015 08: 30 New
    +2
    The inertia of thinking is, alas, enormous; alas, a one-time plan for launching is planned.
    A “manipulator” manned for a long time should work in the earth’s orbit, the task for it is simple: to lift space objects from low orbits to the moon’s orbit, to remove space junk from orbits and much more, to be based on the ISS. Launch schemes will change and become cheaper. Say science fiction no from a youth read science fiction.
    1. avt
      avt 29 August 2015 09: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: pat
      The inertia of thinking is huge,

      Or maybe it’s not only inertia, it’s too much of a fat dough to be sawn at the proposed - “The state needs not one super-powerful launch vehicle, but the SV fleet.” Here it’s more like not reaching any goals in space, but a desire to steer onto, parking "in the hope of becoming a budget oligarch.
      Quote: lotar
      Once again, I am convinced that in the era of Korolev we were closer to the moon than now, many technologies are irretrievably lost.

      Already, during the time of Korolev, it became clear that the tasks in the “far” space could not be solved by chemical missiles. need other physical principles for the engines of spacecraft. And the proposed discussion of the multiplicity of barrels for "space exploration" is more like a discussion during the French Academy of the question -What to do with horse manure in Paris when the city grows and cartage increases. fool
      1. gjv
        gjv 29 August 2015 16: 28 New
        +3
        Quote: avt
        in “deep” space without overtaking with chemical rockets it IS IMPOSSIBLE to solve. Other physical principles for spacecraft engines are needed

        In the "outer" space they are used - Electrostatic ion engine, Electrostatic rocket engine, Hall effect engine, DC electrothermal engine. Plasma engines are also being developed. However, they are not suitable for lifting payloads from the surface of the planet. request
    2. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 29 August 2015 11: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: pat
      Say science fiction no from a youth read science fiction.

      Well, it's either a nuclear tug or solar panels should be just huge
    3. Aljavad
      Aljavad 31 August 2015 03: 46 New
      0
      The inertia of thinking is, alas, enormous; alas, a one-time plan for launching is planned.


      Reusable first step in development. Let's wait.
  5. srha
    srha 29 August 2015 10: 30 New
    +4
    The USSR from 55 to 57 and 61 to 6 years old, was able to go from the beginning of the construction of the cosmodrome, the first launch of the first satellite to manned flights, managed to throw the satellite onto the moon and fly around it! And the current ones promise to build a spaceport and conduct a manned launch in how many years? And when did you start to promise? 2023-2007 = 18 years. They follow the path of Khoja Nasredin.

    By the way, the proposed scheme of the lunar manned expedition is dangerous, expensive and unpromising, since it does not create the necessary infrastructure. But the Americans only to ensure their lunar program conducted about 20 unmanned missions.

    Briefly about how I see the real scheme of regular flights to the moon. First, the infrastructure is created - an intermediate station in Earth’s orbit, then a station in the Moon’s orbit with spare lunar landing and take-off modules, then the lunar take-off module lands on the Moon is tested, and only then, next to the finished take-off flight module, can astronauts land on the Moon. And the flight scheme is this: on the DOE, unmanned units are displayed, which are transferred by tugs to the earth station in tugs, where they are docked, checked and sent by tugs to the lunar station. At the Lunar Station check-dock-dock-refuel-re
    cages, then landing. Ion unmanned tugs are weak but economical and reusable. The spacecraft with the astronauts on the moon goes in a different way - a shorter and more energetic and fast scheme. Earth-GPO-LPO-Moon-LPO-Earth. By the way, in such a scheme, a reusable convenient and well-protected ship on the GPO-LPO line can be used.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 29 August 2015 11: 10 New
      0
      Quote: srha
      then the moon’s orbit station with spare lunar landing and take-off modules

      In my opinion, this is superfluous, not only is the moon’s gravitational field non-uniform, so much fuel and other support will have to be transported besides the Moon itself, I believe that it is necessary to find fuel (ice) on the Moon itself, abandon a portable Topaz reactor, mine, separate , liquefy and store, and in the future there to build an electromagnetic catapult for launching spacecraft, acceleration and take-off on a magnetic cushion, landing too, Muggles on the ground have already learned to do
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 29 August 2015 12: 32 New
      -2
      You can forget about flights to the Moon and Mars, we don’t have any rockets or money for them, most likely the USA and China will fly to the Moon and Mars, and we will stay at the side of the cosmonautics - selling engines and launching satellites.
      1. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 29 August 2015 21: 31 New
        +3
        "Shoot cowards and alarmists on the spot!"

        Quote: Vadim237
        You can forget about flights to the Moon and Mars, we don’t have any rockets for them,


        Comrade, with this phrase you offend all issues of the Moscow Aviation Institute, MSTU. Bauman, MATI, KAI and many other universities. And what, in your opinion, are engineers from space doing now? Do selfies on the background of a bag of dough do? Yeah, keep your pocket wider. The correct answer, oddly enough, works.

        Quote: Vadim237
        most likely the USA and China will fly to the Moon and Mars,

        As for the USA, we will still see it, but I agree with China. Only they too will work out their lunar program for a long time.


        Quote: Vadim237
        and we will stay on the sidelines of astronautics - selling engines and launching satellites.


        Tell me, wretched, who is serving the ISS? And who has considerable experience in the creation and operation of space stations ??? The USA and China? Or in India, for example?
        For Russia, there is always a case. But in general, before space exploration, we would, on good, on Earth, at least some semblance of order to restore order, and then some kind of mess is going on!
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 30 August 2015 00: 36 New
          0
          The Dregon spacecraft will be brought to mind, and there we can forget about the ISS service, the US is now actively engaged in super-heavy rocket and they are very successful, most likely it will fly in time for 2018, and our rocket was moved away, if not shut down , until 2030 and no promising launches of spacecraft are foreseen for the next 10 years, some countries are now actively engaged in air launch, even the development of an aerospace aircraft, so in the UK they create a Skylon plane in Switzerland SOAR in G Germany's SART in the USA, the ARCA air launch system is already in flight in 2016, and we have a complete zero in this direction, before the collapse of the USSR, we were ahead of everyone in the development of this field, but now everything is abandoned and there is a very high probability that when we start catching up with the rest, our space industry will lose orders for the launch of spacecraft.
          1. CT-55_11-9009
            CT-55_11-9009 30 August 2015 14: 05 New
            +2
            Well, you, swan, for ... got it.

            Quote: Vadim237
            The Dregon spaceship will be brought to mind and there we can forget about the ISS service


            For starters, not Dragon, but Dragon. Then - he, too, does not enter orbit himself, but with the help of the launch vehicle. This is also a spacecraft! Like the Union, and our promising spacecraft to replace the Union (forgot the name, I repent).


            Quote: Vadim237
            The US is now actively engaged in super heavy rocket


            What are her tasks? Communication satellites output? Or serve the ISS? Even the Americans will not SO spend loot. Enough for this Atlas.

            Quote: Vadim237
            until 2030 and no promising spacecraft launches are expected for the next 10 years


            No comments. Are you an employee of the space rocket industry? Or the head of Roskosmos?

            Quote: Vadim237
            Some countries are now actively engaged in air launch, even the development of an aerospace aircraft, so in the UK they are creating a Skylon plane in Switzerland SOAR in Germany SART in the USA ARCA air launch system - in 2016 it will already be flying


            Already discussed this. Unprofitable for energy! Highly!
            1. rosarioagro
              rosarioagro 30 August 2015 16: 05 New
              0
              Quote: CT-55_11-9009
              What are her tasks? Communication satellites output? Or serve the ISS? Even the Americans will not SO spend loot.

              Argo mission to Neptune with Uranus send
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 30 August 2015 18: 50 New
              0
              The program of Roscosmos has already been thrown out before 2025 and there is nothing promising in it - only reductions. If an air start is not profitable, then why is everyone actively involved in it?
          2. Aljavad
            Aljavad 31 August 2015 03: 55 New
            0
            The US is now actively engaged in super heavy rocket


            Yes. Based on shuttle technology. And they themselves do not know why they need it. And whether they will complete the work.

            The Constellation program was also beautifully drawn. There was even one launch. But she covered herself with a copper basin.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 31 August 2015 11: 17 New
              0
              The United States will complete the creation of the rocket, NASA has all the programs far ahead of schedule.
  6. jayich
    jayich 29 August 2015 10: 59 New
    +3
    I’m wondering, why the hell did I create an analogue of the Soyuz launch vehicle the so-called phoenix, when is there an Angara that was designed including in the passenger version?
    Now I’ll walk through the Angara, why present it as an achievement of science and technology when it is a step backward compared to the LV Energia. The article says that the use of hydrogen will help to increase the efficiency of the rocket as a whole, and the central unit on Energia was already on hydrogen, that the returnable Baikal side modules were being worked out, and the next step was a step towards a fully returned system. This is a step forward.
    At this stage, for guaranteed access to space, 2 Angara launch vehicles of up to 50 tons and Energy of up to 200 tons are sufficient.
    The article did not notice references to nuclear tugboat, and the engine is already there for the development of the solar system, but for normal operation a spaceship of the order of 150-200 tons is needed for at least flight to Mars, and this can only be done by the Vulkan LV further development of Energy "
    I’m interested in the Mig-31, Tu-160, etc. they resume production, but why is everyone silent about the "Energy", and there is talk of some kind of creation of a heavy carrier rocket, that’s why reinvent the wheel when it is invented.
    1. rosarioagro
      rosarioagro 29 August 2015 11: 11 New
      +2
      Quote: jayich
      when it is a step back compared to the Energia launch vehicle.

      Well, not just a step, it's just part of the same Energy. more precisely part from part :-)
    2. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs 29 August 2015 11: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: jayich
      but why is everyone silent about Energy

      The production technology of the RD-0120 hydrogen engines has been lost. The shots are gone, the equipment is cut, the producer is breathing in the thick. Side boosters (Zenit LV) were produced at Yuzhmash in Ukraine, no further explanation is needed. There is no necessary equipment in Russia.
      1. jayich
        jayich 29 August 2015 12: 06 New
        +1
        The documentation remained, the NK-33 production was restored, the KBKhA is alive and well there the production modernization has passed not so long ago, so where to do and what to do we know the last thing to restore is the production restoration. In general, for good at this stage, I think it’s worth working on pulse explosive engines, i.e. a series of microexplosions of the same hydrogen, the energy released will be higher. Side boosters must be made immediately reusable.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 29 August 2015 12: 26 New
          0
          Baikalov was abandoned in view of the complexity of the design, high cost and inefficiency - a beautiful idea in reality was not effective.
          1. Jurkovs
            Jurkovs 29 August 2015 14: 06 New
            +3
            Quote: Vadim237
            Baikalov was abandoned in view of the complexity of the design, high cost and inefficiency - a beautiful idea in reality was not effective.

            Baikals were to be used on Energy-2 as a further development of Energy-M. The final launch of the latter was canceled in '93, as she unexpectedly lost the tender of the bare Angara concept. And this is the most mysterious story.
          2. Aqr009
            Aqr009 31 August 2015 02: 56 New
            +1
            A model of a reusable space-rocket system (MRKS), developed by the GKNPTs im. M.V. Khrunicheva. Source: TsAGI

            They did not refuse Baikal, as such, just what was shown at the salons - it was, something like a concept, a prototype. Research continued as part of the reusable space rocket system (MRKS-1), model testing of which began at TsAGI.
            “In contrast to the Baikal project, the MRKS-1 will have not rigid planes (wings), but fixed ones. Such a technical solution will reduce the likelihood of emergency situations when the device enters the landing trajectory."
            MRKS-1MRKS-1
        2. Jurkovs
          Jurkovs 29 August 2015 14: 10 New
          +1
          Quote: jayich
          NK-33 production restored

          Today's information. They refused to restore production of the NK-33, since the customers of the engine disappeared. After Falcon’s accident, the Americans replaced it with RD-181, and decided to install RD-2.1 on Soyuz-191V. Both engines are clones of the famous RD-170 with Energy.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 29 August 2015 14: 26 New
            0
            But they can renew NK 39 for the Swedish spacecraft.
            1. hoot
              hoot 29 August 2015 17: 51 New
              0
              You probably wanted to say Swedish, not Swedish. By the way, the Swiss SOAR resembles our MAKS project
              MAXMAX

              SOAR
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 29 August 2015 19: 13 New
                0
                Everyone is engaged in spacecraft except us.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Aljavad
      Aljavad 31 August 2015 04: 01 New
      0
      but why is everyone silent about Energy,


      Energy is curled - because there was nothing to launch it.
      Do not renew - it did not appear what to launch with it.

      Why did Danila buy a sedan and not a truck? Why carry it? And gas is expensive.
    4. Aljavad
      Aljavad 31 August 2015 04: 13 New
      +1
      but why is everyone silent about Energy,


      Energy is curled - because there was nothing to launch it.
      Do not renew - it did not appear what to launch with it.

      Why did Danila buy a sedan and not a truck? Why carry it? And gas is expensive.
  7. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 29 August 2015 11: 15 New
    +10
    Usually a rocket is made for planned tasks. With us, as always, the opposite is true. The figures who designed the Angara now come up with, to justify its existence, a lunar mission in four starts. And in every way they advertise it. Idiocy rolls over. At one time, Korolev carried out a group flight of the three Vostoks (Bykovsky. Popovich, Tereshkova). For this, three launching tables, three MIKs and three ships were required. Any specialist will say that it is possible to re-launch from the same launch pad, collecting the rocket in the same MIK no earlier than in a month. Two starting complexes also can not do. To fly to the moon, hydrogen booster blocks are needed, otherwise the weight will go off scale and no rockets from the earth will tear this load off. But hydrogen tends to diffuse through the walls of the tanks, it is known that during Apollo flights to the Moon with a ten-day mission, up to 10% of hydrogen escaped from the tanks of the reverse booster stage. Now imagine how much hydrogen will remain in the LPVK tanks in a month. So you need to have four starting tables and four complexes. But who will give money for this? And the last, even if all this is created, experts say that with any launch of the rocket, there are temporary delays, delayed launch. Imagine how much delay will accumulate by the fourth launch and how this will affect the entire flight program. Do you think the authors of the article do not know all this? They know! But they continue to advertise their product and continue to powder their brains to the country's leadership, otherwise they just have to be planted.
    And now information for thought. On May 15.05.87, 15.11.88, the first launch of Energy was completed. 1/4/0120, the second launch with Buran. Both launches are successful. But it has already become clear that there are no more loads for Energy, Buran is an expensive and not very necessary toy. We and the Americans already knew this, and therefore their Shuttles simply flew their resources. To save the project, OKB-36 has developed a simplified modification of Energy. Instead of 89 RD-91 engines, only one was installed on the central block; instead of four side blocks, only two were used and received a payload of 94 tons. The rocket was supposed to replace Proton. From 93 to 94, all tests were carried out, a model of the rocket was made, and it was tried on at the launch pad in Baikonur. The first launch was scheduled for 2014 years. But in '100, at an unexpectedly scheduled tender, a practically-made rocket lost the competition for the bare Angara concept. The main comment on Energy-M was that it is more expensive than Proton. And instead of 50, we saw the starting Angara in XNUMX, and it was also more expensive than Proton. Energy-M easily turned into XNUMX tons of Energy, and the Angara cannot be upgraded even to XNUMX tons. Along the way, technologies for manufacturing hydrogen engines were lost, the launch complex on Baikonur collapsed, and rockets and Buranes ready for launch were destroyed.
    Question to the Prosecutor General. Who initiated the tender of 93 years? How did the Angara win on it? How in 98 did the TsiH arbitrarily change the terms of reference to the Angara? Who will be responsible for the already lost 20 years and the complete lack of prospects for the future. "Every mistake must have a last name and a middle name!"
    1. tanit
      tanit 29 August 2015 12: 58 New
      -6
      I’m embarrassed to ask, but are you really? Or do you get paid for it? laughing
      Well, about getting paid - I got excited about it, sorry. You are a beautiful person ...
    2. Sweles
      Sweles 29 August 2015 13: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Question to the Prosecutor General. Who initiated the tender of 93 years? How did the Angara win on it? How in 98 did the TsiH arbitrarily change the terms of reference to the Angara? Who will be responsible for the already lost 20 years and the complete lack of prospects for the future. "Every mistake should have a surname and a middle name"


      indeed this Angara is not a breakthrough direction at all, but trampling on the spot, except that nature will be freed from heptyl, everything else, some kind of stupid talk ...
    3. Justme
      Justme 30 August 2015 11: 28 New
      0
      For good
      you need to have something like an open technical audit (in the good sense of the word) looking after the party leading our space.
  8. tanit
    tanit 29 August 2015 12: 54 New
    +3
    Proton is gone. He left normally. What questions are there?
    The union will leave on September 2, also regularly.
    Who, besides Russia, can launch something even remotely reminiscent of? The correct answer is who.
    So, the Russian cosmos is dead, right? laughing
  9. gjv
    gjv 29 August 2015 16: 36 New
    +1
    What is LNG interesting for? The main advantage is the fundamental possibility of reducing the cost of the propulsion system (LV) of the LV due to a radical decrease in the operating pressure in the combustion chamber of the engine (from 250–260 to 160–170 atmospheres) with a slight (≈4%) ​​increase in the void specific impulse. An increase in the latter parameter allows one to maintain the achieved level of the energy-mass characteristics of the LV stages, despite the half-density of LNG in comparison with kerosene.

    And the Americans are trying to increase pressure on SLS. I wonder who is going the right way, comrades?
  10. Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 29 August 2015 17: 15 New
    0
    Well, while the enemies ride on our freebie, and we stomp on the spot, the same enemies are slowly exploring deep space with distant planets. It can be seen that the brains of the “government” are completely bent off. .
    1. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 29 August 2015 21: 35 New
      +3
      Well, so we fold our legs and go to bed in a coffin, or what? And this freebie feeds not one enterprise, by the way.
  11. serverny
    serverny 29 August 2015 23: 40 New
    +2
    Quote: lotar
    Our politicians are more fond of cutting financial pies than investing in business.

    Do not enlighten what urgent matters on the Moon are in a country that does not draw resources from all over the planet and cannot afford to spend tens / hundreds of billions of dollars on a project that will not bring any military / commercial and almost no scientific benefits?
    1. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 30 August 2015 14: 12 New
      +2
      Quote: serverny
      a project that will not bring any military / commercial and almost no scientific benefits?


      Commercial benefits in a short time - will not bring in any way. But with the scientific you bent, and much. We have not even crawled out the Earth completely for millennia of life on it. What can we say about the moon with only dozens of automatic expeditions!
  12. Cosmos-1869
    Cosmos-1869 30 August 2015 17: 46 New
    +2
    Quote: Jurkovs
    At one time, Korolev carried out a group flight of the three Vostoks (Bykovsky. Popovich, Tereshkova). For this, three launching tables, three MIKs and three ships were required.

    You are slightly mistaken. wink
    Popovich flew in tandem with Nikolaev, and Bykovsky and Tereshkova. These were flights of TWO "Vostoks". The first flight of THREE ships Soyuz-6, -7, -8 took place in October 1969, after the death of Sergei Pavlovich.
  13. Svetlana
    Svetlana 6 September 2015 12: 14 New
    -1
    Quote: Vadim237
    some countries are now actively engaged

    Canadian engineers to launch spacecraft into orbit offer to make a tower of reinforced inflatable sections with an internal elevator.
    For vertical stabilization of the tower, it is proposed to use a flywheel system that will provide dynamic stability and will act as compressors for the structure.
    Flywheels will be able to adjust pressure and rotation, compensate for any bending of the tower
    and they will keep it in a fixed state all the time. see http: //techvesti.ru/node/8012
    To raise the inflatable tower to a height of 20 km, you can also create vertical lifting force with fans (like drones), attached to the outside of the inflatable tower uniformly over its entire height.
    An inflatable tower can be corrugated and rise upwards after assembly on the ground - gradually. Corrugations can be spiral or sectioned.
    When lifting the pipe, first stretch the upper sections of the corrugations with lifting electric fans located on the perimeter of the corrugated sections. Then stretch more and more lower corrugations, until all sections of the corrugations are stretched to the maximum calculated values ​​of stretching. Power supply to electric fans is transmitted through electric cables fixed to the inner walls of the corrugated sections.
    To keep the tower in the air, you can also create lift by ascending air flows outside the tower. In this embodiment, wings are fixed to the outer surface of the tower along the entire height - fixed blade crowns for transmitting vertical thrust from the vertical air flow around the inflatable tower to the shell of the inflatable tower.
    Vertical convective airflow outside around the inflatable tube in the air
    they are formed due to convective heat transfer from the walls of the inflatable tube heated by tape heat-electric heaters built into the wall of the inflatable pipe. You can also warm with solar or microwave radiation, focused on the outer surface of the inflatable tube.
    The inside of the pipe to its inner surface also fixed fixed blade crowns for axial swirling of the internal air flow. Since the upward flow in the pipe is twisted, then the torque will allow the tower-pipe to stabilize the vertical shape.
    Compressed air is pumped into the inflatable tube into the base of the inflatable tube.
    As the compressed air pumped into the inflatable corrugated pipe rises, the air flow inside the pipe is heated through the surface heat exchanger on the walls of the inflatable pipe. The air moving upward inside the inflatable pipe due to the friction force on the pipe walls gives an impulse to the walls, creating a vertical thrust force distributed over the entire height of the pipe. holding an inflatable tube in the air.
    The swirling air flow passing through the entire length of the inflatable tube is discharged downward through the rotary nozzles on the upper part of the tube. By controlling the thrust of the rotary nozzles at the top of the pipe, they compensate for the horizontal pressure force of the atmospheric wind on the inflatable pipe.
    The cargo will be delivered upward through the pneumatic pipe due to the pumping pressure. At the top of the pipe, a headlight can be placed for tracking.