Ugly space

Fears that Russia cannot survive without a super-heavy launch vehicle are groundless


The development of the draft federal space program of Russia for 2016 – 2025 years (FKP-2025) is carried out on the instructions of the Russian government. Space exploration is a very expensive business, where the price of possible mistakes can be expressed in the amount of billions of rubles. That is why it is important to prevent major errors at an early stage of project implementation.

This is especially true today, when the country is experiencing serious financial difficulties.

In the newspaper "VPK" in the article "The narrow departmental thrust" defended the relevance of creating a super heavy rocket launcher with a starting solid-fuel accelerators (TTU). I would like to express my opinion on this.

We have everything


The article states that supposedly our potential adversary is betting on powerful carriers for launching the impact weapons, and the leadership of Russia does not notice the abandoned call.

Ugly spaceHonestly, it all reminds of a fairly forgotten project of a strategic defense initiative (SDI), voiced by President Reagan in 1983. Our leading scientists already correctly understood the problem. Having thoroughly studied all the details, they unequivocally recognized the SDI program as utopian, having scientifically substantiated their conclusions and reported this to the top leadership of the country. With the technology of the time to achieve the desired result, the Americans would not have succeeded.

Of course, over the past thirty-odd years, science and technology have advanced significantly. But this does not mean at all that all technical problems have been solved, and it is time to deploy heavy combat platforms in space orbit. In addition, over the past years, the process of miniaturization has steadily proceeded in space technology. Satellites have become much lighter, and their capabilities have increased many times. Super heavy rocket now absolutely no demand on the line of the Ministry of Defense, and there is no point in undertaking their creation, especially in an emergency order, throwing money down the drain.

Yes, indeed, in 1987, the LV Energia was to put into orbit a prototype combat station weighing about 90 tons. But the station’s capabilities were limited only by the impact on the satellites of a potential enemy by blinding them. Surely today, the apparatus would have coped with this task, having at times a smaller mass. And for their removal, the existing Proton, Angara type and their modifications will be enough. In general, Russia now has a sufficient fleet of light, medium and heavy LVs for solving virtually all tasks in the interests of defense and security, namely: communications, navigation, reconnaissance, topography ...

It should be recalled that there are other combat systems that can fight in outer space. According to the information available, work continues on an aeronautical laser system, the objectives of which in the first place can be space objects. On the approach is the creation of the Prometheus C-500 air defense system, whose missiles are able to shoot down satellites in low orbits. Nothing prevents the reopening of the interrupted Soviet project of creating anti-satellite missiles launched from the MiG-31 fighter.

In general, there are a lot of developments on weapons systems that can fight in outer space. The conclusion from all that has been said suggests itself: “To be on the alert - yes! Panicking is no! ”

How much is Mars today?


As for civilian space, today there is no need for super-heavy rocket launchers. After all, the question is not in the presence or absence of such carriers, but in what goods to carry and where.

Actually, a load capacity of one hundred tons and above will be required only in case of mastering the Moon, Mars, and so on. For example, technically it is already possible now to create a Martian habitable base, having burrowed into the ground for several meters and having secured oneself from radiation and micrometeorites.

Well, okay with Mars. Stop on the moon. What should man do on this earth satellite? The Americans have already landed there, and it makes no sense just to repeat the visiting expeditions - the US was still the pioneers here. So you need to go further, creating a permanent lunar base. The question arises: for what purpose? According to experts, on the present day only tritium is profitable on the moon - nuclear fuel of the future. In reality, fusion reactors for this fuel can be created no earlier than in a quarter of a century. By this date, it is necessary to organize the extraction and delivery of tritium to Earth. However, it is very likely that in a couple of decades, robotics will go so far that a human presence in space will not be required at all.

The economic factor is also important: it is estimated that automatic spacecraft will cost 50 times less manned when studying and mastering the resources of other planets. For reference: economists estimate the development of extraterrestrial resources and their involvement in the global economic turnover of about one trillion dollars only on the moon. Mastering the resources of Mars will cost at least an order of magnitude more.

Everyone can count. Thus, in the civilian space, super heavy rocket will not be in demand for many more years.

Leisurely Chinese


Unfortunately, the domestic space program for its more than half a century has not escaped painful shyness, accompanied by empty multi-billion dollar costs. And these were not the current Russian billions, but billions more of those full-fledged Soviet rubles.

It is enough to recall the closure of the lunar program of the super-heavy PH H-1 interrupted at the finish line in the middle of the 70-s, already during flight tests. Then the launch vehicles ready for launch were cut into metal. Twenty years later, the same fate awaited the amazing program "Energy" - "Buran". And again, finished products went to junk.

Our sworn partners did no better. The triumphant completion of the Apollo manned program (six successful expeditions to the Moon) also in the middle of the 70-s put a bold cross on the super-heavy RV Saturn-5, which was worked out to the last detail and showed absolute reliability. They sacrificed it to the space shuttle, a reusable system that seemed cheaper and more promising. Time has shown that this was a strategic miscalculation in the planning of US space activities. Not only did two manned ships with crews explode in flights, but also the cost of the program just went off scale. As a result, the project had to be closed.

Yes, not everything was rosy in space exploration. And yet there is one country that confidently and purposefully develops its space industry - China. And let the Chinese not yet catch the stars from the sky, but they are making progress. And the most important thing is that China is the only country in the world that has been planning its activities on 50 years in the future. Accordingly, with the planned approach there is no rushing.

Having carried out the first manned flights, the Celestial Empire focused on the creation of an orbital station with a long-range view of the Moon. New tasks, as is known, require new PH. Therefore, it was decided to create a completely new Wenchang spaceport on Hainan Island, located close to the equator, from which new-generation rockets should be launched. So systematically, if not without difficulties, China conquers space.

I want to believe that our new Vostochny cosmodrome will be pleased with technical innovations. It is impossible to lag behind competitors. And the most important thing is to resolutely stop the practice of swaying in space activities.

The roar of many spaceports


The exact choice of the space industry development strategy is very important, because huge budget money is at stake, and mistakes cost too much. So what directions in space do not cause doubts and have the right to life?

It is absolutely clear that it is necessary to develop commercial space, including the provision of communication and navigation services (the GLONASS program), space tourism, to launch space vehicles for the benefit of foreign customers. It is imperative to correct the situation with Earth remote sensing satellites, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.

Of course, you should use the full range of available conversion PH, of which we have developed and accumulated a lot. Moreover, different payloads - from 100 kilograms to 4,5 tons. Launches are to be carried out not only in the interests of foreign customers, but also for putting small Russian satellites into orbit. The main thing is to organize the mass production of small devices for various purposes. They are simple and relatively cheap, so it takes much less time to make them. Conversion RNs are good because instead of the cost of their disposal, the state can earn money on commercial launches.

Focus on creating reusable pH. Further than others in this direction the Center named after him. Khrunichev. Even at the aerospace show in Le Bourget, in 2001, the Khrunychev team presented a full-size model of the reusable first-stage accelerator “Baikal”. The step after the start and separation spreads the wings, turns on the aircraft engine installed on it and lands like an airplane at an ordinary airfield. After examination and prophylaxis can be used again for its intended purpose. Such a system significantly reduces the launch cost.

Today, there is a growing interest in space exploration worldwide. The basis of this trend is not only the factors of prestige and state security, but also the understanding of the current situation that the dynamic development of any nation is no longer possible without the space component. In fact, we are witnessing a real boom in the construction of space centers in many countries of the world. The roar of the cosmodromes is getting louder, therefore it is not necessary to sit still and hope for old luggage.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. DimanC 7 October 2015 14: 43 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Crap. Saturn 5 has never shown absolute reliability. A couple of successful test runs, just as many unsuccessful ones, which were later retroactively declared successful. No wonder they still argue, "was there a boy" in the form of the launches of this rocket to the moon. They still buy engines from us, although they could operate the same F-1s without building the rocket itself. Etc...
    1. Engineer 7 October 2015 15: 04 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      A successful couple is ridiculous to even read. To use F-1 - what rocket is it on? You do not seem to know at all what kind of engine it is and why it didn’t and couldn’t have commercial success? The Americans benefited from hydrogen engines when we had kerosene. If Korolev had agreed to heptyl, then ours would have flown earlier. But alas. And for some reason it’s been customary to blame everything on Glushko, although he immediately said that he wouldn’t have time to create a 600 tf engine on kerosene in time, and he could on heptyl, because he had already touched UR500 and combat missiles. In general, it is ridiculous to read that the Americans were not on the moon and at the same time did not argue for this. The lunar program was national when Korolev barely tried to push through the H64 rocket (without a lunar ship) with 1g, having interested the military, he did not even stutter about the Moon then. And this was already 3 years behind the USA. The Americans conducted the entire test cycle, the stands were made, Saturn-1 was launched. And we closed H11, they didn’t do a stand for the first stage, because rocket launches were combined with testing the entire system. I am sure that if Korolev did not die, and Nikita remained in power, then on the moon there would be a Union flag and there would be no American at all.
      1. venaya 7 October 2015 15: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Engineer
        ... I am sure that if Korolev did not die, and Nikita remained in power, then on the moon there would be a Union flag and there would be no American at all.

        Thank. There are some difficulties with Korolev himself, there were articles saying that his death was not accidental. I had indirect evidence that our lunar program was sabotaged by senior management, with the participation of the foreign side.
      2. Alexanderrr 7 October 2015 18: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In general, it’s ridiculous to read that the Americans were not on the moon, and at the same time, without arguing

        In principle, the reverse evidence is also not dense and much is not credible. Yes, and not everything is declassified. Therefore, it is ridiculous to say that the Americans were on the moon ...
        1. Bayonet 7 October 2015 18: 49 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: Alexanderrr
          Therefore, it is ridiculous to say that the Americans were on the moon ...

          With the help of crowdfunding, Russian enthusiasts decided to create a private spacecraft to send it to the moon and photograph the landing site of the American manned spacecraft Apollo and the Soviet automatic stations Luna and Lunokhod in order to put an end to disputes between those who believe that people were on the moon, and those who believe that it was all a production. In addition, such an apparatus will allow for a scientific study of the Earth's satellite with unprecedented image quality.
          The initial impulse for the microsatellite creation campaign was the desire to put an end to the endless debate about whether people were on the moon or not. In the end, all the Apollo flight data was provided by NASA and no one can double-check it. A group of space enthusiasts decided to change this situation and provide independent images of the lunar surface in the landing zone using an apparatus built with private money.
          The creators announced a campaign on Boomstarter to build a spacecraft that could fly to the moon and equipped with a high-resolution camera to take pictures that could discern individual tracks of astronauts who landed on the moon, if any. With the beginning of this project, everyone will be able to participate in the creation of a microsatellite, which should enter the orbit of the moon and fly at a relatively low altitude above its surface.
          At this stage, researchers need funds to develop a spacecraft design, to carry out calculations and solve many problems, ranging from the optimal dimensions and mass of the future spacecraft to the optimal protection of future electronics from space radiation, including ordering ballistic and radiation calculations from research institutes for a separate fee and attract highly qualified specialists to the project. For this, the project needs to collect 800 rubles.
          Lord doubters! Please, take off in order to know the truth! hi
          http://www.popmech.ru/science/216271-kampaniya-na-boomstarter-rossiyskiy-chastny
          y-sputnik-dlya-fotosemki-luny /
          1. Temples 7 October 2015 22: 04 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            This is a divorce !!! Mavrodi applauds and cries.
            800 thousand rubles and I will prove to everyone and that's it !!!
            I am not a freeloader I am a partner !!!!
            The best minds of mankind will design !!!!
            Throw yourself and know the truth!
            And then run up and on the table forehead with all the dope !!!! Did the sparks go? This starts the camera on the moon !!! fool
          2. bastard 7 October 2015 23: 39 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Quote: Bayonet
            With the help of crowdfunding, Russian enthusiasts decided to create a private spacecraft to send it to the moon and photograph the landing site of the American manned spacecraft Apollo and Soviet automatic stations. . .

            . For this, the project needs to collect 800 rubles.

            Due to the natural stupidity, I have no idea what kind of beast this is - crowdfunding. Do they drink it or have a snack? Or maybe this has to do with magic?
            Oh well! Let’s say that for 800 thousand ever-wooden (we can’t buy a room in a lousy communal apartment for such crazy money), there were still highly qualified engineers and designers who were ready to work for eating and sleeping in the trailer for shifts. Suppose that after manipulating a tambourine and casting spells on a Hebrew mov, because for such a budget you can only rely on witchcraft, miracle and mercy of God, they finally made this satellite, sent it to the moon and took pictures of everything.
            Tapericha little fantasy: suddenly, it suddenly turned out that the United States “Apollos” are not net. What do NASA sorcerers say? Correctly! Alien dragged away! I don’t know how the BBC and others are, but Prozombenko will buy a new car and boots with laces, that's for sure! It doesn't smell like 800 thousand, it stinks of tens of millions. That's where the loot is made.
            But in fact, the steam will go off the whistle, they can do something, but start it - whine, raise a pig squeal and prevent it from starting. How to get some lapnikov. . .
            Black Lord of Uncle Tom's huts baraka them. Obama will not allow it. Will threaten with a finger from a branch: ah-ah-ah! And the rulers of the Roissyansky will tremble with a small trembling and say: - Fly down! We are partners.
            1. Cat man null 7 October 2015 23: 50 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: villain
              Will threaten with a finger from a branch: ah-ah-ah! And the rulers of the Roissyansky will tremble with a small trembling and say: - Fly down! We are partners.

              I don’t understand - you are serious, or what?

              - in Ukraine - threatened (with a finger) - does not help
              - in Syria they are also threatening - and again it does not help

              And then suddenly .. help? Yes, why? wink
            2. Bayonet 8 October 2015 08: 52 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: villain
              Due to the natural stupidity, I have no idea what kind of beast this is - crowdfunding.

              Crowdfunding is a collective collaboration of people who voluntarily pool their money or other resources together, usually via the Internet, to support the efforts of other people or organizations. hi
        2. Vadim237 7 October 2015 21: 22 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And they were on the moon, here is one of the F1 engines from the Saturn 5 rocket, found in the Atlantic Ocean.
          1. Scraptor 8 October 2015 15: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            it’s good that it’s not on the moon ... the USSR could fly to the moon in the first half of the 60s, it was just presented to the Americans just like gold at the Salt Lake City Figure Skating Olympiad, when the American fucked several times with the 5th point on the ice rink .
            so that these scouts once again after 9/11 (when at least something flew to them to unleash 2 wars at once) do not cry and can at least be proud of something for a sense of their own significance, if not superiority ...
          2. bastard 8 October 2015 17: 42 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Vadim237
            And they were on the moon, here is one of the F1 engines from the Saturn 5 rocket, found in the Atlantic Ocean.

            The argument is very "convincing." And at the bottom of the Atlantic lies the “Titanic” and much more. If a used Chinese condom was found on the Moscow sidewalk, does this mean that Moscow is the capital of China?
            1. Vadim237 8 October 2015 23: 58 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              The engines were found just in the area where they were supposed to fall after the separation of the first stage - the most that there is no direct and very convincing evidence that the flights were.
              1. bastard 9 October 2015 10: 15 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Vadim237
                The engines were found just in the area where they were supposed to fall after the separation of the first stage - the most that there is no direct and very convincing evidence that the flights were.

                They flew, but only where?
                Vadim, come down here,

                http://www.manonmoon.ru/

                http://sovserv.ru/KA6AH/usatruth/usatruth.by.ru/moon.htm

                it’s interesting here, however, I have to read a lot. Here is a series of articles on this topic in Russian. It is stated in an accessible language, if you have a solid "troika" in physics and biology, then it will not be difficult to understand.
                I personally have thoughts about the shaitan-arba, who rolled the Americans on the moon, partially I set them out in the "past life". I can state it again, but it will not fit into the commentary.
                I don’t want to troll you, and I don’t know how to do it. For me, this question is almost closed, to live out when ours, or, at worst, the Chinese or Indians fly, although they also can not be trusted, traders.hi
                If you need more materials, for example, I can throw it on radiation belts, there are opinions and calculations of specialists in the field of radiology, but I could not figure it out in detail, there is no one in my profile and there is nobody to consult.

                And also:

                http://my.mail.ru/mail/jelena.dolecek/video/19433/20475.html

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM-vSpqB3x8

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3vfILuajfU
      3. Scraptor 8 October 2015 15: 01 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Engineer
        To use F-1 - what rocket is it on?

        On any, for example on the Atlas. An engine is harder to make than a rocket (tank to it).
        Americans used Geptil on Lunar Gemini, dissuade them from this and gave them RP-1 for Apollo, along with many more things.
        If they wanted to, they would fly earlier by removing the moon block and the booster module with heptyl on the Proton, and then the Soyuz command module and crew in it. KK Soyuz is a lunar module ...
        They began to do N-1 to avert their eyes when politicians had already given the moon to the Americans. Because of her silly first stage, it was before successful launches as before the Moon.

        According to the article: "Energy" displayed a power combat laser rather than blinding .... Otherwise, it was also a complete lie and vice versa. The article is a minus.
    2. War and Peace 7 October 2015 17: 15 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      In the newspaper "VPK" in the article "The narrow departmental thrust" defended the relevance of creating a super heavy rocket launcher with a starting solid-fuel accelerators (TTU). I would like to express my opinion on this.



      Superheavy launch vehicles are now absolutely not in demand by the Ministry of Defense, and there is no sense in undertaking their creation, especially in an emergency, throwing money away.



      directly itches in one place against heavy missiles from this Vladimir, "there is no point, see"

      Yes, indeed, in 1987 the Energia launch vehicle was to launch a prototype of a combat station weighing about 90 tons into orbit. But the station’s capabilities were limited only by the impact on the satellites of a potential enemy by blinding them. Surely today, devices having many times less mass would cope with this task.


      in general, heavy satellites could become the prototypes of stationary stations for the production of clean materials, they have been talking about this for a long time and, as this is precisely constrained by the absence of heavy carriers, it was possible to make a station with ARTIFICIAL gravity for long-term residence in space SCIENCE + PRODUCTION.
      Uncle drives ...

      In general, Russia now has a sufficient fleet of light, medium and heavy launch vehicles to solve almost all tasks in the interests of defense and security, namely: communications, navigation, reconnaissance, topography


      he himself came up with tasks for Russia, he himself imposed restrictions, there are other tasks for heavy carriers, so all this talk is ...
      1. War and Peace 7 October 2015 18: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        According to available information, work is continuing on an aircraft-based laser system, the goals of which may primarily be space objects.


        it’s time to tie up with such “research”, which lasts for decades without any real impact. Military lasers are labor-consuming, large-sized, heavy, and expensive in terms of money. As for ours, pin-dos do not deal with lasers, as well as an adjustable thermonuclear fusion. In general, there is a theory which says that light radiation without matter does not propagate, so in space, where there is little matter, the efficiency of light weapons will be low ...

        S-500 "Prometheus", the rockets of which are able to shoot down satellites in low orbits. Nothing prevents the resumption of the interrupted Soviet project of creating anti-satellite missiles launched from the side of the MiG-31 fighter.


        no one has ever seen a pancake c500, only zhurnalyugi are shaking their tongues and when it will be unknown and what will still not be known there, however, they also spoke to the PAKFA engine of the second stage, which will be 16-17g and now they have moved to 20g, so there is nothing to promise. ..

        S-500 "Prometheus", the rockets of which are able to shoot down satellites in low orbits. Nothing prevents the resumption of the interrupted Soviet project of creating anti-satellite missiles launched from the side of the MiG-31 fighter.


        this is a cheeky misrepresentation, PROJECTS of space A HUGE amount, everything rests, just in the carrier ...

        ? The Americans have already landed there, and simply repeating the expedition does not make sense to visit - the United States was still pioneers here.


        the purpose and meaning of such scribblers is to launch just such a cartoon among other things. This is a lie because pin_day still uses our RD180 / 191, as if there is no “high-torque” F1. So they did it and threw it away, as it doesn’t look like amers ...

        Thus, over the course of civil space superheavy spacecraft will not be in demand for many more years.


        Well, it’s twice paid Vladimir thinks so, our people don’t think so a heavy carrier is needed ...

        The triumphal completion of the Apollo manned program (six successful expeditions to the moon) also in the mid-70s put a fat cross on the super-heavy Saturn-5 LV, worked out to the smallest detail and showing absolute reliability. She was sacrificed to the Space Shuttle, which seemed cheaper and more promising.


        impudent lies, such as Saturn5 pulled 140-150 tons on the NOO, and the shuttle only 24 tons, with the cost of a kilogram of cargo in orbit, like a kilogram of gold, the stupid argument of this scribbler is easily refuted, like Saturn is more profitable ...

        In fact, we are witnessing a real boom in the construction of spaceports in many countries of the world. The roar of spaceports is getting louder, so you don’t have to sit still and rely on old luggage.


        Nnda is the finish in every sense, at first he said that heavy missiles are not needed, at the end he said that you need to "not sit", in short, the paid scribbler has seven Fridays a week and seven self-denials in each article is not our person. ..
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Asadullah 7 October 2015 17: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Yeah. Moreover, Skylab flew like a disposable hygiene item, at the cost of building an entire city. And so it turns out, for a one-time project, the Americans built not just a factory, but an entire industry, and after the first batch of the product it was completely closed. Even without taking anything from it for arming subsequent programs! Americans can be blamed for anything, but not for throwing money away. In an economic assessment, Saturn 5 is not just a failure, but the failed delirium of a drunken raccoon.

      Another point, today there are many new “unpublished” pictures about the adventures of Americans on the moon, since modern technology can print them perfectly, without fear of exposure, but the scientific parameters are completely classified to the smallest detail. That is, the data has been declassified for everything from that time, down to spies, and the technical details of an unused program are under high marks. Maybe because they do not exist in principle? Like hundreds of kg of lunar soil?
      1. Oprychnik 7 October 2015 18: 35 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Closing the lunar program, the Americans acted very imprudently, destroying ALL the technical documentation for Saturn-5, ALL developed during the program measures against different types of radiation (according to NASA, this needs a long study), and lost the WHOLE lunar soil, all, almost 400 kg, practically not allowing any country to study it. But they rode merrily along the Moon in a Moon Jeep, which I personally find difficult to assemble in a space suit, but I know the possibilities of Hollywood in general, and the director Stanley Kubrick in particular. And now the first power has to start EVERYTHING from scratch, as soon as it got up question about the new lunar program.
        1. Oprychnik 7 October 2015 19: 03 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Here are still shots accidentally broadcast.
          It is claimed that much was shot by Kubrick, ostensibly for credibility. It seems that it is impossible to take the camcorder outside the module, but humanity must feel this historical moment, so some of the landing footage was shot in the Kubrikom studio. For some reason, it fell into the live broadcast frame.)))
      2. Bayonet 8 October 2015 09: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Asadullah
        And so it turns out, for a one-time project, the Americans built not just a factory, but an entire industry, and after the first batch of the product it was completely closed.

        And how many enterprises and institutes were involved in the creation of the Energy-Buran system? What colossal funds were invested? So "Energy" in general 2 times only took off! And then everything went to dust ...
      3. Bayonet 8 October 2015 12: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Asadullah
        Moreover, Skylab flew like a disposable hygiene item, at the cost of building an entire city.

        After the canceled lunar expeditions of Apollo 18, 19, and 20, NASA had a supply of Saturn-5 missiles, which could be used to withdraw a fully equipped orbital station. The final version of the project was called “Skylab”. The American project of the orbital station compares favorably with its Soviet counterparts such as Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station in that Skylab had a huge amount of internal space and provided astronauts with virtually unlimited freedom of movement. The most comfortable living conditions for astronauts were also developed and implemented. For example, a shower was installed. Each astronaut had a small separate compartment - a niche with a closing shutter, where there was a berth and a box for personal belongings.
        On May 14, 1974, the Skylab station was launched using the Saturn-5 rocket. The next day, the first expedition of three people — the commander, pilot and doctor — was to leave for the station. However, when Skylab entered a circular orbit, the solar panels on the station’s body did not open, as a result of which the temperature inside the station began to rise catastrophically and reached 38 ° C, while overboard it was –80 ° C. Thus, “Skylab” was left without power supply and temperature control, so that its operation was impossible without delivery of a screen replacement to the station. This trouble occurred due to the fact that during the start from the station a thermally insulating faucet was torn off, which pulled out one solar battery and jammed the second. But already on May 25th, a replacement was made as soon as possible along with the first expedition to the station.
        Three expeditions visited the Skylab station, the main tasks of which were to study human adaptation to zero gravity and to conduct scientific experiments. Thanks to Skylab, many biological, technical and astrophysical experiments have been carried out. The most important of these were telescopic observations of the Sun in the x-ray range and UV. Many flashes were captured and coronal holes were discovered.
        The cost of the Skylab project amounted to about 3 billion US dollars in the prices of that time.
        Speaking of hygiene, here is the "shower" of Skylab.
      4. Bayonet 8 October 2015 12: 53 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Asadullah
        Even without taking anything from it for arming subsequent programs!

        The first expedition SL-2 (Skylab-2) (Charles Conrad, Paul Whitz, Joseph Kervin) lasted 28 days (25.05.1973/22.06.1973/XNUMX - XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX) and was not so much scientific as repair. During several spacewalks, astronauts uncovered a jammed solar panel and restored the station's thermoregulation.

        The second expedition SL-3 (Skylab-3) consisting of Alan Bean, Jack Lausma and Owen Garriott went to the station 28.07.1973/59/XNUMX and spent in orbit for XNUMX days.

        The third and last expedition SL-4 (Skylab-4) (Gerald Carr, Edward Gibson, William Pogue) started on November 16, 1973 and set an absolute record for the duration of a person's stay in space - 84 days, which was broken in 1977 on Salute-6 - 96 days. Gerald Carr, Edward Gibson and William Pog went into space on the Apollo spacecraft on November 16, 1973, and returned to Earth the very next year - February 8, 1974. Carr, Gibson and Pogue were the first astronauts to celebrate New Year in space.
        Clickable photo.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Vadim237 7 October 2015 21: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Absolute reliability is something new, but in general, watch a movie movie about the creation of this rocket there and find out how many launches were successful http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb6Otwd7Ff4
    7. Starley from the south 7 October 2015 22: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: DimanC
      Saturn 5 never showed absolute reliability.

      This is not entirely true. The pH Saturn in specialists is considered one of the best in the world in terms of the totality of parameters for its time. Reliability was not inferior to our launch vehicles with similar parameters. And they took off ... because it’s out of date. It is possible that the Americans will not create anything better than Saturn.
      1. Asadullah 7 October 2015 22: 33 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        This is not entirely true. The pH Saturn in specialists is considered one of the best in the world in terms of the totality of parameters for its time. Reliability was not inferior to our launch vehicles with similar parameters. And they took off ... because it’s out of date. It is possible that the Americans will not create anything better than Saturn.


        Do not confuse the Saturn-1V and Saturn-5 missiles, for what ass in the ass are similar parameters, if the Saturn-5 is 110 meters high, ten in diameter, with a carrying capacity of 140 tons!

        13 successful launches, and before that two unsuccessful ones in automatic mode! If the first test can be called successful in the lightweight version, the second missile scattered into cogs, working on three engines. And after that, successful launches to the moon are immediately sent. laughing And six years later, they close the program that supposedly brought the United States to a leading position in space. And the Shuttle begins, having buried fourteen astronauts. The beauty. They kill their pilots with novim, and the "most successful" rocket is written off as a scrap in infancy.
        1. Scraptor 8 October 2015 15: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          For the crewless and even crewed launches of Saturn-5, look in more detail ... In addition to low reliability, there were still too much vibrations for the output load, which is why Apollo 13 was unsuccessful.
      2. Scraptor 8 October 2015 15: 18 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        In terms of reliability, it was nowhere worse, and now it does not apply to those certified for launching man into space. Therefore, the Apollo program was closed ahead of time.
        The Soyuz launch vehicle is still not out of date.
  2. venaya 7 October 2015 14: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    ... all this resembles a fairly forgotten draft strategic defense initiative (SDI), voiced by President Reagan in 1983. Our leading scientists even then competently figured out the problem. Having thoroughly studied all the details, they unequivocally recognized the SDI program as utopian, scientifically substantiating their findings and reporting this to the country's top leadership.

    Thanks to the article, because here I was criticized for my insignificant participation in research on this program.
  3. Reserve officer 7 October 2015 14: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The author’s experience in writing scientific and technical reports and in speeches on the NTS is felt. Clear and concise.
    But one also feels a clear disposition to the work of the Center. Khrunicheva. So the analysis was very subjective. Financing is really not rubber. But what arguments didn’t I hear about departmental STC in the years 80-90 when I determined the development priorities of the industry and, of course, the amount of funding. Each representative of research institutes, design bureaus and NGOs considered their work a priority, and the work of other collectives could wait. Painfully familiar.
    Heavy carriers solve a number of problems, including military ones. And it is so easy to push all this into the background, drawing the economy into the allies, in my opinion - it is short-sighted.
    1. opus 7 October 2015 15: 53 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Stock Officer
      The author’s experience in writing scientific and technical reports and in speeches on the NTS is felt.

      No ... i don't feel request
      Lyapov so much that talk about
      Quote: Stock Officer
      Clear and concise.
      there's no point..


      Quote: Author Vladimir Vladimirov
      Surely today, devices having many times less mass would cope with this task.

      they couldn’t cope, blinding with a laser that the laser, that the BIP, that the cooling systems (vacuum thermos), as they were and remained Agromadny. and the laser itself is minuscule.
      GDL RD0600: 680mm, 1820mm, 2140mm, 100 kW (100kW in a vacuum you can not blind, but cut)

      Quote: Author
      PVO-PRO S-500 "Prometheus", the rockets of which are capable of shooting down satellites in low orbits.

      PR 77N6-N and 77N6-N1 (development of OJSC MKB Fakel in accordance with the statement of work) ... for intercepting targets at a speed up to 7 km / s. At the satellite, even at the DOE there will be more 7 km / s.
      Nizhny Novgorod and Kirov are building two new plants. Their construction will require a total of over 80 billion rubles. New enterprises will begin to produce PR 77N6-N and 77N6-N1.
      there is no PSO system on the Mig-31 platform, and no interceptor missiles were created
      Quote: Author
      Already now you can create a Martian inhabited base, burrowing into the ground for several meters and protecting yourself from radiation and micrometeorites

      pinned

      1. Mars has an atmosphere. The magnetic field of Mars is weaker than the earth by about 800 times.
      Together with a rarefied (100-160 times in comparison with the Earth) atmosphere
      2. The amount of solar energy (and radiation) reaching the surface of Mars is approximately half that of Earth.
      During the day, a person will accumulate about 0,21 mSv of ionizing radiation, and this is ten times higher than the dose that can be received on Earth. Like yes ... But:this level is only half the level of radiation in outer space. And fly there? a year or a half
      / Burrowing into the ground from IO you will not be saved (according to the latest data, the soil M is sterilized by IO - even there are no microbes). Screens and water

      Meteorites ... Opportunity found 1n:

      So they were found on Earth by thousands .... No one burrowed into the ground
      1. opus 7 October 2015 16: 07 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Author
        According to experts, to date, only production is profitable on the moon tritium - nuclear fuel of the future.

        fool
        tritium on the moon?
        T and 3H - This is superheavy hydrogen, which is formed in nature in the upper atmosphere in the collision of particles of cosmic radiation with the nuclei of atoms, for example, nitrogen ...
        What is not observed and not observed on the moon.
        maybe 3He (helium-3)?

        Quote: Author
        Conversion pHs are good in that instead of the cost of their disposal, the state can make money on commercial launches.

        1. The warranty period for such ICBMs has expired, insurance and customers are afraid ...
        2.Specific orbit data
        3. Significant alteration required
        4. Ecology again.
        / Troublesome in the end
        It’s just that they don’t dispose of us (and receive income in the form of raw materials and precious metals), but ... they explode / burn

        Quote: Author
        ..presented full-size layout MUR "Baikal". The stage after the start and separation spreads its wings, turns on the aircraft engine installed on it and makes an airplane landing on a regular airfield .... Such a system significantly reduces the cost of launch.


        The Americans "advanced" further
        Pegasus, Pegasus From 1990 to 2013 42 launches of the Pegasus carrier were made with the launch of artificial satellites into orbit, of which 3 were unsuccessful and 2 were partially unsuccessful. Since 1997, all 28 launches have been successful.

        The trouble is only.
        1. The layout, and he is long before the rockets
        2. The RD-191M liquid propellant rocket engine is not and is unlikely to be, as the father of the RD-191 is initially disposable.
        3. Wings, more durable load-bearing tanks (for high-altitude flights and overloads), will significantly reduce MON
        it is significant that the Americans, who are essentially the only people who have the experience of "reusability," with their
        Pegasus, Pegasus (From 1990 to 2013, 42 Pegasus launches were launched with the launch of artificial satellites, of which 3 were unsuccessful and 2 were partially unsuccessful. Since 1997, all 28 launches were successful.)

        they didn’t even think about its reusability, although the wings weren’t for landing, but a necessary element for output to the IEO
        ===============
        generally npf .. but not NTS
      2. Scraptor 8 October 2015 15: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It is enough to freeze ice, but all the same, due to low gravity, everyone will die there in 2-3 years. sad
  4. V.ic 7 October 2015 14: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Americans allegedly landed on the Moon in 1969, but our Lunokhod-1 in 1970. This is a fact, and everything else = speculation.
    1. DEMENTIY 7 October 2015 16: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: V.ic
      Americans allegedly landed on the Moon in 1969, but our Lunokhod-1 in 1970. This is a fact, and everything else = speculation.


      And that is true. There is a good debriefing of flights of the "lunar odyssey" - "Ashtrays" fly to the moon.


      http://free-inform.com/
      1. Scraptor 8 October 2015 15: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, will they find there tracks on the moon? This in itself does not prove anything - they can be left with a walking robot.

        Flying to the moon, even then, was technically feasible. Only if by reason then why? The delay of the signal from there is only 1-2 seconds.
  5. NordUral 7 October 2015 15: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The opinion of an amateur technician in a fearless space is no, the hard ones are needed and are very needed. And even better - not rockets, but by plane into orbit. It is time to remember and apply the Soviet developments.
  6. Engineer 7 October 2015 15: 13 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    It feels like the article is already about 10 years old. Baikal has long been forgotten and has not been remembered, but here it was announced about it as a promising development. You can still remember about Russia, about MAKS, Clipper, and even a bunch of projects. But reusable systems were deemed unprofitable. So, now we are following the path of the Americans with the "Orion" manned ship. But here, not everything is smooth: the heavy one came out, I had to remove one crew member and make a composite inner shell. The realities are as follows. And the author somehow lagged behind them by a dozen years.
    1. Bayonet 7 October 2015 18: 57 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      You can still remember about Russia, about MAKS, Clipper, and even a bunch of projects.

      Add to the heap "Burlak"!
      BURLAK, a project of an air launch vehicle, an integral part of the aerospace complex of the same name.
      “Burlak” should be launched from the board of the Tu-160 booster aircraft. A complex with a take-off mass of up to 275 tons should take off from a runway 4-5 km long. The rocket is launched at a carrier flight speed of 250-500 m / s, at an altitude of 12-14 km and is possible at a distance of up to 5000 km from the airfield. The range of the fully equipped complex from the base to the customer's airfield is 11000 km. “Burlak” should put up to 550 kg into a circular polar orbit 1000 km high or 1100 kg into a circular equatorial orbit 200 km high.
      The development of the long-suffering Burlak has been carried out by the machine-building design bureau Raduga since the late 1980s. hi
  7. Jurkovs 7 October 2015 15: 43 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The logic and theses of the author are clear. We do not need a rocket, the American SLS does not threaten us. Let the author then explain why the Americans so sought from Gorbachev the closure of the Energy rocket. So even five rockets ready for launch were cut for scrap. After all, their Space Shuttle put into orbit almost 30 tons in the Shuttle’s hold, and Energy could launch all 100 tons. So the Americans were scared, but we have nothing to fear?
  8. lilian 7 October 2015 15: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    How much is Mars today?


    What to do to the person on this satellite of the Earth? So, we need to go further, creating a permanent lunar base. The question arises: for what purpose?


    The economic factor is also important: it is estimated that automatic spacecraft will cost 50 times cheaper than manned when exploring and developing the resources of other planets. For reference: economists estimate the development of extraterrestrial resources and their involvement in world economic turnover at about one trillion dollars only on the moon. The development of the resources of Mars will cost at least an order of magnitude more. Today, worldwide there is a growing interest in space exploration.


    This capitalist, bourgeois approach infuriates me.

    Really, what for us to master space ?! After all, BABLA cannot be cut down on it, a yacht, a villa, a cool car will not help to buy!

    NEVER Russia will reach such a level of power and progress as the USSR. Because there is no purpose to live. The moon is not needed, Mars is not needed, heavy carriers, other generations are not needed.

    I ask a question on many minuses - why then Russia is necessary?

    And in the USSR, Great designers, DREAMED that there would come a time when anyone could fly to the moon like a picnic. Children dreamed of becoming astronauts and plowing the expanses of the universe on spaceships.
    China has overtaken the United States in the number of launches and is so far inferior only to Russia. But China is a country that is exploring space not for profit, but for scientific and technological progress. By 2020, plans to land a man on the moon, and thus will take second place in the lunar race, ahead of Russia. China has a personal orbital station.

    Here is the last one, about healthy children, a healthy country:

    During the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Artek pioneer camp in 2000, a capsule was opened with a message from the pioneers of the 1960s to the 2000 Artek camp. The message was signed by 1 Artek residents from all the republics of the Soviet Union, then it was put into a capsule and sealed in a metal rocket, which was stored on Kostrovaya Artek Square for 200 years. At the solemn line, the missile was sawn and a “letter to the future” was extracted from there. Pioneers of the 1960s suggested that in 2000 all the peoples of the earth live in peace, people fly to the moon, and Artek already has its own cosmodrome.
    1. rosarioagro 7 October 2015 17: 13 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: lilian
      This capitalist, bourgeois approach infuriates me.

      Really, what for us to master space ?! After all, BABLA on it will not cut down


      C'mon, nobody has told them yet that they could stretch a pipe from Titan and pump gas without any drilling workers there :-) In general, yes, it’s not capitalistic thinking, but primitive capitalist thinking, even Americans are capitalists, but the telescope named after J. They want to launch Webb to the Lagrange point, to explore Europe. maybe there is an icy ocean with life, Mars again, asteroids and so on
    2. Bayonet 7 October 2015 19: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: lilian
      This capitalist, bourgeois approach infuriates me.

      Oddly enough, but the "bourgeois approach" did not prevent NASA from researching our solar system and even go beyond it. Maybe our bourgeois are wrong? wink
      1. lilian 7 October 2015 20: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There was a space race, the Americans were forced to get involved in it, so as not to lose the support of taxpayers. They switched to deep space, the USSR rushed forward along the orbital stations. Plus, at the same time they sent stations to Mars, the Moon, Venus.

        I thought a lot about flying to the moon, I’m not going to “believe” or “not believe”, this is not a religion. But there are strong doubts, there are too many arguments in favor of a scam.

        It also raises doubts about rovers. The "Sky Crane" "Curiosity" on rocket engines hovered 20 meters from the surface and lowered the rover on ropes. This is extremely difficult from a technical point of view.
    3. Asadullah 7 October 2015 20: 08 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      NEVER Russia will reach such a level of power and progress as the USSR. Because there is no purpose to live.


      Yes, when you are awake, a person is born a dream, with a dream and begins life. Then he exchanges it, some for bread, some for money, some for family. But she comes with the next generation of dreamers. The state has always used them for its own purposes, and the USSR is no exception. Dreamers turned into seekers both thanks to the state and contrary to it at the same time. Such is the nature of man, to fulfill his dream in any way.

      As for the lunar bases and the dream of Mars, they just broke not about imaginary bourgeois values, but rather about prosaic barriers. This barrier is called ionizing energy. Every hundred kilometers, it intensifies and ends with bursts of electrons at the edge of the Van Allen belt. After that, the opportunity to run into the solar wind against the background of constant cosmic radiation, which is also not a gift. The Americans did not know about this then, and from that they froze a movie about the Moon and adventures. The fact is that so far there is no salvation from penetrating radiation except for materials with high density and mass. Or a very powerful magnetron, which however will not save from gamma-ray. Putting it all into orbit is a huge overwhelming task. But to nourish the human dream of flying into outer space, or at least into the near, is apparently the noble goal of all governments, this is one of the sweet tales that has a beneficial effect on the psyche of a citizen. You can not believe in fairy tales, but this does not mean that you do not need to believe in a dream, it’s just that this dream was not simple, and is waiting for its seeker who will find and discover. wink
      1. lilian 7 October 2015 21: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And there were once cranks who wanted to fly through the air like birds ...

        Immediately before the flight, I don’t remember whether the satellite, or Gagarin, Korolev conducted a written survey of some bosses (I don’t remember what kind of bumps, but I read from the book that I read in childhood) what they think about manned flights. Someone wrote that maybe a hundred years later, someone just wrote that "I’m not fond of fantasy." There were more like that, and after a short time the world started talking about the primacy of the USSR in astronautics.

        That is, this Barrier, which you are talking about, can be easily overcome, just as they once solved the problem of holding plasma, which seemed to melt the body of any Earthly material.

        Paraphrasing a well-known phrase, we can say this: it is not a shame to not solve the problem of space flights, it is a shame not to want / try to solve it. I don’t hear anything about work, research, tests on manned flights, except that the Kitaezs promise to visit the moon relatively soon.
      2. Bayonet 7 October 2015 22: 18 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Asadullah
        The fact is that so far there is no salvation from penetrating radiation except for materials with high density and mass. Or a very powerful magnetron, which however will not save from gamma-ray.

        I just don’t understand why you pulled the magnetron here? winked A magnetron is a powerful electronic device that generates microwaves in the interaction of an electron flux with a magnetic field. How, even if a huge power magnetron, can save from penetrating radiation?
        1. Asadullah 8 October 2015 08: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I just don’t understand why you pulled the magnetron here?


          Sorry, a magnetic field generator that at a certain power will deflect alpha and beta radiation.
      3. Bayonet 8 October 2015 06: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Asadullah
        The Americans did not know about this then, and from that they froze a movie about the Moon and adventures.

        In the Earth’s magnetosphere there are two radiation belts that contain charged particles of the solar wind captured by the Earth’s magnetic field. They are called Van Allen radiation belts. Although the American Van Allen discovered only the inner belt, and the discoverers of the external radiation belt are Soviet scientists Vernov and Chudakov. The inner belt is located at an altitude of 3 to 12 thousand km above the surface of the Earth, and the outer belt is at an altitude of 18 to 57 thousand km. The RPZ was discovered by American and Soviet scientists in 1957-1958. The existence of the radiation belt was confirmed by the Sputnik-3 apparatus, launched in 1958. hi
        1. Asadullah 8 October 2015 08: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The existence of the radiation belt was confirmed by Sputnik-3, launched in 1958.


          The intensity, as well as changes in stiffness, were studied much later. And so far this is not a fully understood phenomenon, to say the least. Today, the main information comes from analyzing defects in the radio-electronic devices of spacecraft. The fact is that the cosmos is a hostile, mysterious environment, completely unpredictable for humans. And the farther into space, the higher the degree of hostility and unpredictability. A man’s flight to the moon and his happy return would in fact be a huge breakthrough of mankind into space. And it doesn’t matter who makes it, it would be a triumph of human thought and dream. Alas, even with the modern development of technology, this task is unrealistically difficult.
  9. shinobi 7 October 2015 15: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All this is trampling on the spot. Prospects for aerospace systems of an aircraft type. This is also Korolevgovoril. And the process has moved. We have washed down a new dvigun of two contour diagrams of the atmosphere-space. Now they are looking for KB for a glider.
    1. rosarioagro 7 October 2015 17: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: shinobi
      The Prospects for Aircraft Aerospace Systems

      why drag wings into orbit and beyond, it’s overweight, fuel, fragile thermal insulation
  10. e_krendel 7 October 2015 16: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Like small children, chesslovo ... They still believe that American people were on the moon ...
    1. Vadim237 7 October 2015 21: 12 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You tell our veterans of the space rocket industry that they will laugh at you well.
  11. Old26 7 October 2015 20: 43 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Quote: e_krendel
    Like small children, chesslovo ... They still believe that American people were on the moon ...

    And no one believes. And the soil that they handed over to us by the aliens handed over to them, with which the Americans in 1947 made contact laughing
    1. Asadullah 7 October 2015 22: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And the soil that they gave us to them the aliens passed


      The USSR handed over to Americans 3,2 g of lunar soil brought by the Luna-16 station. How much did the lunar soil Americans give us? How much and to whom? If you answer this question, you can write a bestseller, because I do not know a single person who would clearly answer to this.
  12. Indifferent 7 October 2015 20: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The author does not understand the essence of the things about which he writes. He writes that the Americans were on the moon. And that the Saturn 5 rocket went successfully tests. This is stupid. There were two tests. On the first rocket burned down. On the second, it seemed to fly, although it was possible an imitation. And then six successful flights.
    I think there are many people who know the theory of probability. And she says that every event has a certain probability of an accident and success. After all, everyone knows that not a single rocket flies with 100% probability. And amers Saturn-5 officially had a probability of 50%. (one failure and one success). Then, after takeoff, there was a reboot of the module. And here is the probability of success and not success. Then the flight to the moon into the orbit exit zone. Also the probability. Then undocking and landing. This landing no one ever made. Armstrong tried and failed. During the parachute jump. The module crashed. No one else experienced and flew. In fact, the probability is 0%. Well, God be with her. Then walked on the moon. Well, the fact that no one was able to Jump on the Lunar is nonsense. After all, six times less weight. They had to jump per meter. Okay. farther. Takeoff. It is impossible to calculate on a transistor computer consuming 2 kW in the absence of solar panels. But here is a miracle. After all, you need to get exactly into the orbit of what remains in orbit. Otherwise, do not dock. The probability is close to negligible. But here it happened. Again docking and again probability. Then the flight to the earth and the entrance from the second space velocity of 11 km per second into the atmosphere. Overloads of 40 G. Here, too, the probability is close to zero! But they survived, and when climbing to an aircraft carrier, one could not even see fatigue on their faces. And crap excuse me in spacesuits. Also not noticeable. It turns out, even if we take the then-probabilities of all joins of atmospheric inputs and so on no more than 0.06%. And now six successful launches CONTRACT! Multiply the probabilities !!!! Get billions of a percent.
    I know there are pilots. Let someone tell me. Would he fly on a plane with the probability of returning alive in a billionth of a percent? Definitely not. So the answer was whether the Americans were on the moon or not.
    That is why for me a man who claims that the Americans were not an authority there. Were there their appliances. Yes they were!!! They brought corner reflectors and radio repeaters there. They will be found at the landing sites.
    1. Vadim237 7 October 2015 21: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In general, Saturn 5 had only 1 unsuccessful launch, and even that was the second test, and on the third there was already a flight with astronauts - real rockets, real engines, real vehicles - so the flights were all true.
      1. Bayonet 7 October 2015 22: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        In general, Saturn 5 had only 1 unsuccessful launch, and even then it was the second test

        In early May 1966, the first tests were conducted to launch the Saturn into outer space, which were unsuccessful - at the time of launch, the second stage of the rocket failed and was completely destroyed. After that, it was decided to send this rocket for necessary refinement and tentatively at the beginning of 1967 to conduct repeated tests to launch it.
        But in the end, the missile spent much longer on repair work than was originally planned, and only on November 9, 1967 was able to make a second attempt at an unmanned flight, which this time proved to be very successful.
        The next flight, which took place on April 4, 1968, was supposed to confirm the missile’s well-functioning performance and be final in the series of planned tests, but it crashed due to a failure of the second-stage engines, and the third stage at the time of launch, in general, was torn to pieces. In general, there were many problems, and long repairs were planned to solve them. After only 8 months, after a tremendous failure on April 4, 1968, the Saturn 5 started with people on board, heading straight for the Moon. As a result, on July 20, 1969, American astronauts landed on the surface of the moon for the first time in the history of mankind. After landing on the moon, another 10 successful launches of this launch vehicle were made, including the last flight in May 1973, with the Skylab orbiting station on board. By the time the decision was made to complete the further operation of the Saturn-5 launch vehicles, 3 vehicles of this type remained on Earth, which in December 1976 were mothballed and sent to the museum as exhibits.
  13. de_monSher 7 October 2015 21: 56 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    According to experts, to date on the moon, only the extraction of tritium is profitable - the nuclear fuel of the future.


    Nonsense. Tritium? On the moon? Was he digging artesian wells there? Nudes, nudes ... and everything else, about the heavy rocket launcher, about the anti-satellite weapons on the MiG 31, about the "air defense \ missile defense \ missile defense" missiles, which can get satellites in orbit (!), In near space (!!) ... Epsel-Mopsel, even 8 km / s satellite speed in orbit, it’s not like halam-balam ...

    Delirium, delirium, delirium ... of the author are articles, it is necessary to hand over soap - and this will be a manifestation of mercy in relation to our descendants ...
    1. lilian 8 October 2015 00: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      As for Tritium, I agree, but anti-satellite missiles seem to already exist, and it seems like they have already been tested on satellites. Why do they need t.s. to catch a satellite from behind, if you can fly to where it (satellite) will be at the time of the meeting?
  14. Totalwar 8 October 2015 07: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Temples
    This is a divorce !!! Mavrodi applauds and cries.
    800 thousand rubles and I will prove to everyone and that's it !!!
    I am not a freeloader I am a partner !!!!
    The best minds of mankind will design !!!!
    Throw yourself and know the truth!
    And then run up and on the table forehead with all the dope !!!! Did the sparks go? This starts the camera on the moon !!! fool

    Haha people have already gathered
    Collected1 166 154 Rub
    from 800 000 rubles, and until the end another 28 days !!! Yes, at such a pace the people will also collect for the exploration of Mars !!! hi
    1. Scraptor 8 October 2015 15: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It’s better to let them go there ... And you can send some nano-rover if it’s so impatient for much less money. Along with lunology and it will learn.
  15. Old26 8 October 2015 10: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Asadullah
    If you answer this question, you can write a bestseller, because I do not know a single person who would clearly answer to this.

    I’m not Mukhin or Popov, dear Asadullah, to write best-selling books. Especially when today the author (Mukhin) writes a book about the Americans' moon swindle, tomorrow about who killed Stalin and Beria, the day after tomorrow - who shot down the Malaysian Boeing, then who killed the Americans on September 11, about the slandered Stalin, about the fooled Hitler, about the general mafia from Kutuzov to Zhukov ...
    And other books. Only 79 pieces. A prolific writer, and most importantly understands everything, knows everything. True, a book, especially about astronautics, if you are a techie, not a humanist, I advise you not to read it late at night. Wake your family or neighbors, because you will not laugh, but simply CLICK.

    When a person explains that there was a SCAM with SATURN-5. That there was no such carrier. There was a carrier SATURN-1V. To "ride on the ears" in all the world, the Americans started a scam. We took this carrier, took a sheet of aluminum, 5 mm thick, 75 meters long (I apologize - I do not remember the width). Further, they rolled an aluminum pipe from this sheet, jammed it on the SATURN-1V, installed a 45-ton Apollo on top and launched it. As soon as the missile went out of sight, the ship disconnected from the carrier and splashed in the Atlantic Ocean. And when it was necessary to show the landing, they dropped the lander on a plane by parachute.

    That's about this level of facts for this "writer" who opened his eyes to the world on the moon scam of the Americans. And he does not care that the difference in diameter between SATARNA-5 and SATURNA-1V is two meters. He doesn’t care how all this was fixed (it’s not a royal thing to know such trifles), he doesn’t care that the weight of the Saturn-1V steps, plus the weight of this aluminum pipe, plus the weight of the ship exceed the thrust of the carrier engine. Much do not care. But he became a "truth-seeker"

    Once again I apologize for such a lengthy retreat. Now about the ground. According to the agreement by the Americans, we gave the American about the same amount of soil as they gave us. They gave us 29,4 g regolith, we him - 30,2 Mr.

    In the Soviet Union, he studied lunar soil (both ours and American) Institute of Geochemistry, USSR Academy of Sciences Vernadsky (now - GEOCHI RAS).
    This role is assigned to him today. I was engaged in direct research meteoric department, headed by the head of this department, Doctor of Sciences M.A. Nazarov.

    According to the study, a monograph was published and its so-called “consumer-friendly version” (the Knowledge Society publishing house published EMNIP). Unfortunately, being on a business trip in Leningrad at that time I was not able to buy this rare copy, it was dismantled in 5 minutes. I read from a friend. In short, in one phrase, our and American soil is identical. There are small differences, but this is quite normal, for the soil taken, for example, in the Tula and Voronezh regions in the details will also differ, and even more significantly ...

    So there is simply no secret where and who studied this soil.
    There is a conspiracy theological version of Mukhin and Popov, which has been replicated for many years and, of course, has its supporters. This is not unusual. Here ufologists also truly believe in their