Military Review

Collective Gagarin

58
Space exploration may be less costly and more efficient.


In the harsh conditions of a significant reduction in funding for the Federal Space Program (FKP) on 2016 – 2025 years, it is necessary to radically change the approach to many areas of the industry. It is not enough to simply abandon some costly items such as creating a super-heavy launch vehicle or deep-space exploration projects.

We need an innovative approach, a fresh look, and sometimes unusual ideas regarding the choice of directions. Without questioning the competence of the developers of the PCF, let us express our proposals on this subject. There is always some value in independent evaluation.

Carriage at the site


The International Space Station is the largest project of our time in space exploration, in which the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Russia participate in various forms. And although the ISS is also a very expensive facility, it would be unwise not to use its capabilities for promising developments.

“The rocket range of the Navy in the village of Nenoksa is an ideal place to launch satellites along different trajectories”
The irreplaceable role of Russia in the project is the delivery of Russian and foreign cosmonauts, which for simplicity is called a space cart. Now Russia is making decent money on it. Sooner or later (by about 2020), because of the growth in the number of competitors, someone will refuse this service, but for the time being it is in demand.

Before deciding to extend the work of the ISS to 2024, it is necessary to clearly understand for yourself what the purpose is. Indeed, many experiments, including on long flights, were conducted at the Salyut and Mir stations. Of course, it is impossible to make a big pause in the manned program, but if you fly into space, it is not for the sake of statistics, but for solving new tasks aimed at the future.

One of such is the test in near-earth orbit of equipment for lunar and Martian expeditions. First of all, it is a promising manned transport ship (PPTC), the creation of which is included in the PCF, but is behind the original schedule for years. This is an unaffordable luxury in conditions when foreign competitors conduct such developments at an accelerated pace. The topic should be urgently brought to a logical ending, that is, before the launch of a domestic PPTK into orbit. Now it is a priority in the development of manned space flight.

Another major theme that fits well with the ISS is inflatable transformer modules. This is just an economical option for space. The module shell is made of durable polymeric materials. Before the start, it is in the folded state, and after it goes into orbit, it is inflated, after which the internal volume increases more than four times. The weight of such a module is several times less than the traditional metal. If earlier for its delivery to orbit, a heavy Proton class PH was required, then now Soyuz is sufficient. The price of launching the latter is almost three times lower - what is not saving?

Pragmatism arrows


Nothing is more distressing than the realization of the fact that long-standing possibilities have not been used for certain reasons. One such example is the pragmatic cosmos concept, which has been developed in detail and is now virtually forgotten. It is a pity that in the low-income 90-e years it was not paid serious attention at the state level. The reason, at first glance, to the banal is simple: there were no funds. Formally, this is so. Indeed, in the post-Soviet period, the financing of space exploration has sharply decreased. But the problem is not only in money.

Collective Gagarin


The concept itself, called Pragmatic Cosmos, was developed by the NPO Mashinostroyenia corporation from Reutov, located near Moscow, on its own initiative. Its components in the form of models were even shown to the general public at the MAKS-99 showroom. The concept is based on the creation of low-cost, small-class satellites and the use of conversion launch vehicles for their launch into orbit. Taking into account market prospects, NPO Mashinostroyeniya specialists were the first in Russia to develop a universal platform, on the basis of which small spacecraft for various purposes would be manufactured. To put them into orbit, it was planned to use the conversion Strela LV. Such an approach made it possible for anyone at that time to master an unoccupied niche in the space services market.

The godfather of the program is a renowned designer of rocket and space technology, the former general director of the NPO of mechanical engineering Herbert Efremov. Despite the fact that the program was created primarily in the interests of Russia, it did not receive state support. However, many of its provisions are still fully relevant and competitive today. Here is what Efremov said: “We must deal with everything that works for urgent tasks, gives practical feedback. This remote sensing, topography, navigation, communications, weather satellites. " If the state showed wisdom and interest in this initiative, at the very beginning of the XXI century, at minimal cost, we would have very good results in scientific spacecraft, communications satellites and remote sensing of the Earth, as well as serious groundwork.

It was originally proposed to use the Strela launch vehicle to launch satellites from the Svobodny space center (now Vostochny). For this, a project was prepared for the addition of one missile mine to the Strategic Missile Forces division disbanded there. But the former leadership of Roscosmos did not consider it necessary to invest only 10 million dollars or provide guarantees for a loan in a bank. Not allocated this money to this day. Calculations show that over the past years, the resulting profit would repeatedly recoup all costs. From the Far Eastern cosmodrome for at least a decade the carriers of the Strela could take the spacecraft to virtually any orbit, including polar and solar-synchronous ones. Moreover, the cost of launches would be minimal and not least due to the low cost of maintaining almost ready infrastructure. But the project remained on paper.

Nano in orbit


To this day, the directions of development indicated in the Pragmatic Cosmos concept remain promising. Moreover, in recent years, new projects of using small spacecraft have appeared. In particular, it is proposed to use them as rescue satellites capable of refueling large vehicles to extend their life directly in orbit, and in the long term, taking into account the development of robotics and their repair.

Let us imagine such a case: a large and expensive apparatus has entered an unplanned orbit; it cannot be used for its intended purpose. The rescue satellite is launched, which after docking leads the main satellite to the previously planned orbit. Savings are easy to count. If the price of large satellites is expressed in hundreds of millions of dollars, then the price of small devices is only in the tens. The last episode of this kind is the launch of the Soyuz 2.1В launch vehicle of two military 5 satellites in December. One was put out on a regular basis, the other was not separated from the new upper stage Volga. And instead of deciding the issue of dropping from orbit and subsequent flooding of the bundle from the upper stage and one of the satellites, it would be possible to send some repair and rescue apparatus, which is not yet available, unfortunately. Another example from the recent past. At the end of 2012, the Yamal-402 communications satellite (summed up by the upper stage) turned out to be in an unplanned orbit. He traveled to the geostationary orbit with the help of his engines, burning fuel supplies. For this reason, his appointment time has decreased. As a result, insurance companies indemnified the damage in the amount of 74 million euros.

Everyone remembers the recent accident with the Phobos-Grunt satellite. It was created for a decade and a half, decent funds were spent on it. Failure hurt both the space budget and the prestige of the industry. For the ruined money, it was possible to create five to seven small scientific devices that would give much more results than one Phobos-Grunt.

The classification of such satellites by mass is so interesting that it should be given in its entirety. So: small spacecraft - from 500 kilograms to one ton, mini - from 100 to 500 kilograms, micro - from 10 to 100 kilograms, nano - from one to 10 kilograms, pico - from 100 grams to one kilogram, femto - less than 100 grams . The main advantage of the "kids" - dramatically reduced terms of design and creation. Hence, their prices will not be high.

Russia in the creation of small and ultra-small satellites, unfortunately, is well behind its competitors. Now we have to catch up. The task is clear: to put on the conveyor the release of small devices for various purposes. The first light-class spacecraft have already been launched. I want to believe that the process has begun, and to wish every success to this undertaking.

Then light-class PHs, including conversion ones, will also be in demand. In particular, for launches it is possible to use the rocket range of the Navy, located on the shore of the White Sea, in the village of Nenoks, Arkhangelsk region. Sea ballistic missiles are being tested there, but the site is clearly not fully loaded. And the place is ideal for launches along different trajectories. Instead of utilization, combat missiles removed from nuclear submarines will launch satellites into orbit. In the United States do just that.

And I would also like to appeal to the Roskosmos Board with a proposal to resume the launch of low-cost payloads due to the fact that the previous ones were unsuccessful for technical reasons. Recall a couple of such cases.

In 2005, during the Russian-American conversion PH experiment, a small Kosmos-1 spacecraft was launched. According to the plan, the device was to go into a high earth orbit, and then deploy a solar sail made of plastic. However, he entered an unplanned orbit and the connection with him was lost. In the same year, the launch of the experimental Demonstrator apparatus, which was a brake device made in the form of a cone made of heat-resistant material, ended in failure. By the way, both launches were made from a nuclear submarine.

It seems that failure is no reason to throw the implementation of interesting ideas halfway. On the contrary, it is necessary to correct past mistakes and try again, because the development of new unique technologies is at stake, and no one is insured against possible failures.

Many, many times


Trends of the world cosmonautics suggest that it is time to actively develop reusable launch vehicles. They allow to reduce the cost of launches not by percents, but by an order. By some estimates, the reduction in price is from 5 to 10 times as compared to traditional PH.

The first studies on this topic under the cover of secrecy were conducted back in 60-s. But the real boom occurred at the start of 90's. Many domestic enterprises related to space, due to a sharp reduction in the state order, literally spilled their reusable LV projects onto the market. Naturally, they sought to get some commercial orders to preserve the main production, and this is what came of it.

GKB them. Makeeva came out with a proposal to use his naval strategic missiles to launch satellites. It was developed in several versions of the RMS "Calm". So, “Calm-3” from a ground launch could have thrown a payload of 410 kilograms into low orbit, and with an aviation launch using an aircraft carrier, the weight increased to 950 kilograms. The difference is obvious. The aircraft in this case served as the first stage of the launch vehicle. But in the end, there were only two successful space launches of the Stihn rocket launcher. But how it was spectacular: starts from the board of a nuclear submarine.

In 1991, Raduga ICB developed the innovative project of the Burlak launch vehicle for the rapid launch of various satellites into orbit, including the military. RN was suspended under the plane Tu-160. The system rose almost to the stratosphere, where at a supersonic speed the PH separated from the carrier aircraft. The maximum payload weight put into orbit was 1100 kilograms. A little later, the project was joined by financial partners from Germany, and the project was named “Diana-Burlak”. A full-scale mock-up of the PH was made along with the Tu-160, which was demonstrated at a number of air shows. Everyone was hoping that things were moving steadily, but ... the money ran out.

Compared to the rest, the long-suffering Air Launch project looked very worthy, which was refined several times, but was never brought to the final stage. Its main element was a specially refitted An-124 aircraft, from which, at an altitude of about 10 kilometers, the RN was launched, its rocket engines were launched and further space flight was launched. The system was designed to bring up to three tons of cargo into low orbit. However, the lack of real orders for launches and this development left on paper.

NPO Molniya proposed the project MAKS (Multipurpose Aerospace System), which turned out to be a real technical masterpiece and was well ahead of its time. As the carrier aircraft it was planned to use the An-225 - the most powerful aircraft in the world. With him was to start a space plane in a manned or unmanned version. The cost of delivery to orbit of one kilogram of cargo was reduced tenfold. But even before this project, the hands have not yet reached.

At the end of the 90-ies the Center. Khrunichev as a development of the Angara launch system offered his project of a reusable carrier. Its key element was to be the first-stage accelerator “Baikal”, which, after launching and separating from the second stage, spread its wings and landed like an airplane on the nearest airfield. So far, it has only reached the creation of an exhibition layout on the scale of 1: 1 and its purging in the wind tunnel TsAGI. Nevertheless, I want to believe that Baikal has a future. However, like other Russian reusable systems.

Cost effective retargeting


The time has come to recall what potential for the development of space research existed during Soviet times and what remained of it. This refers to the dismantled combat missiles that were in service and later, potentially capable of launching spacecraft into orbit. One glance at the numbers is enough to experience a real shock. The number of Soviet missiles is amazing. In 1991, the USSR was armed with 2354 strategic sea-and land-based missiles. And this is without regard to those stored in the arsenals. Today, on duty, remained miserable. The total number of strategic missiles of all types, removed from combat duty in the post-Soviet period and later utilized, exceeds two thousand units.

For example, the Strela launch vehicle and the Rokot launch vehicle were based on the RS-18 strategic rocket, reliable and durable. After the collapse of the USSR, 170 of such missiles remained on combat duty in Russia. More 19 missiles were later transferred to us by Ukraine on account of the debt for gas. Theoretically, such a stock of launch vehicles would be enough for at least twenty years, or even thirty. But only three conversion LV Strela and 25 PH Rokot were launched. A dozen more missiles were used to check the reliability and extend the life of the service. Pure arithmetic says that today we should have about 150 units in stock (on duty and in storage in the arsenal).

The price of a conversion pH for a state is, conditionally speaking, zero. Of course, the alteration of a combat missile into a carrier and its launch into space implies certain financial costs, but still it is beneficial, because instead of the costs of recycling, you can earn. A range of domestic conversion PH is quite rich - any customer can find a suitable option for themselves. Russia, on the other hand, is able to launch into conversion orbit almost any satellite weighing from one to 4500 kilograms.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/28499
58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis Obukhov
    Denis Obukhov 21 December 2015 14: 36 New
    +3
    Great article! Possible options for the development of domestic astronautics in the near future are shown.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 21 December 2015 14: 48 New
      +7
      Do you call closed projects in the last decade the near future of our space program?
    2. Gani
      Gani 21 December 2015 14: 48 New
      +7
      It would be cool to reduce the cost of launches 5-10 times earlier than all competitors! (all the same, the near space mankind will master more and more and more and more weapons will be withdrawn there) and give a discount of up to 80 percent! those who made the cargo for launch into orbit in Russia with significant localization.
      China leader in microelectronics manufacturing why? because there is cheap labor there? - not because he is a leader in the extraction of rare-earth metals and prohibitive duties on their export sales, which many years rival partners cannot challenge in the WTO! And the production program was launched thirty years ago, when no one could imagine that they would need such a number. Can you imagine what a planning horizon - thanks to this and a few other feints, they saddled the current technological order, although they were hopelessly behind!
    3. Sweles
      Sweles 21 December 2015 15: 23 New
      0
      “pragmatic space” is when there was no money, then everything that flies and what you could earn was offered to make work, but the state has changed money and you can make a large powerful rocket with the same powerful engine, but almost nothing is done RD191 and ANGARA is not a step forward, but stomping on the spot.
      It is time to recall what potential for the development of space research existed during the Soviet era and what remained of it


      "it's time"? and who said that it has arrived? There are prerequisites, only there are no reasons. Of course, an air start or Baikal would be a step forward, but what's the use of dreaming when we are not making the decision? Instead, the hangar, which in terms of performance characteristics will be not much different from Proton and, of course, not accepted UR700. It seems that we are waiting for the Americans to catch up with us or surpass us, then those who depend on decision-making will finally give money and we will make a big rocket and a return first stage, and an air launch, and maybe even fly to the moon - maybe.
    4. USSR 1971
      USSR 1971 21 December 2015 15: 35 New
      +1
      Yes, the article is good, I do not argue. But are the construction site managers of the Vostochny spaceport reading such articles? Or nut tighteners in Khrunichev's design bureau?
      God grant that all thieves that interfere with the described prospects are transplanted.
    5. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 21 December 2015 17: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Denis Obukhov
      Excellent article!

      Especially in the lines that the metal body weighs more than an inflatable one. He did not at all take into account that the metal case is going into orbit with the equipment already mounted. And in the inflatable, devices and apparatuses will also need to be inflated? And who will mount all this? Or are the cables also inflatable? In short, science fiction, illiterate, but well-read, like all magazines.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 21 December 2015 20: 16 New
        0
        Some can be done and inflatable, greenhouses for example. Devices and cables 3D print laughing

        In general, everything there is inflatable (but not flexible) and even in the airliner the pressure at altitude in the cabin is released.
  2. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 21 December 2015 14: 36 New
    +7
    It is necessary to develop breakthrough things. For example, a megawatt-class nuclear power plant project is brought to iron. And he has problems with financing.

    We need to do what works well - rocket engines. In particular, RD-701, RD-146D - bring to mind. A RD-180, RD-191 - to produce and sell, including amers; let them pay!

    It is necessary to build, not having its own name, PTK NP manned ship, and not to carry mock-ups at air showrooms.

    "Super Heavy Carrier“in fact, it’s not so complicated! What’s the problem of making the so-called Trizenit. Three Zeniths are tied in one package, and a new second or third stage. But before that, you need to eliminate the Ukrainian components in Zenith.

    A new orbital station after the ISS - we must also see why it is needed, except for prestige.

    An air launch is only suitable for launching small satellites, such as cubesats; even Ruslan will not lift a sufficiently heavy rocket; There is virtually no mriya; and designing a new super-giant carrier aircraft is a direct path back to expensive space.

    In the interplanetary Russian astronautics, I’m sorry, a complete ass. Some pictures, yes, collapsed into the ocean, "Mars-96" and "Phobos - in - the ground." Timing is constantly shifting to the right. There are no revolutionary projects.
  3. Riv
    Riv 21 December 2015 14: 37 New
    +5
    Innovative approach, you say? That's when in Russia they will be able to build a passenger plane without imported parts - then we'll talk about space cabs. Fuck with him, with the plane. At least a laptop.
    In the meantime, Serdyukov is engaged in innovation and innovators.
    1. Denis Obukhov
      Denis Obukhov 21 December 2015 14: 57 New
      +9
      Quote: Riv
      At least a laptop.



      Here is the first laptop created in Russia on the basis of the Elbrus-4C chip with the installed Elbrus OS, which is a modification of Linux. Are you satisfied ???
      1. Victor-M
        Victor-M 21 December 2015 15: 11 New
        +7
        The device really weighs 10 kilograms and looks menacing, but this has its own explanation: the “wearable terminal” is designed for difficult working conditions. It can withstand falling onto a concrete floor from a height of 75 centimeters, immersion in water to a depth of one meter; works at a temperature from –10 to +55 degrees. At the same time, the manufacturer promises that the laptop will work for at least 12 years.

        “His work is guaranteed even if in a 50-degree heat to swim to the enemy under water and neutralize him by hitting this laptop on the head,” Alexander Bragin, an employee of the ICST, joked on his blog in 2014. - I have a version that the laptop works in two modes - lethal and non-lethal. For the second, it is necessary to have rubber pads, then you can disperse the demonstrators. In lethal mode, the rubber pads are removed and combat operations can be conducted. ”

        These jokes have much in common with reality: NT-ElbrusS is designed to solve, if not military, then industrial tasks close to them in complexity. The manufacturer describes the scope of the laptop in general terms: "mobile monitoring posts, functioning as part of location and flaw detection systems, control systems of special importance." As you can see, the device is not intended for ordinary consumers, although it can cope with most everyday needs - in the Elbrus operating system, built on the Linux kernel, you can find a browser, an email client, and office editors.
        You can laugh at electronics for the military for a long time, but comparing computers, laptops and other special-purpose devices with those intended for consumers is at least strange. At least until “Elbrus” and “SENZU” began to forcibly offer ordinary users.
        1. Denis Obukhov
          Denis Obukhov 21 December 2015 15: 34 New
          +8
          Quote: Victor-M
          The device really weighs 10 kilograms and looks menacing, but this has its own explanation: the “wearable terminal” is designed for difficult working conditions. It can withstand falling onto a concrete floor from a height of 75 centimeters, immersion in water to a depth of one meter; works at a temperature from –10 to +55 degrees. At the same time, the manufacturer promises that the laptop will work for at least 12 years.

          “His work is guaranteed even if in a 50-degree heat to swim to the enemy under water and neutralize him by hitting this laptop on the head,” Alexander Bragin, an employee of the ICST, joked on his blog in 2014. - I have a version that the laptop works in two modes - lethal and non-lethal. For the second, it is necessary to have rubber pads, then you can disperse the demonstrators. In lethal mode, the rubber pads are removed and combat operations can be conducted. ”

          These jokes have much in common with reality: NT-ElbrusS is designed to solve, if not military, then industrial tasks close to them in complexity. The manufacturer describes the scope of the laptop in general terms: "mobile monitoring posts, functioning as part of location and flaw detection systems, control systems of special importance." As you can see, the device is not intended for ordinary consumers, although it can cope with most everyday needs - in the Elbrus operating system, built on the Linux kernel, you can find a browser, an email client, and office editors.
          You can laugh at electronics for the military for a long time, but comparing computers, laptops and other special-purpose devices with those intended for consumers is at least strange. At least until “Elbrus” and “SENZU” began to forcibly offer ordinary users.



          It still bears a load of 4G is the load in a jet plane. The laptop has 6G stress resistance, no one has it. In any environment, such a load will put any computer in the trash. with a load of even 2G, and this is a racing car, not a single laptop will work if over 800 GHz.

          Actually, this is not just a laptop, but a portable terminal in a shockproof and waterproof case, which makes it so heavy. Designed for those who rummage through the taiga mud for months in search of oil, gas and gold. You can drop it in the mud and chop nuts with it or smash someone’s head. smile
      2. Sweles
        Sweles 21 December 2015 15: 33 New
        -3
        Quote: Denis Obukhov
        Quote: Riv
        At least a laptop.



        Here is the first laptop created in Russia on the basis of the Elbrus-4C chip with the installed Elbrus OS, which is a modification of Linux. Are you satisfied ???


        you better tell me how many such devices in the army? What plant produces, for what purposes and who is the consumer? Something is not heard that such laptops go to the army, we do planes, tanks do, BMP, we build submarines, but as for army computers, there is silence.
        1. Extraneous
          Extraneous 21 December 2015 15: 44 New
          +2
          Similar laptops were shown in new developments of command and staff vehicles, electronic warfare systems
        2. Victor-M
          Victor-M 22 December 2015 01: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Sveles
          you better tell me how many such devices in the army?

          And for what purpose are you interested in? As much as necessary, so much will be.
      3. Extraneous
        Extraneous 21 December 2015 15: 39 New
        +2
        Development for the military. Should not be easily killed. Linux is an open-source operating system that allows you to build data protection and create applications quite efficiently. I see nothing criminal in using such a system.
        PC production for a citizen is not a priority for this period of time. First you need to bring to mind the technology of mass production of their components and their rapid modernization. What will not be soon.
        An ordinary user will still cost Chinese plastics.
    2. Gormenghast
      Gormenghast 21 December 2015 15: 00 New
      +4
      This issue is known. sad

      But Russia does all kinds of nuclear reactors - both large and small, and they are entirely their own!
      Ionic engines are also their own; m. to be not the best in terms of parameters, but ours!

      One + second = orbital power propulsion system, which has no world analogues. Designed; they made some kind of partial iron and ... now they have pushed it unclear where. Why? Money is not gigantic; in any case, the level of credit to Ukraine.

      And we will be ahead of the rest of the planet; let the Americans fly with their liquid Orion to the moon; having such a base, we can not fly for two weeks, and build a station in the orbit of the moon. Yes, and on the moon you can. The transport block, at the same time, is reusable! He can fly dozens of times to the moon and back.

      We are talking about this. To do what we are strong in, and what we can do now.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 21 December 2015 16: 24 New
        0
        One problem, ionic engines give enormous specific thrust, but in absolute numbers is scanty. And until there is a radical breakthrough in engine technology, it is useless to reason something, the spacecraft will not be an airplane from science fiction films, but a barrel of fuel.
        1. Gormenghast
          Gormenghast 21 December 2015 19: 24 New
          0
          The thrust of ion engines depends only on the power supply. While they will be powered by solar panels - it will be of little use (although, in general, it is).

          ID-500 with a power of 32-35 kW gives a thrust of 375-750 mN (up to 76 grams) and has a specific impulse of 70000 m / s.

          According to the Russian project, engines powered from a nuclear reactor with an electric power of 1 MW and the same specific impulse give 18 N thrust.

          Almost the same ratio. At the same time, a 1000 MW reactor of electric power is not something extraordinary. He will be able to power a whole battery of small engines with traction already in tons. At the same time, the engine is 1000 times reserved - there are many of them; if one or several fail, this will not affect the operation of the installation at all.
    3. Mexovoy
      Mexovoy 21 December 2015 15: 06 New
      +3
      Which country is currently building a plane without import?
      1. 3axap82
        3axap82 21 December 2015 15: 23 New
        +4
        The USA is building its planes, our titanium cannot be considered an import. This is not technology. This is raw material. They have their own titanium, there is titanium in the world market, it’s just that our “trading geniuses” sell it cheaper, because they get a lot.
        The EU builds aircraft without import.
        The USSR built aircraft without resorting to imported technologies.
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 21 December 2015 15: 40 New
          0
          Quote: 3axap82
          They have their own titanium, there is titanium in the world market, it’s just that our “trading geniuses” sell it cheaper, because they get a lot.

          By this logic, we can say that we also do not do accessories, because it is so cheaper.
          Quote: 3axap82
          The EU builds aircraft without import.

          Airbus builds its aircraft in France and Germany, not counting employees in other countries. Although the countries are not at all poor and not backward and individually.
          "In December 2003, Airbus signed a contract with the Sokol aircraft plant in Nizhny Novgorod on the production of components for Airbus aircraft in Russia.
          In December 2004, Airbus placed orders for the manufacture of components for aircraft of the A320 family at Irkut Corporation. At the end of 2005, the Irkut Corporation (at the Irkutsk Aviation Plant) and the Voronezh Aircraft Building Association placed additional orders for components for aircraft of the A320, A330 / A340 and A380 families. "This is from the pedia.
          Quote: 3axap82
          The USSR built aircraft without resorting to imported technologies.

          Do not tell me how the Tu-4 appeared? About pre-war relations with various foreign firms?
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 21 December 2015 15: 53 New
            +2
            Quote: Vladimirets
            Do not tell me how the Tu-4 appeared? About pre-war relations with various foreign firms?

            you still remember AMOZIL, those days are gone when we did not know how to make cars and planes ourselves, now we can do EVERYTHING, moreover, we are still ahead of everyone in creating space stations and liquid-propellant engines; and then everyone would see what this "superpower" would do, but they did not want to.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. 3axap82
            3axap82 21 December 2015 16: 02 New
            +2
            Components - complex technical products and raw materials, this is not the same thing. For this reason, no one even from developing countries wants to cooperate with us for a long time. They will make money on our oil and gas and run to buy technology in the US and the EU. Russia cannot ensure the technological development of the allies, and if it can, then in a narrow field of defense.
            Airbus is an international concern; it can also order parts from the USA, if it wants to build at home. EU Air Force aircraft are built by manufacturing countries and their own to the bolt.
            A real example of technology imports is our rocket engines delivered to the USA. The engine is entirely ours, their rocket but without our engine it does not meet the inherent requirements for carrying capacity, the USA does not have the ability to produce it on its own. Or avionics for Russian fighters from Israel and France.
            The well-post-war USSR built aircraft without resorting to imported technologies.
            Tu-4 was WHOLE copied for lack of an aircraft of this class, stolen in essence. Just like the stolen Mig-25 “spawned” the f-15 heavy fighter.
            Tank Christie ... it was, but then the tanks were completely their own.
            It is one thing when they can and are looking for where it is cheaper to buy, another when import is compelled, then they themselves do not know how.
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 21 December 2015 16: 33 New
              +2
              Do you know that the T-72 was made on Japanese equipment? Although how do you know this. VAZ-2101 is generally the legendary Fiat and the equipment for its production was also imported, as well as at KAMAZ.
              The problem is that you cannot be a leader in absolutely everything. Otherwise, the United States would not buy anything from us. And with small-scale products like unique machine tools or rocket engines, the problem reaches a fundamentally new level when the number of manufacturers begins to be measured on the fingers of one hand.
              1. 3axap82
                3axap82 21 December 2015 17: 15 New
                +1
                All this was initially produced on domestic equipment. If someone decided to buy foreign machines, this does not mean that it can not be produced in domestic.
                We bought fiat. Someone in the manual wanted that we would produce fiat. But there were their own cars.
                The Americans produced Toyota at home and are now producing it.
                Of course, being a leader in everything is unlikely to succeed. But to have all the existing technologies (or their own alternative ones that solve the same problems) and production is possible. And it was in the USA and in the USSR.
              2. Scraptor
                Scraptor 21 December 2015 19: 56 New
                0
                Nothing was imported at KAMAZ and it was exported and exported to the USA.
            2. Scraptor
              Scraptor 21 December 2015 20: 03 New
              0
              Suspension was taken from the tank; money went to the American patent holder for it.
              According to the “bought” Yakovlev Freestyle, on the contrary, everything in the USA and England is patented!
          4. Scraptor
            Scraptor 21 December 2015 20: 00 New
            0
            The Tu-4 appeared by reverse engineering, but with the sale of Soviet technology and not just products for nothing, the F-35 turns out to be non-American, although for the sake of greater importance, a number of flags are pasted on it.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 21 December 2015 16: 28 New
          0
          And where are these Soviet planes now? Where is this Tu-204, who is late for a whole generation? Or the Tu-334 about which so many tears were shed, but which no one bought, because it was an outdated pile of aluminum in the drawings, and did not pass certification, but even foreign customers take the SSJ, whom the hated Poghosyan would never be able to boil anything.
          1. Corsair
            Corsair 21 December 2015 17: 08 New
            +4
            Quote: EvilLion
            SSJ is taken even by foreign customers, whom the hated Poghosyan could never have put in anything.

            laughing Duc SSJ made 70 percent of the components of these same customers, gave us a large-assembly, burying almost completely the civil aviation industry, everyone is happy - everyone is fine, except for us - because tomorrow they will introduce what kind of sanction thread and goodbye superjet.

            After all, the issue is not the production of everything, but the same ANs and Tushka quite comfortably fulfilled their goals of covering the inter-trunk lines until, under the pretext of saving, they began to massively purchase the Boeing. Factories naturally went bankrupt because not only what to develop, but simply nothing to live on.
        3. Scraptor
          Scraptor 21 December 2015 19: 54 New
          0
          Something does not work out for them, nothing of their "raw materials", even the SR-71s were made entirely from Soviet titanium.

          By the way, it’s better to launch something by dumping and not from the back as in the picture in the article. lol Americans with such launches from the SR-71 were burned, and the only An-225 Mriya remained in Ukraine.
    4. EvilLion
      EvilLion 21 December 2015 16: 21 New
      +1
      That's when people like you will not get into their own business, then it will be.
    5. Riv
      Riv 21 December 2015 16: 22 New
      +7
      Comrades! A laptop MUST NOT weigh ten kilos. :) It MUST NOT contain imported components (yes, the display should be "native" and keyboard too). The operating system needs OWN, not Linux builds, and especially not Windows (bu-e-eeee!)

      In addition to fuel, a nuclear reactor also has a control system. We look at the item above: do we have an OS for her? It's not even the processor, the network architecture, or security. Stupidly: the axis of the Russian development. At least an analogue of Alpha-DOS twenty years ago.

      Ionic engine ... Serdyukov will make you an engine. Perhaps even direct-flow. :)
      1. Extraneous
        Extraneous 21 December 2015 18: 47 New
        0
        It makes sense to invent a bicycle if it is not in nature.
        Data protection is encryption and access system. Any axis with open access - a tray with sweets, take whatever you want.
        "Stump" - Russian development. Where is he now? Any development will sooner or later whistle and there’s no getting away from it.
        For a control system, processor control commands are needed, for which it is not at all necessary to create a sophisticated shell, which serves mainly to create beautifulness and increase the level of sales.
        Linux fully meets the security requirements, if this security is respected.
        In-house production is a welcome goal. But one must proceed from existing realities. But the reality is this: we do not have a high-tech electronics production, and if it does, then very soon.
        We need the purchase of appropriate technologies. Their development will take so much time that it simply won’t reach their implementation, given the level of lag.
        Ten kilogram laptops is the result of an attempt to build on our base what we are 30 years behind.
        I remember the Soviet-made tape recorder "Melody" in the passport of which it was proudly written: "the first domestic portable portable tape recorder .... weight 24 kg. "
        1. Riv
          Riv 21 December 2015 19: 29 New
          0
          Yes, but this tape recorder was mass-produced. It could be bought at the store. And where can I buy a Russian ultrabook in camouflage coloring? I want one.
          1. Extraneous
            Extraneous 21 December 2015 19: 42 New
            0
            Go to service in the videoconferencing
  4. venaya
    venaya 21 December 2015 14: 39 New
    +5
    The most interesting are the problems of reducing the cost of delivering goods into space orbit; all of these works should indeed be forced to be the most promising.
  5. The comment was deleted.
  6. Engineer
    Engineer 21 December 2015 14: 45 New
    +5
    Why did they dig up this old article, irrelevant for many years? MAKS and Baikal have long been closed projects, they are not even remembered about them. The hangar is already flying and flies without the Baikals. And the author argues about the Angara with Baikals, which is not there. There is only one current project - PPTS is our analogue of the American Orion under the Angara-5V rocket carrier. This direction was chosen by the Americans and we. This direction was chosen by two leaders in space. Why in general this article? Let's remember then Spiral - a chic project of the genius Lozino-Lozinsky. But why?
    1. Sweles
      Sweles 21 December 2015 15: 41 New
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      Why did they dig up this old article, irrelevant for many years? MAKS and Baikal have long been closed projects, they are not even remembered about them. The hangar is already flying and flies without the Baikals. And the author argues about the Angara with Baikals, which is not there. There is only one current project - PPTS is our analogue of the American Orion under the Angara-5V rocket carrier. This direction was chosen by the Americans and we. This direction was chosen by two leaders in space. Why in general this article? Let's remember then Spiral - a chic project of the genius Lozino-Lozinsky. But why?


      “why?” - for progress, have you heard about such a word? The first stage is the most expensive part of the rocket, the engines can now be reused, at least some parts, if you came up with the return of the first stage. Max and Spiral are space planes for tracking and surgical intervention, rescue, repair, space equipment. A strange question.
  7. afdjhbn67
    afdjhbn67 21 December 2015 14: 47 New
    +3
    In general, it seems to me that the development of the rocket scheme of astronautics is a dead end .. and astronautics today is at an impasse or close to it, like locomotives - they displaced electric locomotives, and until there is a transition to another level - a plasma, nuclear, built on a new village a well-known principle - and "raids" into the near space will continue, associated with incredible risk and cost .. and low efficiency
    (thinking of a complete amateur, do not judge strictly) hi
    1. Gormenghast
      Gormenghast 21 December 2015 15: 20 New
      +1
      A dead end, in many ways, artificially created.

      Man has long possessed enough energy to accelerate a hundred-ton ship to a speed of light, but he cannot concentrate this energy in a ship.

      Because TABU acts on the use of nuclear energy. TABU is internal and, worse, also legislative. You can’t explode nuclear charges in space, and that’s it! Prohibited.

      And there are at least two workable schemes that will allow a person to conquer the entire solar system, and go beyond it.

      This is a diagram of Robert Zubrin; The jet engine fuel is an aqueous solution of enriched uranium salt. When it, just like kerosene, enters from the neutron-absorbing tanks into the combustion chamber, a fission chain reaction begins in it. Superconducting magnets reliably protect all camera elements from the damaging effects of stellar temperatures. The engine gives very high traction and very high speed. Minus is dangerous; if something happens to the tanks, then nothing will remain of the ship; literally nothing.

      The second scheme is the injection of small (equivalent to 1 - 10 - 100 tons of TNT) atomic bombs and their detonation at some distance from the stern of the ship. A massive copper plate takes on a shock wave; Damper reduces overload. The ship accelerates to a speed that depends only on the number of bombs on board; it is hundreds (and first thousands) kilometers per second.
      1. Riv
        Riv 21 December 2015 16: 33 New
        +3
        One Ton Nuclear Bomb? Einstein rolls over in a coffin. But nothing, that the minimum power of a real existing nuclear charge is 0.3 kilotons and this is the same B61, only with adjustable power? It’s so simple to take a cube of uranium and blow it up - it won’t work.
        The critical mass of uranium is approximately 0.8 kilograms, under ideal conditions. A solution of concentrated salts, you say? Grandfather bequeathed to you a selection of "Young technician" for 1947? Read on.

        No, of course I knew that everything was bad at the current school ... :(
        1. Gormenghast
          Gormenghast 21 December 2015 19: 37 New
          0
          Agree wink In the heat of exaggeration. According to the project, oddly enough, 0,1 kilotons.

          However, the Davy Crockett M388 is from 10 to 20 tons in TNT equivalent, which is significantly less than 0,3 and 0,1 kilotons.

          A nuclear rocket engine based on a homogeneous solution of salts of nuclear fuel was proposed by Zubrin in 1991; significantly later than 1947 wink
          R. Zubrin, Nuclear Salt Water Rockets: High Thrust at 10,000 sec ISP, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 44, 371–376 (1991)

          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 21 December 2015 20: 31 New
            0
            Subcritical explosions do something like this
            1. Riv
              Riv 22 December 2015 07: 55 New
              0
              Under ideal conditions (a supersaturated aqueous solution of uranium salts, water is a neutron reflector, fissile material is very clean), the critical mass of uranium is 0.8 kilograms. But launching a nuclear reaction under such conditions is problematic. The rate of energy release is very high. The solution will boil and the reaction will break off as soon as it starts.

              Hence the ultra-low-power nuclear weapon: the mass defect is scanty, and the projectile power is not large. But there is no less uranium in it than in a "full-fledged" bomb. You still need to create a critical mass, but it ... see above.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 22 December 2015 09: 27 New
                0
                This is different. The first word was written, what was it?
                1. Riv
                  Riv 22 December 2015 12: 25 New
                  0
                  :)
                  Well, how else to explain? A critical mass is needed for a nuclear explosion. This is the law of nature. No way without her.
                  A subcritical explosion is the detonation of explosives around a material without reaching a critical mass.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 22 December 2015 16: 07 New
                    0
                    Quote: Riv
                    A subcritical explosion is the detonation of explosives around a material without reaching a critical mass.

                    Where is it written?
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 22 December 2015 19: 46 New
                      0
                      It's all bullshit - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_controlled_t
                      thermonuclear synthesis
  8. Volzhanin
    Volzhanin 21 December 2015 14: 57 New
    +5
    It is necessary, it is necessary ... To whom?
    The old-timers clinging to power since the time of the CPSU do not need this.
    The younger ones too - they have substantially no brains for this.
    Lawyers with economists will take up space? Gee! laughing
    Here they made fun.
    Where are you going to take mathematicians? In Russia they are an endangered species, although in the USSR they were the best in the world!
    While there are still nuggets from God in our schools, only again - who will look for them and raise them? In the best cases, their destiny is to write applications for gadgets. And given the almost complete debilitation of the education system, soon they will not remain - the last brains will endure the television.
  9. Corsair0304
    Corsair0304 21 December 2015 15: 00 New
    +2
    I support "afdjhbn67" on the issue that the space industry is currently stamping out. And even a successful manned flight to Mars will not fundamentally solve anything: the principles of flight, by and large, are the same as in low Earth orbit, or on the moon.
    Another question is that to strengthen our satellite constellation, we could well use conversion launch vehicles, and during this time, bring to mind those carriers that are so far unreliable and periodically fall. Can anyone tell us how many of them we have and why they are stored?
    1. Gormenghast
      Gormenghast 21 December 2015 15: 29 New
      +1
      we could use conversion launch vehicles


      They are used; each removed from combat duty "Satan" turns into a launch vehicle "Dnepr" (22 launches).

      "Blue" turns into "Calm" (2 launches) and starts directly from under water into orbit.
  10. LVMI1980
    LVMI1980 21 December 2015 15: 01 New
    +1
    The article is controversial in many ways.
    Yes, no one argues to develop
    But the use of reusable systems in existing variants (Shuttle, Buran) is unprofitable
    The most expensive is a vertical start with all the associated systems, and for the Shuttle, it’s also the restoration of a “reusable” booster block.
    Cheaper to operate the system "aerodrome" start and preferably with one step (which does not allow the existing engine power)
  11. Vladimir 1964
    Vladimir 1964 21 December 2015 15: 03 New
    0
    Interesting article. It is really hard to understand why the "strategists" that are not being used for commercial launches are not used. hi
    1. Gormenghast
      Gormenghast 21 December 2015 15: 30 New
      +1
      Are used.
  12. JonnyT
    JonnyT 21 December 2015 15: 07 New
    +5
    there can be no talk of any development of outer space while the anti-people capitalist regime is in power, while there are many traitors and wrecking elements in the vertical of power.

    ps A long time ago a space shipyard station would have been created, but apparently the palaces abroad are more important for our leadership than space exploration.

    One of the main reasons for the emergency collapse of the USSR is unprecedented success in the development of the space industry and technology. draw your own conclusions
    1. Gormenghast
      Gormenghast 21 December 2015 15: 34 New
      +2
      A space shipyard would have been created long ago


      In 1987, the OSEC (Orbital Assembly and Operational Center), also known as Mir-2, was designed. It was assembled from 90-ton modules, such as the deceased Skiff.

      The project was closed in 1993 - why - everyone will guess.
  13. 3axap82
    3axap82 21 December 2015 15: 19 New
    +7
    A sad picture is painted in this article. Sell, conversion, space services.
    Quote: Denis Obukhov
    In severe conditions of a significant reduction in funding for the Federal Space Program (FSC) for 2016–2025, it is necessary to radically change the approach to many areas of the industry's development. It’s not enough to simply abandon some costly articles such as creating an extra-heavy launch vehicle or deep space exploration projects.

    From Bantustan with love .... Space exploration is what will remain for the next generations and will be really useful for human civilization. And to sell oil, buying food for dollars is "work for the toilet."
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 December 2015 16: 00 New
      +3
      Our programs Moon, Mars can be safely closed because they will not be there, the superheavy rocket program is closed, like the new orbital station, all that remains is to put the payload into orbit in the form of satellites - Roscosmos rules.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 21 December 2015 16: 19 New
        0
        Because in fact nafig nobody needs them, nobody for the sake of Pontus now send 1-2 people to the moon, and especially not to Mars.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 21 December 2015 20: 04 New
          +1
          Unfortunately for us only — everyone else is working — in the USA, the air start will be ready in a year, in 2 years the super-heavy SLS rocket is the prototype of Saturn 5, in 2020 the Dragon 2 spaceship, in the UK in 2025 the Skylon aerospace plane and many others developments that are already beginning to be carried out in metal.
      2. 3axap82
        3axap82 21 December 2015 16: 22 New
        +1
        Very regrettable.
        The US is fighting for "American-style democracy" (US control over energy resources to buy them cheaper)
        Russia for the "Russian World" (everywhere, lay its pipes for unhindered energy trade more expensive)
        In space, everyone "scored". We need scientists and engineers to power, and not stupid "money bags".
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 21 December 2015 18: 38 New
          +3
          Capitalism and space are incompatible things.
  14. Al_oriso
    Al_oriso 21 December 2015 15: 53 New
    0
    That which has no military use does not develop. And in space weapons are not allowed.
  15. EvilLion
    EvilLion 21 December 2015 16: 18 New
    0
    Once again, I am convinced that we can build rockets with everything except those who are directly involved in this.

    "How to advise, so all chatlan."
    1. 3axap82
      3axap82 21 December 2015 16: 32 New
      +2
      Here EVERYONE advises and thinks knocking on the keyboard. This is a FORUM (place for discussion)!
      I will advise you here http://www.rusnod.ru
      Everything is there in a single impulse ... as one ... no criticism, in the "good will of man."
  16. epsilon571
    epsilon571 21 December 2015 18: 30 New
    +1
    The end of the XNUMXth century was the starting point of new technologies. This time (of suffering and change, revolution and bloody war) today looks so fantastic that sometimes it seems - parallel reality is a scientifically proven fact. Radio, television, aviation and space, electrical engineering and nuclear physics are simply incomprehensible to the mind. Those who say today that there is no money in the country, let them reread at least these works: Aelita by Alexei Tolstoy, The Dog’s Heart by Mikhail Bulgakov, treatises by Elena Blavatsky, verses by Velimir Khlebnikov, The Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein, autobiography and manuscripts of Nikola Tesla, and they will understand - money does not matter for people who believe, for people who are really striving for the future!
    Today I can give a huge number of examples that many of you have forgotten about, and for some reason do not want to remember, maybe I'm a romantic and my time is in the past ... But then friends, I am a very happy person!

    I DO NOT KNOW... / Velimir Khlebnikov /


    I don’t know if the earth is spinning or not
    It depends on whether the word fits into the line.
    I don’t know if my [them] grandmother was
    and grandfather
    Monkeys, t [ak] to [ak] I don't know if I want to
    me sweet or sour.
    But I know that I want to boil and I want
    to the sun
    And the vein of my hand was joined by a general trembling.
    But I want a ray of a star to kiss a ray
    of my eye
    Like a deer stag (oh their beautiful eyes!).
    But I want to believe that there is something that remains,
    When the braid of your girlfriend is replaced,
    eg [imer], by time.
    I want to factor out the common factor,
    connecting me
    Sun, sky, pearl dust.
    <1909>
  17. Anisim1977
    Anisim1977 21 December 2015 19: 08 New
    0
    If we think about the most effective transfer of cargo into orbit, then let's look at the pyramids.
    I am sure these cobblestones were set using the antigravity field. It is necessary to create a device to block the force of attraction on a large object, and then the tiny engine will bullet skyscrapers into orbit.
    If we say a breakthrough, then strain physicists, let the controlled field of antigravity be mastered.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 December 2015 20: 06 New
      0
      We will not see this.
  18. looker-on
    looker-on 21 December 2015 22: 36 New
    0
    Quote: mordvin xnumx
    Capitalism and space are incompatible things.

    Evan Musk disagrees with you. As I. By the way, he came to Russia and was very interested in our developments. His case comes in handy. Hard but difficult. And launches happen
  19. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 22 December 2015 07: 48 New
    0
    In import substitution it is impossible, after all, to go to the point of absurdity. And it turns out that a certain a country without oil should synthesize it, instead of buying, or some Greenland should grow its own pineapples, etc. (examples are primitive, but still).

    The computer controlling the atomic reactor must have its own; with its monitor and its keyboard. But the software on it can still be alien (something like that), if it is checked for built-in nasty things. The example is also conditional.
  20. Alisher
    Alisher 22 December 2015 18: 40 New
    0
    The body of the first stages of missiles is mainly fiberglass and thermal insulation, why save it? Can it be effective to rescue automation units and the rocket engine itself by parachute? And on the "Baikal" there were reports that the cost of excess fuel, wings, a control system did not justify itself. Given that rocket engines have a very limited resource.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 22 December 2015 19: 53 New
      0
      It is difficult to make the second steps entirely reusable, but the first ones are saved normally.