Project Falcon 9. Successful landing of the first stage and market prospects

December 22 an event occurred that may enter history world cosmonautics. The US company SpaceX launched another successful launch of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle with a payload in the form of several spacecraft, after which its first stage returned to the ground and made a normal landing. Thus, for the first time in the history of the Falcon program, it was possible not only to put a payload into orbit, but also to successfully land the first stage of a launch vehicle. It is expected that in the future this will significantly reduce the cost of putting goods into orbit and thereby bring about a real revolution in the space field.


The launch of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle of the v1.2 modification took place on 22 on December 10 at 01: 29 GMT from the launch site SLC-40 of the launch site at Cape Canaveral. Onboard the rocket were 11 satellites of the Orbcomm-G2 series. According to reports, the launch took place in the normal mode. The first stage brought the rocket to a predetermined height, after which it separated and returned to the corresponding site of the cosmodrome. The second stage after this put the payload into an orbit of height 620x640 km. It should be noted that successful launches of Falcon 9 rockets with payload, including in the form of layouts, have been carried out since 2010, however, this time, for the first time, it was possible to carry out a flight according to a program that fully meets the initial requirements of the project. The main goal of the launch was to return the first stage to the ground, after which it is expected to be used for the construction of a new launch vehicle.

After 140, after launch, the first stage raised the launch vehicle to an altitude of about 72 km, while the flight speed reached 6000 km / h. After the first stage engines were disconnected and disconnected from the rest of the rocket units. In the fourth minute of the flight, the team went to the beginning of the maneuvering before returning to the ground. Three engines provided a turn of the stage to transfer to the desired path. At the ninth minute of flight, the stage began to enter the dense layers of the atmosphere, after which braking started with the help of engines. Immediately before landing, the engines again started to operate in the braking mode, while landing supports were released. After 9 mines 44 seconds after launch, the first stage of the launch vehicle successfully descended to the landing site №1 of the launch site at Cape Canaveral.


Prelaunch preparation of the Falcon 9 v1.2 launch vehicle, 21 December


Recall, the Falcon 9 v1.2 launch vehicle is the newest modification of the family, which differs from its predecessors by a number of innovations. The main goal of the project was to ensure the return of the spent first stage at the launch of the payload to any orbits. The changes affected the design and capacity of the fuel tanks, the power elements of the first stage, etc. were strengthened. Increased performance has led to an increase in the size and weight of the rocket. Its starting mass increased to 541,3 t, and its length increased to 70 m. The payload mass remained at the same level.

The most important innovation of the Volume 1.2 project was the use of the upgraded Merlin 1D engines, differing from their predecessors by increased traction. It is noteworthy that this version of the engine develops the full thrust allowed by the design. In the case of previous engines, there was an intentional limitation of thrust. In the new configuration, nine engines of the first stage develop thrust at the level of 6806 kN at sea level, and a single engine of the second stage gives thrust of the order of 930 kN. Due to the change in thrust, the first-stage engine running time has been reduced to 162 s, the maximum second-stage engine running time is 397 s.

Over the past years, SpaceX has been working on the development of algorithms for the return and landing of the first stage. Initially, imitation landings were carried out on the water, after which the opportunity arose to begin full-fledged tests with a landing on land platforms or special sea vessels. A number of launches that allowed a payload to be put into orbit did not end with a successful landing: the first stages of the launch vehicles regularly received various damage or collapse. Only 22 December 2015 of the year managed to hold braking, descent and landing without any problems. The return stage successfully completed all the necessary maneuvering and made a soft landing at the given site.

The developer of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle is pleased with its success. The recent launch has completed the successful implementation of all the tasks and confirms the fundamental possibility of the implementation of existing plans. The SpaceX company intends not only to create the project, but also to begin full operation of the new launch vehicle. For a long time, the specialists of the development company told about the advantages of the proposed rocket architecture and the advantages of the returnable first stage. Due to the return to the ground of the first stage, equipped with nine rather complicated and expensive engines of the Merlin family, it is planned to drastically reduce the cost of launching rockets and thereby reduce the cost of delivering cargo to orbit.

According to reports, SpaceX specialists are now studying the returned first stage. The result of this study should be an assessment of the efficiency of the units and the determination of the possibility of their reuse. Further, in this way, it will be necessary to conduct one more launch, which will help to prove the possibility of re-use of the already flying stage. The exact timing of the re-launch has not yet been clarified. The next launch of the Falcon 9 rocket is planned for January next year, but it is not yet known whether it will use the already tested first stage.

The development company claims that using reusable first stages will allow a significant reduction in launch costs. The possibility of such work has not yet been confirmed by trials, but the authors of the project are looking to the future with optimism. Moreover, the approximate schedule of launches of Falcon 9 missiles with one or another payload is determined for the next few years. Along with practical launches, various studies will be carried out aimed at achieving the goals set.


Rocket Launch, 22 December (21 December local time)


As we see, before the start of full-fledged operation of launch vehicles with reusable first stages is far away. However, the first real step has already been taken towards this goal. How long it will take the whole process to master new technologies, while it is difficult to say. Real results are likely to be achieved by the end of this decade. Thus, in the very near future a real revolution could occur in the space program.

The booster carrier Falcon 9 v1.2 has so far solved the task only partially: only one successful launch has been performed with the return and the standard landing of the first stage. Nevertheless, taking into account the pace of development and implementation of the project, it is already necessary to build predictions for the future and try to predict what results for the global space program will be the appearance of a fully functional reusable rocket system. It can be assumed that the completion of the Falcon 9 project can also affect the Russian space program, which is one of the leading in the world.

In the current configuration, the Falcon 9 booster is able to put into a low reference orbit a payload weighing up to 13,15 tons. For a geo-transient orbit, this parameter is 4,85 tons. Thus, the main parameters of the latest Russian launch vehicles of a similar class or even surpass them. Given the promised reduction in launch costs, the Falcon 9 project may pose a threat to the future future of the Soyuz-2 family and light versions of the Angara.

Thus, in the foreseeable future, the main Russian launch vehicles, including the newest, will be able to maintain their positions in the market for spacecraft launch services with different parameters. In the case of a more distant prospect, the situation may look worse. With the existing characteristics and the possibility of reducing the cost of launches, the Falcon 9 rocket in the current or new versions is able to win back a certain market share, pushing out both Russian and foreign counterparts. It is possible that at a certain stage, the volume of launches of such missiles will be limited only by the production capabilities of the developer company.

Nevertheless, the Russian space program is fully capable of retaining some of the developed market sectors, as well as increasing its presence in them. At present, our country has a heavy Proton-M carrier rocket, which is capable of outputting up to 23 tons of cargo and up to 6,75 tons per GPO to NOU. In addition, a new project, Angara-A5, is being developed. A promising rocket will be able to raise at least 24 tons to a low reference orbit and to a geo-transmission one - 5,4 tons. 5 t.

The company SpaceX in parallel with the work on the medium booster Falcon 9 designs heavy systems Falcon Heavy with enhanced performance. It is argued that this rocket will be able to deliver to a low reference orbit of the order of 53 tons of cargo and up to 21,2 tons of geo-transfer. The development of the Falcon Heavy project was announced in 2011, and the first launch was originally planned for 13. In the future, the timing of the first launch, as well as the cost, has been repeatedly adjusted. At the moment, the first launch is scheduled for May 2016. The launch of 6,4 t in a geotransfer orbit is estimated at 90 million USD.

In the project of a heavy rocket it is supposed to use the groundwork for the Falcon 9, namely the structural elements returned to the ground. It is due to this that it is proposed to reduce the cost of launching and outputting various loads to certain orbits.

As part of the Falcon Heavy project, it is planned to create a launch vehicle with uniquely high performance, but so far these are only intentions that are not supported by practical results. The first prototype of a promising rocket will take off no earlier than the end of spring of next year, after which it will take some time to work out various elements of the project. As a result, the timing of the actual receipt of the stated maximum characteristics has not yet been determined. Moreover, they can significantly shift to the right due to problems at one time or another associated with the need to return some of the rocket modules.

It can be assumed that the future prospects of the Falcon program, implemented by SpaceX, do not look quite straightforward, but on the whole positive. The existing middle-class Falcon 9 rocket is already successfully coping with the delivery of cargo into orbit, although it is not notable for the success in returning the spent first stage to the ground. Of the several flights in the program of which this procedure was provided, only one ended in success. Whether it will turn out to repeat this success in the foreseeable future is still not entirely clear. Nevertheless, it is already possible to speak about the appearance of a new competitive carrier rocket, which can press other systems and take its place in the market.


Landing the first stage after the flight


As for the Falcon Heavy project, its prospects are still hazy. With the implementation of existing plans, this system is really able to win a significant market share and select orders from space agencies in other countries. However, the development of this project has not yet been completed and, apparently, it faces certain difficulties. As a consequence, the launch dates of such a rocket were repeatedly shifted, and further work will be complicated both by the design features of the heavy launch vehicle and by the requirements for returning the units with subsequent reuse.

As for the prospects of the domestic space industry in the light of the achievements of SpaceX, the situation in this area may be associated with certain problems. A promising competitor has emerged on the “space cargo” market, which is fully capable of winning a significant share of customers in the light and medium-sized spacecraft sector. In addition, this competitor intends to get a place in the heavy sector, for which he is developing a corresponding rocket.

Fortunately for domestic and foreign companies in the space industry, during the struggle for the market, SpaceX will have to face many competitors in the face of recognized market leaders from Russia, the USA and Europe. Therefore, the struggle for the market is unlikely to be easy, and this will affect both the medium and heavy sectors. In addition, we should not forget that not all the main problems have been solved yet, because of which the Falcon program does not yet have any planned advantages over competitors.

Nevertheless, despite all the issues of market division, it must be admitted that the recent launch is indeed a landmark event in the history of world cosmonautics. It shows that private companies in the space industry are really able not only to build new equipment, but also to solve some issues, ahead of the recognized leaders in the face of government agencies and other structures. December 22 private company managed not only to put into orbit cargo, but also to ensure the return of the first stage of the launch vehicle to the landing site. Although the future prospects of rocket technology and the market may yet be the subject of controversy, it is unlikely that anyone will disagree with the fact that a new era is beginning in the history of the space industry.


On the materials of the sites:
http://spacex.com/
http://astronautix.com/
http://spacenews.com/
http://khrunichev.ru/
http://tass.ru/
http://ria.ru/
https://flightglobal.com/
Author:
Photos used:
SpaceX / Flickr.com/photos/spacexphotos/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Enot-poloskun 24 December 2015 07: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Vague doubts torment me ...

    But won't it work with this Falcon - as with shale oil?

    The ruble is devalued. Theoretically, Russia can sharply reduce the price of launching rockets in dollar terms.

    And - hello to investors in Falcons!
    1. Mera joota 24 December 2015 07: 30 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      Quote: Enot-poloskun
      Vague doubts torment me ...

      But won't it work with this Falcon - as with shale oil?

      What happened to shale oil? Decomposed into mold and linden honey?
      1. Ramzai 24 December 2015 10: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Mera Joota
        What happened to shale oil? Decomposed into mold and linden honey?

        Nothing good. This is from the latest https://kosmos.whotrades.com/blog/43164494372
        1. AUL
          AUL 24 December 2015 10: 39 New
          • 19
          • 0
          +19
          But I am overcome with some doubts about the economic feasibility of this scheme. After all, they will not use the returned stage immediately again? It will be necessary to sort through it, test all components and assemblies, replace something, test the whole complex again ... And this is a long and very expensive process. In addition, initially it is necessary to lay excess strength in the design, taking into account the reusability of use - and this is overweight, the cost of the entire structure and the resulting reduction in payload, which, again, leads to an increase in the price of the kilogram put into orbit. Of course, there the men are calculating all these matters, but, while there is no practice and statistics, all this seems to be a pure game for the sake of prestige.
          In addition, reusability is not eternity. I think the resource will be a maximum of 3 to 4 flights, and then - to write off.
          1. trantor 24 December 2015 16: 15 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: AUL
            But I am overcome with some doubts about the economic feasibility of this scheme.

            I completely agree. It’s not at all a fact that one such tricked thing will be cheaper than 3-4 disposable ones.
            1. sa-ag 24 December 2015 16: 24 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: trantor
              I completely agree. It’s not at all a fact that one such tricked thing will be cheaper than 3-4 disposable ones.

              Well, is it cheaper than one engine or three?
              1. trantor 24 December 2015 19: 29 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: sa-ag
                what is cheaper one engine or three?

                Are you sure that after such maneuvers and loads it will be possible to use it a second time? Do you consider the resource?
                1. sa-ag 24 December 2015 19: 39 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: trantor
                  Are you sure that after such maneuvers and loads it will be possible to use it a second time? Do you consider the resource?

                  This Musk sure yes Jim Bezos
          2. fzr1000 24 December 2015 16: 44 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Add more fuel, which is necessary for landing.
            1. jjj
              jjj 24 December 2015 22: 05 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              And it turns out that the useful mass put into orbit will be a value not practical in practical terms. And so, of course, the show is beautiful;
              1. atalef 24 December 2015 22: 15 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: jjj
                And it turns out that the useful mass put into orbit will be a value not practical in practical terms. And so, of course, the show is beautiful;

                I do not quite understand what to do with unnecessary calculations and seek conspiracy?
                The mass of loading into orbit of cargo is declared. This value is unambiguous and undeniable. Tk is at least the starting point when choosing both the quantity of cargo put into orbit or the satellite weight.
                Or do you think that when someone comes and says. you have here, in the prospectus, 5 tons, the load is put into orbit, and you tell me that it’s without 4.5 tons of fuel that you need to return the stage back.
                The market for launching into orbit, of course, it’s like a market for the sale of watermelons, one went in - they threw it, with the second it slipped, they threw the third.
                Somehow I don't believe much that suckers sit in customers. Well, I don’t believe it.
                I'm sorry.
                1. Glukashin 25 December 2015 03: 24 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Calculations are not unnecessary.
                  Shuttles were also beautiful, but very expensive, unprofitable, and therefore closed. Although they also deduced satellites, and customers did not seem to be suckers, etc. So where are these Shuttles?
                  1. Artyom 25 December 2015 16: 55 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    the most valuable thing in the first stage is the engines, they need to be returned as a separate module, and as a whole such a fool is a lot of trouble!
    2. opus 25 December 2015 19: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Enot-poloskun
      And - hello to investors in Falcons!

      How to reduce something?
      1.

      2.
      Soyuz-2 (our cheapest and most reliable)

      the presence of a number of atavisms in the design leading to less mass perfection (the ratio of the payload mass to the starting mass) than what could be achieved using more modern technical solutions:

      Union: Mass of launch vehicle, t 157-160, displays on the NOO kg 2630-3000 = 0,1875tn / t pH
      Falcon 1e: PH mass, 46,8, displays on the NOO kg 1010 = 0,2158tpn / t ph

      almost 12% win
      first stage cost 70% of the cost of the launch vehicle

      TK use hydrogen peroxide for the operation of turbopump units of engines of the first and second stage, instead of using the same components that the LRE itself uses;
      use of heavy nitrogen (rather than helium) to pressurize tanks. At the same time, helium pressurization of the tanks was implemented at the first and second stage of the Soyuz-2.1b launch vehicle, as well as at the third stage of the Soyuz-2.1b and Soyuz-ST-B launch vehicles;
      the use of open-circuit rocket engines with lower efficiency than closed-circuit rocket engines.

      However, in the video test engine Merlin-1D shows how from the tube next to the nozzle gushing stream of gas generator:

      also

      due to the historical use of the rotary launching pad, the lack of automation of oil refueling operations, manual docking of electrical and pneumatic connections during installation Launch vehicle launch vehicle, which requires a large number of maintenance personnel and increases the impact of human errors in preparation for launch vehicle launch. At the same time, the presence of a turntable for the Soyuz-2 launch vehicle is not required, since the Soyuz-2 rotates in the initial section of the launch trajectory. The MCC launch complex is devoid of a turning circle, which made it possible to automate the preparation process as much as possible;

      because of the suspension of the launch vehicle for the upper part of the first stage, and not the installation of the launch vehicle “on the bottom”, a relatively complex launch complex is required (the typical shape is “tulip”). This is not a drawback as such, but only a feature of all R-7 LVs, since for many decades of use the design and technological features of such launches are well known, and the construction of a new launch in the absence of production defects could theoretically take only 9 months. In fact, the construction of the launch in the MCC took 4 years, which by modern standards is relatively short.
      1. opus 25 December 2015 19: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        3. The cost of launching the Soyuz launch vehicle: $ 35-78,858 million
        Falcon 9 v 1.1. $ 61,2 million and immediately 11 (!) At the gas processing plant weighing 200 kg each + the stage is returned

        RD-107A (8D7 *) weight: 1300 kg costs more than $ 400 (rumors are circulating about $ 000-600 = traction, tns 000
        FOUR CHAMBER

        Merlin 1 D weight 450-490 kg, about $ 1 = thrust, tns up to 000 (Merlin-000D Vac + = 734)
        SINGLE CAMERA

        SO IT IS NOW AND REUSABLE
        1. Rumata 25 December 2015 20: 05 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: opus
          SO IT IS NOW AND REUSABLE

          There are opinions that if Falcons are put on stream, thereby reducing the cost of production, then even in the case of one-time launches, they will become cheaper than Protons. In the long run by itself ...
          1. opus 25 December 2015 21: 57 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Rumata
            There are opinions that if Falcons are put on stream, thereby reducing the cost of production, then even in the case of one-time launches, they will become cheaper than Protons. In the long run by itself ..

            They are cheaper now (except for the accident)
            Proton - M $ 80 million (with the Breeze-M block), $ 65 million - WITHOUT
            What is a proton? The legacy of the USSR and the Russian Federation was practically not invested in anything; the inhabitants of the USSR were starving.

            Falcon-9 v1.1: $ 61,2 million



            The cost of launching the Soyuz-2.1b launch vehicle with a spacecraft for the Russian Defense Ministry amounted to 10 billion rubles as of June 08, 2013 09:55
            Central Bank rate

            840 USD 1 US dollar 32,2397


            Quote: Rumata
            In the long run by itself ...

            What is the "perspective" in LJ?
            This is a fact, a reality given to us in a sense.
            Elon (Elon Reeve Musk) is not Chubais (a swindler), and not Prokhorov Mishka (a protectionist and a glamorous chime) is a figure!
            I even feel sorry that there is NO BUSINESSMAN of this magnitude in my Homeland.

            Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and Reid Hoffman - PayPal Mafia: Tesla Motors, LinkedIn, Palantir Technologies, SpaceX, YouTube, Yelp and Yammer
            It’s not for you to cash out on budget money and not to become a billionaire at secured auctions

            Elon Musk proposed to begin the colonization of Mars with thermonuclear bombing:
            blowing up thermonuclear charges at the poles of the planet, thereby causing the evaporation of carbon dioxide, which, in turn, should cause a greenhouse effect, due to which the average temperature on the red planet should increase significantly


            served as the prototype of Iron Man
            1. Rumata 25 December 2015 22: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: opus
              What is the "perspective" in LJ?
              This is a fact, a reality given to us in a sense.

              Can not argue. I’m just trying to limit myself to the conclusions before putting on stream. For example, flaws that increase the chance of an accident will be identified, the elimination of which will make the carrier more expensive. Plus, the ultimate goal is still the Heavy Falcon, if everything goes well, it should be the main workhorse. At a price two times higher (I saw data on 130 million), it will be able to deliver 4.5 times more cargo into orbit. Under conditions of reusable use, it may be possible to reduce the cost of delivering a ton of cargo into orbit every 15-20 ... Dreams, dreams =)
              1. opus 25 December 2015 22: 43 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Rumata
                I’m just trying to limit myself in the conclusions before putting on stream

                ?





                22 or 23 launches since 2010 !!!
                For 5 years.
                FROM SCRATCH!

                about the "flow" need to comment?
                belay
                I would consider it an honor to work in Space X (much less my OS’s rocket science) .... it’s only old, they won’t.
                Quote: Rumata
                For example, flaws that increase the chance of an accident will be identified, the elimination of which will make the carrier more expensive.

                That's life
                and the spent Proton / Union "do not deliver."
                There will be no gouging and good salaries (and Ilona will definitely HAVE GOOD, this is not Rogozin), everything will be Ku.

                Quote: Rumata
                can reduce the cost of delivering a ton of cargo into orbit every 15-20 ... Dreams, dreams =)

                It will be different.
                Falcon is a transitional phase for 10-20 years.
                the cost of delivery to the DOE will be (in 30 years at 12 $ / kg Mon.
                There will be time (and if essno Smirnovkontrol miss) embossed article. just read in english.
                The prospect is still that.
                And just their students (not victims of the Unified State Examination of Russia and not Skolkivtsi)
    3. Pontiffsulyvahn 5 February 2020 15: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Do not worry, did not work. Neither with falcons, nor with Russia.
  2. Homo 24 December 2015 07: 28 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The question is, how about reliability. After all, the start is such a load on the structure.
    1. Mera joota 24 December 2015 07: 31 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: Homo
      The question is, how about reliability. After all, the start is such a load on the structure.

      Space Shuttle shuttles on the same engine repeatedly flew into space, so there is no concern here.
    2. Falcon 24 December 2015 08: 47 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Homo
      The question is, how about reliability. After all, the start is such a load on the structure.


      Shuttle's solid-carpenters were reusable. They are not just reinstalled, but first sent to a repair plant and checked there in full.

      Some parts of our PC Union are also reusable. There is not everything new, something is put from the past ships to new ones.

      We are waiting for our Baikal. Although they say knowledgeable people, it will not be profitable
      1. Vadim237 24 December 2015 12: 27 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        The Baikal project is closed due to its inadvisability of high cost and complexity.
      2. alex86 24 December 2015 19: 08 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Falcon
        Shuttle's tappers were reusable

        It's more about the engines of the Shuttle itself, which worked immediately from Earth to orbit
        Quote: Falcon
        they put something from past ships to new ones.

        sorry, I won’t believe that only the descent vehicle flies to the Earth, the amount of equipment for subsequent use is minimal, it’s easier to put a new one.
        1. Rumata 24 December 2015 19: 26 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: alex86
          It's more about the engines of the Shuttle itself, which worked immediately from Earth to orbit

          I think it was about the shuttle marching engines. 135 launches, 3 engines on each shuttle, 67 pieces in total. Roughly speaking, 1 replacement for 9 starts.
        2. Falcon 25 December 2015 08: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: alex86
          It's more about the engines of the Shuttle itself, which worked immediately from Earth to orbit


          Well, about the engine, I agree. Nevertheless, solid-fuel starting steps are also reusable, this does not change the essence.

          Quote: alex86
          sorry, I won’t believe that only the descent vehicle flies to the Earth, the amount of equipment for subsequent use is minimal, it’s easier to put a new one.


          Well, as they say, believe it or not laughing

          The internal filling of the ship does not disappear anywhere in flight, mainly the external is irreversibly affected.
          Some internal equipment, panels, etc. transferred to a new medium.

          New, always more expensive than old working.
          From your faith, nothing changes, since I did not invent it myself. Indirectly related to this technique ...
      3. opus 25 December 2015 21: 36 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Falcon
        Shuttle's solid-carpenters were reusable. They’re not just put on again,

        senseless undertaking.
        In a turbojet engine, the most expensive: fuel (burned out), a nozzle with a critical part (burnout).
        And for Solid Rocket Booster, SRB, maybe it’s sectional — gaskets for sections.
        (did not change, shuttle kirdyk)
        What is there?
        housing, fuel(single use) ignition system(single use) and nozzle (one-time at 99%), structural elements, separation systems(disposable), guidance system, avionics rescue systems (usually changed), pyrotechnic devices(disposable)braking system (disposable)traction vector control system (funny SUVT on the turbojet engine? belay - one-time throttles) and emergency self-destruction system (Oh !!!! reusable, but as a rule they changed, pennies).

        Fuel: a mixture of ammonium perchlorate (oxidizing agent, 69.6% by weight), aluminum (fuel, 16%), iron oxide (catalyst, 0.4%), polymer (such as PBAN or: HTPB) 12.04% and epoxy hardener (1.96%).

        Is it necessary? Reusability?

        More expensive: search, delivery, drying, checking, etc.
        For the sake of a metal slug? (Hmm ... the Nord Stream pipe is more expensive)
        TTRD only because no liquid propellant rocket engine can provide such a gigantic thrust (the combustion chamber is the launch vehicle with the TTRD, size, thrust are limited only by the technological capabilities of charging the charge, there are no problems with combustion stability, the same with thermal insulation.
        For 2x thrust = 25 kN (2600 tf) where do you get it?
        (F-1 Thrust Vacuum: 790 tf and how much have they been smudged with burning stability? Threat of ours and could not create single-chamber LRE with high thrust), cycle 165s (only something)


        Nozzle ... yes, expensive.
        but the Americans have repeatedly "spat."
        Especially on the approach of a nozzleless turbojet engine
        1. opus 25 December 2015 21: 39 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Falcon
          and first sent to a repair plant and there they check in full.

          So what to do ?
          mixed fuel 70% of the cost of turbojet engines.
          Therefore, and "check"
          By the way, "checking" is ridiculous.
          X-ray and gamma control of TT checkers and nozzles, charge and pressure testing. USE!
          Maybe not in the know?
          ALL (!) LRE (for launchers and ICBMs) 2 single.
          After assembly, on the stand and FIRE TESTS, lasting from 0,7 to 0,9 cycles.
          Then: with alcohol (!), Everything is washed, consumables are changed (in which LCI = 1 cycle), purge and on the product
          -------------------
          Another thing is the rocket engine.
          Expensive in itself, expensive thin-walled (masterpiece) tanks, SU, TNA and so on.
          and fuel? kerosene + O2 cheap.
          Previously, the traditional way is not to save.


          the fuel tank, and so it keeps its shape under boost pressure, barely. And plop down with 70km, even with a parachute with a speed (horizontal) of 3 km / s ...
          Not comme il faut.
          LRE same very gentle.
          Everyone knows that 5-7% of the fuel components after separation (safety) remain on the LV with the liquid propellant rocket, so everywhere except H-1 (Koroleva, it's dry there).
          Due to liters of flow (T) and fuel mass, safety
          Here is Ilon (a businessman from God) and came up with the idea to use this residue (the mass is already practically only the mass of the container, PN is not).
          I basically tweeted an article on this topic ...
          But the local writer Chuchvarkin or Chuvyrkin or Chmymyrkin (Mordov TopVar) rejected it according to the grammar (I’m afraid he didn’t understand the technical side of the issue, it’s not the chewed-up porridge "week results" lolWell, to each his own, but he begged for a little money on a book. Here, such a writer)
          It’s a pity I didn’t save it; they removed the barbarians without warning
          1. Falcon 25 December 2015 22: 22 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: opus
            Everyone knows that 5-7% of the fuel components after separation (safety) remain on the LV with the liquid propellant rocket, so everywhere except H-1 (Koroleva, it's dry there).
            Due to liters of flow (T) and fuel mass, safety
            Here is Ilon (a businessman from God) and came up with the idea to use this residue (the mass is already practically only the mass of the container, PN is not).


            belay So the decision comes out, that was on the surface all the time, only Ilon first reached him
            1. opus 25 December 2015 22: 32 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Falcon
              So the solution is that on the surface all the time it was

              As it were, Kazakhstan and Altai are moaning from the remnants of the TK that fall along with the first steps (the second usually burns down). Tin especially with UDMH and AT ...
              only "lay" ugly.
              Zenger was reusable and the shuttle was proposed back in 1938, but has still not been realized.
              1.Now other materials
              2. Now (and this is the main thing) other guidance and correction systems (transition to a modern control system for the Union, Proton has given 7-11% increase in PN or height, and this is ONLY NEW electronics)
              3.a Ilon ... well, look at Tesla

              Quote: Falcon
              only Ilon first reached him

              I've described all of this in an article. A businessman, talented.
              Sorry Chvurkin hacked, or whatever.
              A daughter on its basis (articles), a student in Munich defended by 1+ (in Germany, on the contrary, 5 is 1).
              And my "bezgamotnost" did not interfere
          2. Locksmith 28 December 2015 11: 43 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Quote: opus
            Here is Ilon (a businessman from God) and came up with the idea to use this residue (the mass is already practically only the mass of the container, PN is not).

            What is the balance? What kind of nonsense, it rushes at 7 km / s at an altitude of 72 kilometers, this block needs to START FIRST, change its trajectory, then fly back wassat , accelerate with a decrease, then again slow down, enter the atmosphere, fly to a place, and for a moment it has flown away at 400 kilometers from the start point laughing , then again maneuvering and braking during landing = and this is all on the "remnants" of fuel ??! Do not make me laugh wink
            Yes, I almost forgot — it’s open-cycle engines, that is, you still need to provide reusable pyro-start of the turbopumps and the chamber itself — and this is also the weight and danger of a big “babakh” soldier
    3. opus 25 December 2015 22: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Homo
      The question is, how about reliability. After all, the start is such a load on the structure.

      design of what?
      The point of application of forces where the thrust is transmitted is the second stage.

      And the Zhrd (fornix) is all the same: there is above, something, there is none ...
      traction and pressure (xS) exceed the weight of the entire RN. Otherwise, it would not have taken off.
      Hollow containers, without 7 (10 steps) and PN are lowered on the crumbs of the remainder of the TC (2-3%)
  3. AlNikolaich 24 December 2015 07: 29 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Well, it worked! America can be congratulated. But will not this reusability turn into problems like with the space shuttle project? When the preparation for the flight of returning to the ground system components is comparable in cost to the production of new ones! And much more expensive than disposable systems ...
    Was the game worth the candle?
    1. Mera joota 24 December 2015 07: 44 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      When the preparation for the flight of returning to the ground system components is comparable in cost to the production of new ones!

      Not comparable. In the shuttle after the flight it was necessary to check many systems and devices, tiles, fuselage, life support systems, engine and much more. Here, basically, only the engine, then check the tank itself ... And the price of a penny tank (relative to the cost of the entire system). The most important thing is that the engines are working and ready for reuse, they are very expensive ... For example, the ULA buys our RD-180 for more than $ 15 million, with $ 15 million burned with each Atlas launched ...
    2. Mhpv 24 December 2015 10: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The project was closed much more real, so this is one line to B-2, Zumwalt and other expensive toys
    3. Loreal 24 December 2015 11: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      But what’s unique about it? AMS on the Moon and Mars have been landing for a long time with engine braking, but these young people seem to have forgotten about the fact that there is a dense amtosphere on Earth and you can slow down the stage with parachutes.
      1. Mera joota 24 December 2015 12: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Loreal
        and it’s possible to slow down the stage with parachutes, these young people seem to have forgotten.

        It is necessary to carefully land without damaging the engines, without creating excessive load, moreover, to land at a certain point (not in the steppe, but on the platform), which parachute systems are not capable of.
        1. Loreal 24 December 2015 15: 59 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          You tell paragliders
          1. opus 25 December 2015 22: 07 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Loreal
            You tell paragliders

            suspend to the glider the first step with a length of 50 m, diameter 3,7 meters = weighing 1350, with 9 x Merlin 1D (9 x 490 kg).
            You release your "paraglider" from an altitude of 50-65 km and a linear speed (relative to the Earth) of 2-3 km / s
            AND LOOK.
            And then you tell him (if there is anyone)
            1. Loreal 26 December 2015 14: 58 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Think too narrowly. Shuttle SRB went down like parachutes
              at the end, instead of splashdown, a short braking impulse is possible when landing on the ground on land or airbags if you like
              1. Simple 27 December 2015 18: 00 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Loreal
                Shuttle SRB went down like parachutes
                instead of splashdown, a short braking impulse is possible

                I wonder what you think ...
                "short brake" then, in solid fuel? belay
      2. alex86 24 December 2015 19: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Loreal
        on the moon and Mars so with engine braking for a long time

        There is a version that Mask is thus preparing for Mars, and with the return to Earth - and then everything develops - flew to Mars, less gravity, sat down with a fuel supply, the rocket stands on poles - than not the launching pad - and then flew to Earth - here you can and by parachute.
      3. Rumata 24 December 2015 19: 36 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Loreal
        The moon

        There is practically no atmosphere on the moon and the attraction is 6 times less. Pepelats planted much easier. Learn materiel
        Quote: Loreal
        Mars

        The biggest problem with Curiosity and other rovers was and is this safe landing. The lion's share of accidents were due to problems at the descent stage. This despite the fact that the devices are much easier.
        Quote: Loreal
        there is a dense atmosphere and you can slow down the stage with parachutes these young people seem to have forgotten

        You probably forgot that parachutes use air resistance. In the upper atmosphere, the air is discharged and the parachute will not open. By the time you enter dense layers, the speed will be decent, the temperature too, as a result of which it will be cheaper to build a new one than repair a damaged old engine.
        1. shamil 24 December 2015 20: 45 New
          • -4
          • 0
          -4
          Where is the evidence of the moon landing?
          1. Rumata 24 December 2015 20: 56 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: shamil
            Where is the evidence of the moon landing?

            Where is the evidence of Gagarin’s flight?
            1. iouris 24 December 2015 21: 33 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Queen Elizabeth 2 will confirm.
              1. opus 25 December 2015 22: 22 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: iouris
                Queen Elizabeth 2 will confirm.

                Did you hold a candle?

                and a flight to the moon, then "CONFIRM" by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Alexei Kosyginyn, who received Neil Alden Armstrong in 1970.
                Kosygin Neal gave him a small container with samples of lunar soil and a small flag of the USSR, which together with astronauts and with flags of more than 130 other states visited July 20-21, 1969 on the surface of the moon.
                Kosygin said that he would always cherish this gift as a symbol of great achievement
                Who is the mossy queen of the tiny kingdom of England (and there are no carrier rockets) and who is Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers of the 1970s?

                And also participants of the XIII annual conference of the Committee for Space Research (COSPAR) at the International Council on Science, which was held in Leningrad, where Neil arrived, will "confirm".
                Novosibirsk, where, accompanied by Soviet cosmonauts George Beregovoy and Konstantin Feoktistov, Neil Armstrong arrived in the same 1970.







                1. opus 25 December 2015 22: 24 New
                  • -1
                  • 0
                  -1
                  Just think, if the Americans were infected with bluntness (but in our Russian) way, and there would be the same tendencies according to Gagarin (as our victims of the Unified State Examination are tenacious about Apollo), then they have no less clues?

                  Here with Gagarin is the same trouble (according to the standards, it would be like the first flight into space in the World (not in a capsule, but separately) ......


                  1. Rumata 25 December 2015 22: 42 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: opus
                    Just think, if the Americans were infected with bluntness (but in our Russian) way, and there would be the same tendencies according to Gagarin (as our victims of the Unified State Examination are tenacious about Apollo), then they have no less clues?

                    This is exactly what I had in mind when mentioning Gagarin!
                    1. opus 25 December 2015 22: 57 New
                      • -1
                      • 0
                      -1
                      Quote: Rumata
                      This is exactly what I had in mind when mentioning Gagarin!

                      do not convince local stubborn.
                      there were no Americans on the moon, this is hollywood.
                      and basta.
                      Why are they silent about the lunar rover

                      Who filmed it from the outside?

                      Leonov, Titov or?
                      and no eyewitnesses and specialists have authority for them.


                      Muhokin somehow wrote, Do not go all.


                      =======================
                      Not me for PATRIOTISM ... but not for patriotic idiocy.
                      And then the critics are criticized (we are "Vyalikiya"), and they themselves rise only by nurturing others.
                      for me, so the enemy is better to be strong and smart than according to Zadornov:

                      If our “opponent” is so stupid and miserable ... why haven’t we defeated him so far?
                      Yes, and we live .....
                  2. summer 26 December 2015 01: 00 New
                    • -2
                    • 0
                    -2
                    Anton, you read yourself. And you will understand that according to your assessment, you enter the second 3%, and not the first 2% according to your classification -


                    opus (6)
                    • Full name: Anton
                    • Group: Visitors
                    • Registration Date: July 2, 2014 21:52 p.m.
                    • Last visit: December 26, 2015 00:26
                    .......
                    • Writes about himself: “2% of people think, 3% think what they think, and 95% of people die better than they think


                    opus (6)
                    flight to the moon, then "CONFIRM" the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Alexei Kosyginyn, who received Neil Alden Armstrong in 1970.

                    Kosilgin Neil gave him a small container with samples of lunar soil and a small flag of the USSR, which together with astronauts and with flags of more than 130 other countries visited July 20-21, 1969 on the surface of the moon.

                    Kosygin said that he would always cherish this gift as a symbol of great achievement


                    First, the source of your knowledge is unknown.

                    Second - Kosygin flew instead of Aldrin or Collins? Or was there a crew of 11 in A-4?

                    Is he a witness of what? Jehovah's?

                    A photo of the Nile in Novosibirsk in the year 70 equal to his presence on the moon on July 21 of the year 69?

                    Have you closed the logic circuit?

                    A little more and you will smoothly move to the last 95% according to your classification.

                    No offense.

                    You have not submitted evidence of your innocence.
                    А зря.

                    Only emotions.

                    «
                    opus (6)
                    Here with Gagarin is the same trouble (according to the standards, it would be like the first flight into space in the World (not in a capsule, but separately) ......

                    Yes, the first A. Shepard. He was splashed in a capsule.

                    Katzmanavt .. He just ducked and surfaced in / out of space. No?

                    According to current requirements, the Wright brothers did not come off the earth at all. What are you trying to prove? America drives? Flag to her and to your hands!

                    And Bulk will pile the most! Who would doubt that?

                    Not for patriotism ... but not for patriotic idiocy


                    But this is not necessary! You are clearly for the idiocy cosmic-political. Here is an untranslatable pun - you cannot understand non-Russians.
            2. summer 25 December 2015 02: 07 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Rumata, is there any doubt about Gagarin’s flight? Got it, not a dodic.

              And who is Ilan "David" Ramon? And where is his sling? What did he do this? Where is his "flight to eternity"? Burned in the atmosphere without traces of ash? Where is the ashes?

              You, dear, spit on the ashes of Ramon on your Jewish site, and not here in memory of Gagarin.

              I really like when repatriates crawl out here with their “special look”.

              You didn’t leave to look back, did you?

              Well, look forward to YOUR bright future with your inherent optimism.

              And if you come back only to spit on your past? ..

              “If you spit in the crowd, it will rub off, but if the crowd spits on you ...”

              Although, judging by your corporate epaulettes, you sacredly believe in SPECIAL PURPOSE for the color differentiation of pants.
              Then - kyu.

              I wish you continued success in this.

              Raspberry epaulettes. On eiderdown.
              1. summer 25 December 2015 02: 44 New
                • -1
                • 0
                -1
                I have a great desire to find out who throws you the “pluses” and throws off the “minuses”.

                The technology of set of likes and gaining epaulettes in the VO is akin to the erection of L.D. Bronstein's creators of the Red Army.

                He created it. Language. To make brands. Did he go on the attack? Got out of the trench? I climbed into the trench?

                Or did he go “to the front” with the Levov Zadovs (I know ..) and “created rrrevolutionary legality” in the rear of the troops under the guise of machine guns of internationalists - “Latvians”?

                This is what I?
                On a vulgar maxim about Gagarin’s flight, two likes.
                I think, not only I wonder, "who is we so smart"?

                Or is it national fun to shout from the branches?

                I would like clarity ..

                The technology of "approval" is primitive to the point. Do you want to play in the sand? We have it. And in the Negev desert his finally doh..rena.

                Maybe the compass will tell you the right direction there?

                Go ahead and with the song.
              2. Rumata 25 December 2015 11: 55 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                I don’t doubt Gagarin’s flight, but the conspiracy theorists of the flight to the moon require such evidence that it’s ridiculous to become. By such criteria, there is no evidence of either Gagarin’s flight, or spacewalk, nothing. If you put aside what I am sure of, what evidence of the flight of Gagarin or Tereshkova can you offer? They simply do not exist, but no one claims that Gagarin did not fly. Flying and landing on the moon was a fact. Doubt your flight to the moon, but not in Gagarin? On what grounds?

                The rest is written some kind of fierce nonsense, and where do the repatriates? What are the raspberry epaulets? What do we smoke?
                1. summer 25 December 2015 19: 19 New
                  • -1
                  • 0
                  -1
                  You, dear Rumata, see so did not understand. Sadly, however.

                  You position yourself as a resident of Israel. So you are here on a Russian site at a party. So?

                  You come to visit and use the argument in the dispute, illustrating your innocence, but "catchy" the owners of the house. Is it ethical?

                  You could give an example equal to the “flight” of the first cosmonaut of Israel - Colonel Ilan Ramon. And people would appreciate your objectivity, and the desire to prove something correctly, and a sense of humor.

                  You prefer to go the beaten path to you - spit in the shrine of the owners. The result is “hello girls!”

                  What did you expect otherwise?

                  Your tirade is not “fierce nonsense”, but a stupid provocation for inflating sra-cha.
                  This is a warning to you. And that's it, no more.

                  Is anything else incomprehensible to you?

                  If you are specifically hooked by the denial of Apollo’s surprisingly successful flights (the thirteenth is like a cherry on top of the cake), I’ll give you a hint - agnostics (I would like to say - love of lovers). Among them, by the way, was the "genius" Albert Einstein. His “genius” is disputed not only by agnostics .. Do you want to talk about it right now? You are always welcome - any of your whims for your shekels.

                  I answer other questions.

                  “And where are the repatriates?” - Here I am about the same thing - you are absolutely no side here.

                  A repatriate is a swear word to you? What to call you? Alia? Dumb bazaar.

                  What do we smoke? We smoke bamboo, and drink artesian water if you are interested in our diet.

                  You have a good nickname - Natanovich my respect. But here we have not dark centuries in the Arkanar kingdom on an alien planet. And you are not a god, and not a prophet, and not mashiach (מָשִׁיחַ).

                  Am I accessible outlined?
                  1. Rumata 25 December 2015 19: 43 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: summer
                    So you are here on a Russian site at a party. So?

                    Since when is this Russian site? Servers are physically located in Germany, visitors are from all over the world. For that matter, you’re a new guest here, I’ve been reading VO almost from the very beginning.
                    Quote: summer
                    "Catchy" home owners.

                    You will not please everyone. There are people who understood my analogy with Gagarin, and did not take it personally. If someone decided to be offended, what about me?
                    Quote: summer
                    I will give you a hint - agnostics

                    Ndya. Well, two can do mindless graphomania. Agnostics? I will answer with a hint - David Hume ... Circus
                    Quote: summer
                    You have a good nickname - Natanovich my respect. But here we have not dark centuries in the Arkanar kingdom on an alien planet. And you are not a god, and not a prophet, and not mashiach (מָשִׁיחַ).

                    What does my nickname have in the topic under discussion? And then Alia, Arkanar or Don Reba? Which god? What are the prophets? You probably think that this style of communication looks cool, indicates your intelligence, but in fact it is sophism mixed with graphomania, which cause fierce cognitive dissonance. I twice explained why Gagarin was here, if there is nothing to say in the case, pass by.
                    1. summer 25 December 2015 21: 07 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      I answer immediately "both."

                      Would you stop and back up, yes, you see, the box is stuck?

                      Rumata
                      Since when is this Russian site?

                      Are you serious? Go back do not want to return?

                      The location of the site is an open secret .. Website Hosting - Frankfurt.
                      Another thing is curious - do you think it turns out that Apollo's landing steps are not American - they are located on the moon!

                      This is at best if they are there and people not from the Kubrick Kubrick trampled there.

                      You, my dear, have never been embarrassed that the resolution of photographs in terrestrial atmospheres is 30 cm at a flight altitude of at least 200 km, and the Moon has still not managed to take a picture of Moonrover under conditions of flight at lower altitudes and in the absence of atmospheric aberrations?

                      No? It never occurred to you?

                      It is clear that f-equipment for photo reconnaissance is a cumbersome thing and you can’t drag it to the moon for a good life. But. The conditions for shooting on the moon are not unlike the comfort of the earth, and the f-equipment should be with the same sharpness of the eye on the order, or even more, easier.

                      Moreover, the United States did not cease to engage in cartography of the moon periodically.

                      The question, at least, remains open. I'm not talking about "fantastic luck" in the rebuilding of sections of the Apollo ships in terrestrial orbit, and even more so on the lunar, in the absence of a MCC on the moon. The computing capabilities of the Apollo computer are compared with the cheapest pocket calculator of twenty years ago.

                      At the same time, the theoretical foundations of ballistics have not changed one iota.

                      Now on technologies of much younger and more reliable failures of the Igla, Kurs, and so on systems periodically occur. Much more technologically advanced, a hundred times spent and double-checked rocket engines explode. (Just don’t need about the Russian hand-shanks - I only saw a Jew with a shovel only once in my long life - I remember it for the whole life that I lived not in any place, but in Odessa)

                      And then in NASA were completely illiterate adventurers? They did not understand that the slightest glitch would put a “hexagonal cross” on the lives of astronauts?

                      And they say - "the notorious Russian maybe"! Lunar flights - the most striking example of "maybe"! But only on condition that they took place!

                      By the way, I saw Frank Bormann face to face. I remember that. We must read his memoirs, maybe he remembered me ..)

                      Who is guilty of losing secrets to making an armor-piercing bullet out of shit? Engines, ballistic computers, KIA - sensors, installation, insulation materials - in short, the whole technology! Only one analogy comes to my mind - the construction of Noah's Ark. And that’s it! Nobody has been able to repeat Noah’s record!

                      There are a lot of assumptions - it's me about the success of flights. The only thing that can be said for sure is, sooner or later the rope, no matter how curl, and the end will come.

                      If not for one “but.”
                      And then you begin to believe the Pope, I'm sorry, Roman Francis, who promised us all "last Christmas."

                      Looks like our "Chinese partners" decided on the basis of the next Great Campaign 9- Chángzhēng 9 (Great Way-on) to deliver a mini-Hubble to the selenocentric orbit. This one will be able to find the lighter dropped by Neil when he gave a light to Buzz.

                      And then the chips will be thrown off the table.

                      We force the end of Being. A worthy alternative to exposing the scam.

                      P.S. I see, regimental artillery pulled itself up. We are waiting for divisional, army and front-line. And the artillery of the RGK.

                      You, dear ones, have adopted the Ukrainian proverb - “It’s easier to beat with the hurt.”

                      Try it.

                      You, atalef - “bat”, look at yourself - with what ambition do you usually have a conversation? But this is so, by the way ..
                      1. Rumata 25 December 2015 21: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I see that there is no way without educational program
                        Quote: summer
                        You, my dear, have never been embarrassed that the resolution of photographs in an atmosphere of the earth is 30 cm with a flight altitude of at least 200 km, and still have not been able to photograph on the moon

                        From the surface of the Earth, technically, there is no way to take a picture of something smaller than a football field on the moon. The NASA LRO cartographic apparatus photographed the landing site, but you can’t convince the stubborn conspiracy theorists. This is NASA, photoshop and all things.
                        Quote: summer
                        The computing capabilities of the Apollo computer are compared with the cheapest pocket calculator of twenty years ago.

                        So what? The nuclear weapons were created using computational powers lower than my keyboard. What about Buran? There, most of the automation was analog. And what is also a myth? Most of the calculations were carried out on Earth. Neither then nor now, in orbit there is no need for large computing power.
                        Quote: summer
                        And then in NASA were completely illiterate adventurers? They did not understand that the slightest glitch would put a “hexagonal cross” on the lives of astronauts?

                        The slightest failure will put an end to the life of astronauts now. The slightest glitch during Gagarin’s flight would put an end to it. The flaw put an end to the lives of 3 cosmonauts of the Union-11 in 1971. What a strange logic.
                        Quote: summer
                        Engines, ballistic computers, KIA - sensors, installation, insulation materials - in short, the whole technology! Only one analogy comes to my mind - the construction of Noah's Ark. And that’s it! Nobody has been able to repeat Noah’s record!

                        Seriously? This duck about the loss of blueprints has not been refuted by anyone, but patients with conspiracy of the brain continue to read like a mantra.
                      2. summer 25 December 2015 22: 53 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        NASA LRO mapping machine photographed landing site


                        The device was - no pictures of identifiable objects. For some reason. Give the URL.

                        Did I talk about FS? Why are you throwing stones at subjects unknown to me? This is not interesting to me.

                        This is a departure from the topic.

                        Nuclear weapons created using computational powers lower than my keyboard


                        Kaleso was created without any accounts at all. And the “computational” powers during the creation of nuclear weapons have a milky relation to the near-moon ballistics.

                        “There, most of the automation was analog.”

                        Analogue is not a diagnosis or even final. I took an AVM course. Now it’s an old school, but hello then. I don’t have to push for “you live well”. I can give a lecture at least right now. It turns out that there are also hybrid ones, the ACVM .. Oh, how life has unfolded!

                        Neither then nor now, in orbit there is no need for large computing power


                        I saw all sorts of clowns and even very funny ones. Do not create unhealthy competition for them.

                        My phrase is
                        summer
                        Who is guilty of losing secrets of making an armor-piercing bullet out of shit? ... in a word, all the technology!

                        And your answer is
                        This duck about the loss of drawings who just did not refute


                        I did not say anything about the drawings. You can understand why the previously popular magazine was called “Know and Be able”?

                        Do you feel the difference between the design and the technology of its manufacture? Or not?

                        Why does “our Chinese partners” have problems with manufacturing dvigla for airplanes? Although they have all the drawings. Have not you thought?
                      3. summer 25 December 2015 23: 04 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The slightest glitch during Gagarin’s flight would put an end to it too


                        You freely juggle terminology that is unusual for you. A catastrophic failure and a failure are completely different sizes - a mountain and a mouse. Then, in the "nineteenth century", the failure would have been enough to the irreparable. Now for the same result, you need a chain of FAILURES of duplicated and triple systems. In short, I will not deliver a lecture to external students across two seas.

                        So, now, with more than half a century of space flight experience, catastrophic failures are still very frequent, leading to the death of the apparatus and even people. With vast experience and practical skills!
                        And the flight A-11 "occurred" only 8 years after the first flight into space. Aren't you funny yet?

                        You seriously don’t understand why the peers of Gagarin’s flight called this flight “historical”? He SHOWN THE PRINCIPAL OPPORTUNITY of a successful manned flight into space from the moment of separation from Earth to his return to Earth.

                        Flight A-11 (if this is not a variation of Capricorn-1) is an inflated version of Gagarin's flight to heaven.

                        Gagarin’s flight is a discovery, and A-11 is a rational proposal, well, to the extreme - an invention.

                        When Columbus returned to Europe, then following him was a million times easier - they KNEW, not BELIEVE. Faith is weak - knowledge is unshakable!

                        Do you know the names of the discoverers of the lands of Central, North and South America? Columbus is alone! And Gagarin is alone!

                        Although we all clearly understand that he stood at the top of the pyramid a hundred times higher than the pyramids of the pharaohs NOT ONLY OF OURSELVES. They brought him there in his arms. But IT HAS DANGERED!

                        The flaw put an end to the lives of 3 cosmonauts of the Union-11 in 1971


                        There is a question - which shortcoming? Like Apollo 1? Or on the Challenger? Or in Columbia?

                        Expand your thought about the "flaw" on the verge of discovery.

                        Photo .. Is it a toilet of the toilet type? This is a snapshot of what?

                        Can you read? Or just a writer?

                        I wrote about lunar satellites, and not about shooting with terrestrial telescopes. Are you going to read? Or is there only time to “write”?
                      4. summer 25 December 2015 23: 38 New
                        • -1
                        • 0
                        -1
                        By the way, if interested. In the 71st I went through “practice” after studying at a school in the hero city of Odessa in the 59th post office.

                        On June 6, 1971, the sister of Georgy Timofeevich Dobrovolsky came to our OS and sent the telegram “To Baikonur Zhore”. Congratulations brother with the launch into space.

                        I wasn’t in the OS at that moment, I’ve downloaded it, it’s not a witness and I still bite my elbows.

                        But the whole tragedy was on June 29th. My father pulled me out to "jog" around Gorky Park - anyone who knows Odessa will understand.

                        We returned home, after a while - “TASS message” - “.. without signs of life”

                        Like this? They are immortal!

                        True, Komarov’s example undermined the aura of superheroes a bit ..
                        But this is a separate issue.

                        I walked around the city during the day and looked into my faces - I did not see crying .. Everyone was already accustomed to Soviet victories in space. Or didn’t you know yet?

                        But I was young and no one has denied maximalism at this age.
                      5. Rumata 26 December 2015 01: 29 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: summer
                        Then, in the "nineteenth century", the failure would have been enough to the irreparable. Now, for the same result, you need a chain of FAILURES of duplicated and triple systems. In short, I will not deliver a lecture to external students across two seas.

                        What kind of nonsense? Both then and now, just one breakdown is enough to make everything fly up into the air. Yes, we have experience, but the technology of the late 60s. How the fuck bounce chain? What kind of duplication? In Proton there are a lot of systems that are not buled and their failure will lead to an accident.
                        Quote: summer
                        A-11 flight "occurred" only 8 years after the first flight into space. Aren't you funny yet?

                        The proton was created after 7 years. On the improved version they still fly. Is funny
                        The first spacewalk occurred 5 years after Gagarin. How much was created for this from scratch?
                        Already laughing?
                        Quote: summer
                        Gagarin’s flight is a discovery, and A-11 is a rational proposal, well, to the extreme - an invention.

                        Quote: summer
                        I wrote about lunar satellites, and not about shooting with terrestrial telescopes. Are you going to read? Or is there only time to “write”?

                        I wrote that there are no lunar telescopes that can shoot the moon in such a resolution. Chukchi is not a reader, Chukchi is a writer? This is the photo of the lunar surface, from the orbit of the moon, a camera made using the technology of the 2000s
                        Google’s march to study, study and study again. I've read so much nonsense here that I don’t know how to cry or laugh. But how much aplomb.
                      6. Rumata 26 December 2015 03: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Rumata
                        moon telescopes

                        Earthly, of course, an eyepiece
                      7. Locksmith 28 December 2015 12: 13 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Rumata
                        The proton was created after 7 years. On the improved version they still fly. Is funny

                        Proton passed all tests successfully, A5 failed all tests, in fact, that our N1 demonstrated = exactly the same as A5 behaved, on the ground it was not possible to practice landing "on the moon" -Arstrong gouging the training stand with brilliance, we decided that it would sit down laughing (manually !!!) and the start and docking in the lunar orbit HAND !!!
                  2. Rumata 26 December 2015 01: 15 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    You are a complete ignoramus in the topic under discussion, grabbed the tops, plainly not understanding and now expose your ignorance to the public.
                    Quote: summer
                    The device was - no pictures of identifiable objects. For some reason. Give the URL.

                    I attached a photo, it says LROC aka LRO Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Be in the orbit of the moon since 2009 and still. There are thousands of photos, even the flag is visible. At school, 30 years ago, I knew more about the moon than you do now. Connoisseur
                    Quote: summer
                    Kaleso was created without any accounts at all. And the “computational” powers during the creation of nuclear weapons have a milky relation to the near-moon ballistics.

                    How everything is running. When creating nuclear weapons, serious (at that time) computing power was needed. Modern computers, the Internet, programming languages ​​and algorithms are rooted at the same time. During the Manhattan project, hundreds of people were involved in manually solving complex differential equations. Mathematical calculations for the hydrogen bomb were performed on Eniak and analogues. Read what exactly they modeled. The launch into space nervously smokes on the sidelines. And this was done in 1945. At the same ENIAC-ah ballistic calculations were carried out in the 40s. Read how and on what calculations were made to launch missiles in the USSR. It is very interesting to know that computers of the late 60s could not calculate this, so that Apollo was not possible.
                    Quote: summer
                    I saw all sorts of clowns and even very funny ones. Do not create unhealthy competition for them.

                    Once again, the main computing power has always been and is on Earth. Sci-fi revised?
                  3. The comment was deleted.
                  4. summer 26 December 2015 02: 21 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    You, dear, deal with real problems.

                    "Crush the flies, reduce the birth rate, destroy your sparrows."

                    I’m not a psychoanalyst to correct the consequences of manic-depressive psychosis.

                    Do you think that Korolev, Yangel, Chelomei and Werner fB are your students? - go in peace.

                    To respond with sheets to your nonsense, I have no desire, no intention, no time.

                    Separate each with his own. Frets?
              3. Locksmith 28 December 2015 12: 05 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Rumata
                So what? The nuclear weapons were created using computational powers lower than my keyboard. What about Buran? There, most of the automation was analog. And what is also a myth? Most of the calculations were carried out on Earth. Neither then nor now, in orbit there is no need for large computing power.

                Well, yes, only for some reason the connection path BEFORE THE TIMES is considered on powerful supercomputers and until the Americans can not dock outside the visibility range of their (or ours) locators wink
                PS: there are still no locators on the moon laughing
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. atalef 25 December 2015 19: 44 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: summer
          You position yourself as a resident of Israel. So you are here on a Russian site at a party. So?

          In general, to be on the Internet at a party, this is at least a controversial statement. The Internet has no borders and any site has a single border - the language, and even then in our time it is conditional
          Quote: summer
          You come to visit and use the argument in the dispute, illustrating your innocence, but "catchy" the owners of the house. Is it ethical?

          This is not a forum. The forum is intended to express one’s opinion and sometimes sarcasm is just a way of presenting information.
          Quote: summer
          If you are specifically caught up in the denial of Apollo’s surprisingly successful flights (the thirteenth is like a cherry on top of a cake), I’ll give you a hint

          I will give you the same hint. Avoid double standards and what you demand from others is relevant to you too
          Quote: summer
          e. And you are not a god, and not a prophet, and not mashiach (מָשִׁיחַ).

          so you seem to be the same.
          Nevertheless, your whole post is riddled with one thing - treat me in excellent shape and do not ask me uncomfortable questions - because (you don’t understand why you decided that) you are the owner of the site.
          1. family tree 26 December 2015 01: 29 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: atalef
            Generally be on the Internet at a party

            Sanya, can you, to me, explain to the foolish. As they flew to the moon, and now they are trying to make the engine to go into orbit. Cho they there, the enemy was on the doorstep, had to urgently burn all the technical maps and documentation and specialists to eliminate, due to the impossibility of evacuation belay
            Oh health hi , Sorry request
            1. Rumata 26 December 2015 04: 17 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              I can try to explain. Saturn 5 is the most powerful, heavy, largest rocket ever launched. It was created for flights to the moon, with all the consequences.
              For comparison with Proton -m.
              Length 110 meters, against 55. Weight 3000 tons, against 700 tons. Useful load up to low Earth orbit 140 tons against 23 tons. The thrust of the first stage of Saturn was 3 times greater than that of Proton. In addition, Saturn was supposed to accelerate Apollo to a second cosmic speed - 11 km \ s, against 8 km \ s the first space for Proton. Launching something into orbit with such engines is like burning a cigarette with the help of the Pinocchio. One launch of such a bandura cost $ 2 billion at current prices. These are 30 protons that will lift 700 tons into orbit, 5 times more. The US may start building F-1 engines, but why?
              Here for comparison, the dimensions of the proton workhorse engine, and the monster of Saturn 5.


              9 tons, against 1.2 ...
            2. summer 26 December 2015 09: 23 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              You can’t calm down, the reincarnation of the gloomy Nazi-Teutonic genius Werner laughing
              Klaas's ashes knocking ..?

              Dear Rumata, have you heard anything about the laws of large numbers (statistics)?

              The proton was created after 7 years. On the improved version they still fly. Is funny


              Proton (UR-500) flew in the 65th year. 4 years after PPPC.
              Rumata
              The first spacewalk occurred 5 years after Gagarin
              .
              And Leonov, “in your opinion,” “came out” less than 4 years after PPChVK.
              The first launch of the new two-stage launch vehicle UR-500 took place on July 16, 1965 with the spacecraft N-4 No. 1 Proton-1. In total, three satellites were launched in the UR-500 LV in 1965-1966: Proton-1 - Proton-3, another launch failed

              Do you know the Proton launch statistics? It repeats the usual “failure curve” when testing new technology.
              Attention, a big quote -
              The most emergency period occurred during the development of LV in the conditions of the "lunar race" of the USSR-USA in 1967-1970. At this time, flight tests of the launch vehicle, booster block D, the returning probe-type apparatus, as well as the apparatuses of the Luna and Mars family were carried out. 9 failures occurred during operation of the first three stages of the Proton launch vehicle: five during operation of the 2nd and 3rd stages, two during the 1st stage, and one each after a false command from the security system and due to the destruction of the head fairing KA. Four more failures occurred due to failures of the engine installation of the upper stage D. In general, the tasks were completed only in 10 launches out of 25


              The same is true for other missiles, both the USSR (Russia) and the USA, China and others.

              Standing alone is C-5 (C-1). None of the other media has such an “ideal statistic” either earlier or later. (The trouble was waiting for the astronauts G, W, H, not in space, but right on the launch pad, in training! - the paradox is the only and fundamental! Crap happened in the children's room, and not in the ring)
              The most-most missile turned out to be trouble-free. Not annoying? It is an order of magnitude or even more (tautology) of a more complex RCS than Proton. You can, of course, recall "Energy" - 100% of successful launches. It seems like a repeat of the story? Only on the further history of the Energia rocket carrier was the cross put up. The collapse of the USSR. But, after all, the U.S.A. What is the salt?

              Why have the achievements in the manufacture of this “silver bullet” in the space industry died, without producing prolific numerous offspring? Why did illegitimate y-dishes with mongrel parameters begin to appear after C-5 (if we consider C-5 as a "purebred dog")?

              If you look at the development of space achievements as mountaineering, then HRPP in 69 is climbing a schoolboy without the famous ice ax Bronstein, in shorts, a T-shirt, without oxygen equipment and even with a cigarette in his mouth and two cans of beer in his hands.

              And then a gradual overcoming of Scythian barrows in the schedule of a disabled person is demonstrated.

              I do not deny the obvious bright victories of pin-dos in space. And the Pioneers, and the Voyagers, and the Vikings, and even the shuttle and other, that's cool. Only this has no relation to lunar victories.

              Apollo’s flights to the Moon, and not to the NOU, are an appendix in manned space exploration. And, for the sake of justice, if a seemingly obvious forgery is revealed, the rudimentary process will be ruthlessly removed.
            3. Rumata 26 December 2015 12: 21 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              All your refutations come down to one, "This cannot be, because it cannot be." This is logic at the level of claims that the iPhone cannot have a camera since it is very small, as they put a kilogram unit for shooting into such a small device. High school level discussion, no facts.
              If something seems unbelievable to you, not quite in the subject of astronautics, this does not mean that it is so.
              Good luck
            4. summer 26 December 2015 14: 15 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              My friend "it's hard to be Rumata", you can’t even imagine what crutch you scored in BAM!

              Gold!

              This is one of the few universal principles of the universe -

              “This cannot be, because this can never be!”

              This is the cornerstone of mathematical statistics!

              I strongly suggested that you give examples of my wrongness.

              You refused to show them - at least photos from the moon that would stop unnecessary insinuations - they are not there yet!

              One picture with distinguishable traces of a person staying on the moon and that’s it! Sra-h is dead!

              But this is not!
              They prefer to publish multi-member satellite images of the last bin Laden toilet in Pakistan with a complete analysis of feces!

              I do not insist categorically, I do not go into a "stupid negative." I sincerely hope that Jules Verne was neither the first nor the last person on the moon. That Neil stomped moonlight dust.

              But for now, there are HUGE doubts about this, based both on life experience and on the formal laws of mathematics.

              The third lady is a bribe! If you do not play along against yourself and do not play it yourself!

              You will never give your daughter for a crook, based only on his religion and citizenship.

              You will need irrefutable pros.

              So it is here.

              As they say in the army - "from the experience of previous firing." No more.

              Nobody has yet canceled common sense and, moreover, forbade it.

              PS Digital photo It’s best for you not to cling to me in a conversation.

              DSLR and more than one - in the cage.
            5. Rumata 26 December 2015 14: 54 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: summer
              “This cannot be, because this can never be!”

              Who's talking about never? Have you created a scarecrow to refute it yourself (Straw man argument) ?. You draw conclusions that something cannot be without understanding how it works. This is the basis of any obscurantism, false conclusions due to ignorance.
              "Evolution cannot be, since I do not understand how it can be."
              "An electron cannot be simultaneously in many places since I don’t understand how this is possible."
              "Saturn cannot be trouble-free because it is large, complex, and incomprehensible."
              Quote: summer
              You refused to show them - at least photos from the moon that would stop unnecessary insinuations - they are not there yet!

              Once again, the third one already. In orbit of the moon is an American cartographic satellite. I already posted the photo from it above. Still? Please have it with me


              Satellite site, THOUSAND photos

              Quote: summer
              You will need irrefutable pros.

              The comparison is not correct. Arguments for hundreds. If we draw analogies, then my daughter gets married, I met my parents, good people, I learned everything about him through all the channels, I was at his job, talked to the bosses, I talked to him many times myself. They lived together a couple of years and decided to marry, but I forbade based on the gossip of an old woman at the entrance, who heard a neighbor saying that he was not a man, but a reptiloid from Mars.

              Once again, you did not provide a refutation of the flight to the moon, you wrote several times that it is not possible because it is difficult, there are no capacities, there is no accident rate, etc. This is not an argument, all based on speculation
            6. Rumata 26 December 2015 15: 00 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Or here. LRRR on the left is one of 4 laser reflectors mounted on the moon.

              To increase the size, you can open it in a new tab, everything is perfectly visible. What other evidence is needed? Personally take you there?

              By this link you can open the moon map yourself, find the landing sites, and see what is visible.
              http://target.lroc.asu.edu/q3/
            7. summer 26 December 2015 16: 10 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              I clearly see only the inscriptions. This is not FSH! This is fundamentally changing the matter! This is CorelDRAW!
              Now another thing! Question - what are the letters made up of? From local underlying materials, or is it from cement that the Apolles brought?

              In addition to letters, nothing on your ignorance .. ignorance .. I have not entered, what weighty evidence did you bring?
              I quote myself -
              Photo .. Is it a toilet of the toilet type? This is a snapshot of what?


              The resolution of photo optics in low Earth orbit is 30 cm. And this is not today's record, but “the day before yesterday”. Under the condition of atmospheric aberrations associated with temperature fluctuations. On the Moon, at a flight altitude of a couple of tens of kilometers with the same optics, it would be possible to determine the degree of wear of the moon shoes of the Nile. According to the prints, of course. Only if the wind didn’t blow them away. Not shoes, but prints.

              If someone, we will not specify, although it should be an elephant calf, set out to remove not a defect on the panel, but something worthy, such as the "small step of the Nile," he had already done this for a long time.

              Okhi and akhi of the type - "let the Russians run and let it go" are not accepted - pin dos are no less.
              I forbade based on the gossip of an old woman at the entrance


              Completely incorrect comparison. Gossip, of course, is.
              And here -
              He met his parents, good people, learned everything about him through all the channels, was at his work, talked to his superiors, he talked to him many times.


              This we have not seen. You have reduced the problem of choice to subjective factors - your daughter, you have to make a choice. But society is not sure that you are still familiar with your parents - you just say that to everyone, but in reality they are homeless.

              Did you understand? There is no evidence. Do you rest on what you decide? And you personally are deeply convinced of this. Yes, you have the right.

              But landing on the moon does not imply doubt - either yes or no. There is no presumption of innocence - landing on the moon is not a crime. This must not be proved to society, defending itself against the criminal. This is necessary for a hero who has accomplished a feat in whose existence doubts have arisen.

              Not very similar to ponty pin-dos, which are killed in a movie from a slingshot “Armata”.

              Who really ate publicity! But here they are suspiciously in no hurry. For any modern Hollywood “masterpiece” about the adventures of astrikers on the moon, they spend several times more money than the launch of a lunar satellite would cost, confirming that the Americans on the moon are not bullshit.

              Corner reflectors also stood on two Soviet Lunokhods. And on the landing steps of the three survivors during the landing of the Lun.

              Does this prove that inside are still Soviet cosmonauts who have not yet been informed of the collapse of the USSR?
            8. Rumata 26 December 2015 16: 43 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Quote: summer
              In addition to letters, nothing on your ignorance .. ignorance .. I have not entered, what weighty evidence did you bring?

              I wrote about this 10 posts ago. Conspirologists will demand evidence that is simply not possible to provide. These photos clearly show both the landing module and the rovers left, and traces. But you need a footprint photo in 5cm HD resolution.
              Quote: summer
              On the Moon, at a flight altitude of a couple of tens of kilometers with the same optics, it would be possible to determine the degree of wear of the moon shoes of the Nile.

              What kind of nonsense? This is a photo with a resolution of 50cm, not 30, but still not bad. What are Armstrong's shoes? With a resolution of 30s, this shoe will occupy 1 pixel. Here is a photo of the Earth with a 30cm resolution. We read tales that had nothing to do with reality.


              Quote: summer
              Did you understand? There is no evidence. Do you rest on what you decide? And you personally are deeply convinced of this. Yes, you have the right.

              Hundreds of evidence, is it worth me to bring them?
              For you, traces of a rover on the surface is not a sufficient argument since the photograph is not of ideal quality. Saturn did not fly because it could not be accident-free. There were no corrections in orbit since computers of those times would not have mastered this.
              I demand a photo of Gagarin’s face in a porthole in orbit made from the Earth, in a resolution of 10cm, then I will believe. This is what your "arguments" look like. Complete ignorance in the topic under discussion, but confidence in the correctness. And still blame me for bias? Yes, I would be the first to agree that they did not fly to the Moon, if during all this time, at least once, I heard a normal refutation, and not "few pixels in the photo, we did not fly !!"
              I tried to explain at the maximum, but to identify a stubborn conspiracy theorist, usually a couple of messages are enough, and arguing with stubborn conspiracy theorists is useless and it doesn’t matter which topic, the Moon, GMOs, reptilians or Hyperborea. I’m ending the argument with you, a waste of time. Good luck
            9. summer 26 December 2015 19: 34 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              summer
              The conditions for shooting on the moon are not unlike the comfort of the earth, and the f-equipment should be with the same sharpness of the eye on the order, or even more, easier.
              On the Moon, at a flight altitude of a couple of tens of kilometers with the same optics, it would be possible to determine the degree of wear of the moon shoes of the Nile.

              You understand the point - with the same sharpness of sight - the camera will be lighter, or with the same optics - sharper. It is in lunar conditions.

              Are you surprised by the resolution of 5 cm? Do you take pictures at home with the same shitty resolution at home? So, between the resolution in fractions of a mm at a distance of meters and 30 cm at a distance of 200 km (taking into account the scattering of light by the Earth’s atmosphere), under the conditions of the Moon at an altitude of about 20-30 km in airless space, the same optics is quite capable of obtaining a resolution in cm units according to the laws of geometric optics.
              I demand a photo of Gagarin’s face in a porthole in orbit made from Earth, in a resolution of 10cm, then I will believe

              This is not for me - this is the worldwide league of sexual reform.

              “This cannot be, because this can never be!”

              You did not say that. It’s just the full text, not castrated. If you insist, I will not insult your religious beliefs.
              Once again, the third one already. In the orbit of the moon is an American cartographic satellite

              I don’t need yours or your American satellite - I need a photo.
              If there are no suitable pictures, let there be satellites instead of all the stars in the sky - this makes me neither cold nor hot.
              I wrote about this 10 posts ago. Conspirologists will demand evidence that is simply not possible to provide.

              Here are the damned "conspiracy theorists." They require evidence, but "I don’t have it." But it’s not my fault. The conspiracy therapists who stole the evidence are to blame. laughing
              Yes, I would be the first to agree that they did not fly to the Moon, if during all this time, at least once, I heard a normal refutation, and not "few pixels in the photo, we did not fly !!"

              How is it possible, in principle, to prove that human flights to the moon took place?

              The first is to photograph the landing sites with such a resolution so that the traces of a person staying on the moon are visible.
              The second is to fly to the moon at one of the "landing points." And there - be what happens.
              The third is to rent a time and space car, fly to the Moon on July 21, 69, at the Eagle’s standing point and shoot a landing reportage on a mobile phone, confirming the place and time with GPS data .. laughing belay hi

              I chose the first option. Which one will you choose?

              This is a purely rhetorical question.

              Good luck.
            10. summer 4 January 2016 12: 10 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The conditions for shooting on the Moon are unlike the comfort of the Earth, and the f-equipment should be with the same sharpness of the eye on the order, or even more, easier. ”
              “On the Moon, at a flight altitude of a couple of tens of kilometers with the same optics, it would be possible to determine the degree of wear of the moon shoes of the Nile.


              You understand the point - with the same sharpness of sight - the camera will be lighter, or with the same optics sharper.

              Are you surprised by the resolution of 5 cm? Do you take pictures at home with the same shitty resolution at home? So, between the resolution in fractions of a mm at a distance of meters and 30 cm at a distance of 200 km (taking into account the scattering of light by the Earth’s atmosphere), under the conditions of the Moon at an altitude of about 20-30 km in airless space, the same optics is quite capable of obtaining a resolution in cm units according to the laws of geometric optics.

              I demand a photo of Gagarin’s face in a porthole in orbit made from the Earth, in a resolution of 10cm, then I will believe.


              This is not for me - this is the worldwide league of sexual reform.

              It cannot be, because it can never be!

              You did not say that. It’s just the full text, not castrated. If you insist, I will not insult your religious beliefs.

              Once again, the third one already. In the orbit of the moon is an American cartographic satellite


              I don’t need yours or your American satellite - I need a photo.
              If there are no suitable pictures, let there be satellites instead of all the stars in the sky - this makes me neither cold nor hot.

              I wrote about this 10 posts ago. Conspirologists will demand evidence that is simply not possible to provide.


              Here are the damned "conspiracy theorists." They require evidence, but "I don’t have it." But it’s not my fault. The conspiracy therapists who stole the evidence are to blame.
              "to provide which is simply not possible."
              You can only believe in it - it's simply impossible to understand!
              Yes, I would be the first to agree that they did not fly to the Moon, if during all this time, at least once, I heard a normal refutation, and not "few pixels in the photo, we did not fly !!"


              How can one prove in principle that there were no flights to the moon?

              The first is to photograph the landing sites with such a resolution so that the traces of a person staying on the moon are visible.
              The second is to fly to the moon at one of the "landing points." And there - be what happens.
              The third is to rent a time and space car, fly to the Moon on July 21, 69, at the Eagle’s standing point and shoot a landing reportage on a mobile phone, confirming the place and time with GPS data ..

              I chose the first option. Which one will you choose?

              This is a purely rhetorical question.

              Good luck.

              This is a repost. To restore the historical picture.
              Some demigod considered this post heretical (?).
              God be his judge. Rather, she - Banshee - Tse Zhinka.
  4. family tree 26 December 2015 16: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Rumata
    I can try to explain.

    Thanks, Estorsky, oh Don, of course. hi Wow, you also understand rockets, otherwise all camels, camels. Well, as I understand it, a Formula 1 car is not a problem, the Zhiguli pile problem belay
  • dzeredzavkomimu 25 December 2015 04: 01 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    where is the evidence? we did not have Stanley Kubrick, this time, but the amers are not on the moon now, these are two, and there is no need to tell about the expediency of flying to the moon
    1. Rumata 25 December 2015 12: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: dzeredzavkomimu
      where is the evidence? we didn't have Stanley Kubrick

      How can the absence of something be evidence? Only Kubrick could remove something similar? Did you know that at that time, the level of science fiction shooting in the USSR was no lower than in the United States, and many techniques and tricks that the Americans adopted from their Soviet colleagues?

      I don’t doubt Gagarin’s flight, but what evidence do you have? Why aren’t you picking on Gagarin, and around the moon is hysteria, where there is more evidence?
    2. opus 25 December 2015 23: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: dzeredzavkomimu
      we didn’t have Stanley Kubrick, this time, but now there are no amers on the Moon

      we had a Mosfilm



      Have you ever wondered who was filming the Lunokhod “from the side”?



      1. summer 26 December 2015 10: 07 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        "Buddy" opus (6). There is such a “suit” - a thimble.

        Just sleight of hand, no more.
        Have you seen a report from the moon about the movements of the Lunokhod? I personally don’t remember that.

        But I remember, although there was no live broadcast in the USSR, “reports from the moon about the first man’s landing on the moon” were not shown in live view, but in the recording, the next day - no one “kept silent” about the fact.

        You took shots from an xp documentary about the history of the creation of Lunokhod and you equate this with falsifications of live maid-by-kubrick broadcasts.

        This remark is also true for the Soviet "moon filming." This is not something that was not shown - it was strictly classified. The problem is not in the availability of filming "walks on the Moon", but in the forgery, which you could not blame for all your perverts of the USSR. And the United States cultivated it with great profit!

        You yourself are not disgusting and not disgusting? How do you manage to give yourself a hand after such a hand for a handshake?
  • opus 25 December 2015 22: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: shamil
    Where is the evidence of the moon landing?


    This character under the name "Shamil" reminds me of one person



    well, or typical svidomita:

  • Loreal 25 December 2015 14: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the engine was covered with a shield during aerodynamic braking - they forgot that they had landed on Mars for a long time, and the parachutes there opened normally
    1. Rumata 25 December 2015 14: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Loreal
      the engine during aerodynamic braking is covered by a shield

      Where is it covered?
      Quote: Loreal
      They forgot that they had landed on Mars for a long time, and the parachutes there opened normally

      During the descent of Curiosity, parachutes opened at an altitude of 11km, 110km before that - aerodynamic descent in a protective capsule, braking from 6 km / s to 400 m / s. I want to see a parachute that works for 6 m / s ...
      1. Loreal 25 December 2015 19: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        the capsule is the shield
        was there a parachute?
        1. Rumata 25 December 2015 20: 01 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Where did I write that there were no parachutes?
          1. I wrote that in the upper atmosphere the parachute does not come off
          you answered that
          Quote: Loreal
          parachutes there opened normally

          I replied that the parachutes opened normally in dense layers. Or we did not understand each other, or I do not know ...
          1. Loreal 26 December 2015 15: 00 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            on Mars
            Quote: Loreal
            the engine was covered with a shield during aerodynamic braking - they forgot that they had landed on Mars for a long time, and the parachutes there opened normally
        2. opus 25 December 2015 23: 04 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Loreal
          was there a parachute?

          which engineer (if he is not a victim of the USE) will not use what is FREE and much, the atmosphere under his feet?

          Falcon 9 (or rather, its first stage) did not fly at 56 million km, and did not reach 3 space speeds (but only 4-5 m).
          There does not go weight per gram and Curiosity is not the first step of Falcon9 (in weight and size)

          at 4M atmosphere at this height as molasses


          The role of parachutes and aerodynamic controls was performed by lattice aerodynamic rudders.

          The weight of the parachutes for the first step is 50 m long, 3,7 meters in diameter = 1350 mass, with 9 x Merlin 1D (9 x 490 kg).
          There would be even more TC that was used to damp speed at the final stage
          1. Loreal 26 December 2015 15: 02 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            It turns out that the developers of the Falcon-9 are victims of the exam
  • adept666 6 January 2016 07: 05 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    problems with the space shuttle project?
    The only problem with the shuttles was the presence of the crew (hence all the problems with reliability). If the shuttle were initially made automatic, it would still fly and would be more economically efficient than protons and unions and space-x with atlases and Arians combined. It was just necessary to make two versions of the shuttle - manned (withdrawal of people + repair missions) and unmanned (withdrawal of goods).
  • corporal 24 December 2015 07: 56 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Give freedom to a private trader, and so he will manage to fly to Mars faster than state corporations smile
    Well done engineers Falcon, all furnished.
    Now we will see how Roscosmos, NASA, and Europeans move ...
    oh yes and the Chinese ..
  • sa-ag 24 December 2015 08: 15 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "... December 22, an event occurred that could go down in the history of world astronautics. The American company SpaceX conducted another successful launch of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle with a payload of several spacecraft, after which its first stage returned to the ground and made a full-time landing . "
    Well, the event is not the first in history, not so long ago it was Jeff Bezos who really did the first with his suborbital oxygen-hydrogen rocket http://geektimes.ru/post/266332/
    1. corporal 24 December 2015 10: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: sa-ag
      Jeff Bezos with his suborbital oxygen-hydrogen rocket http://geektimes.ru/post/266332/

      Thanks for the link. I didn’t know about such a company. But I saw the video on YouTube laughing
    2. voyaka uh 24 December 2015 16: 15 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Right.
      There are already two private firms that can return the first step:
      Blue Origin and Space-X.

      But Elon Mack was not a trial, but a real flight with the launch of satellites.
      1. opus 25 December 2015 23: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        and a real flight with the launch of satellites.

        11 pieces of 200kg
  • AlexA 24 December 2015 09: 23 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Reusable use is, in principle, a solution.
    That's just the problem of mass efficiency, it is in insoluble contradiction. In any case, a disposable product will deliver a larger payload to its equivalent orbit. Objective reality. Therefore, statements that the Falcon will be reusable and deliver a greater load than disposable rockets are an advertising move.
    It is necessary to decide which is more important. The same Space Shuttle delivers less payload into orbit than the one-time Saturn.
  • Silinvv 24 December 2015 09: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Musk is great, but reusability under such extreme conditions is more likely evil. The risks of repeated launches are too great, 2 shuttles and 2 crews lost because of this. Well, in terms of load and cost, he went far from what he promised.
  • bunta 24 December 2015 09: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This system will become reusable after "many, many times." And not the fact that the costs in fact will be cheaper than estimated. The space shuttle proved it once again. The main technical minus is to bring fuel into space for braking.
    1. sa-ag 24 December 2015 10: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: bunta
      The main technical minus is to bring fuel into space for braking.

      The first step does not reach space, so ...
      1. bunta 24 December 2015 10: 37 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: sa-ag
        The first step does not reach space, so ...

        What? Do you need to tear off fuel for braking from the earth?
        1. chunga-changa 24 December 2015 11: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Approximately 30% of the first stage fuel is used for return and landing. Anyway, losing engines is more expensive.
          1. srha 24 December 2015 14: 34 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Where did the figure come from? Well, I don’t have numbers. Therefore, I compared the "Falcon 9" with the "Zenith-2" - also average and oxygen-kerosene.
            Rocket ____ start __ on NGO
            Zenit-2 ___ 462t ______ 13,7t
            Falcon 9__ 541t ______ 13,15t

            I got only 17% higher fuel consumption. The cost of a rocket is really a penny. Probably, nevertheless, the most expensive will not be additional fuel consumption and not even the cost of engines, but re-maintenance. How did this happen with the shuttles. That is, they still have all the main problems ahead.
            1. chunga-changa 24 December 2015 16: 51 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              30% fuel first steps
              Of the total mass, the percentage will certainly be less.
            2. shamil 24 December 2015 20: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Usually cheaper than restored. But let them try. I think one more dead end. Landing in the style of "Burana" - the standard in reusability.
              1. atalef 24 December 2015 21: 39 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: shamil
                Landing in the style of "Burana" - the standard in reusability.

                More than a hundred landings in the style of Shuttles - you want to say the standard?
                1. adept666 6 January 2016 21: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  More than a hundred landings in the style of Shuttles - you want to say the standard?
                  No, I think he just wanted to say exactly Buran, because he sat on autopilot and in the future if life support systems were removed (minus people), thereby simplifying and reducing the cost of the start (and the system as a whole), lowering reliability requirements (no people ) you can get a sufficiently efficient reusable transport system for servicing low-orbit space systems (expensive satellites (for example, pick up from orbit - restore some of the lost functions or upgrade equipment), automatic and manned stations etc.), i.e. get reusable progress. On the basis of this vehicle to create an already manned shuttle, but only for people (reusable union). Roughly speaking, divide one universal shuttle into two highly specialized ones.
            3. opus 25 December 2015 23: 24 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: srha
              Rocket ____ start __ on NGO
              Zenit-2 ___ 462t ______ 13,7t
              Falcon 9__ 541t ______ 13,15t

              Zenit-2 = 459 tons, PN 13,7 per 200km NOO
              Zenit-3MS = 473 tons, PN 15 tons 200km NOO (Equator)

              Estimated cost of one carrier is 1,2-1,4 billion rubles (as of 2013 and excluding the price of starting services)

              currency code 840 08.06.2013/1/32,2397 USD XNUMX US dollar XNUMX
              http://www.cbr.ru/currency_base/daily.aspx?date_req=08.06.2013


              Falcon 9v1.2 PH weight 541 t

              All 11 satellites (each weighing 172 kg +, total mounts 200 kg) + breeding module delivered to to the target orbit 620x640 km, inclination 47 g.

              13-15 tons at the DOE and 4 tons at 640 km - TWO BIG DIFFERENCES


              Quote: srha
              I got only 17% higher fuel consumption

              7-10% of the first-stage fuel went into landing.
              fuel cost -a spear (even if you will refuel on Lukoil) in comparison with the cost of a liquid propellant rocket engine (9 units) and with the cost of the 1st stage.
              1 stage is 70% of the cost of ALL PH (Falcon 9v1.2 COST per unit $ 61,9 million)
              1. PHANTOM-AS 25 December 2015 23: 30 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: opus
                Estimated cost of one carrier is 1,2-1,4 billion rubles (as of 2013 and without taking into account the price of launch services)

                Hello, Colleague!
                With knowledge of the matter, you painted everything good
                The only question is, but do they charge VAT on this cost? repeat
                Or is he reimbursed? what
                1. opus 26 December 2015 00: 36 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: PHANTOM-AS
                  and take VAT from this cost?

                  Hahaha.
                  1. In the USA there is no VAT (advanced country), there is a sales tax (in all states it is different and)
                  2.We have
                  “Guidelines for the application of Chapter 21“ Value Added Tax ”of the second part of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation”
                  Legal entities, individual entrepreneurs, and also persons recognized as value-added tax payers in connection with the movement of goods across the customs border of the Russian Federation, determined in accordance with the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, are recognized as payers of value added tax.
                  The following operations are subject to VAT in accordance with Article 146 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation:

                  sales of goods (works, services) in the territory of the Russian Federationincluding the sale of collateral, the transfer of goods under an agreement on the provision of compensation, as well as the transfer of property rights;
                  and further

                  In accordance with Article 148 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the place of sale of works (services) is recognized territory of the Russian Federation if:

                  works (services) are directly related to real estate (excluding aircraft, ships and inland vessels, as well as space objects)located in the Russian Federation. Such works (services), in particular, include construction, installation, construction and installation, repair, restoration work, landscaping, rental services;

                  CONCLUSION: DO NOT TAKE (for the conclusion belay ).
                  Do not take:
                  1. For the spacecraft itself (the collector company reimburses the VAT paid when purchasing components from suppliers)
                  2. For PH they essentially take (part, see p3)
                  3.Take part for withdrawal services (well, I think so)


                  AIR SPACE - space (pillar of air) located above the land and water territory of the state. The upper boundary of V.p. is his contact with outer space. According to established international custom, the airspace of the state is a column of air 100 km high above the state territory. Outside of this mark is international V.P., Accordingly, artificial devices can rotate freely without significant braking and combustion in the Earth's atmosphere.
                  It’s for those steps and for the service that is located (performed) to the Karman-line line (this is the territory of the Russian Federation).
                  all that is not above.

                  Those. for the 3rd step and the Briz-M booster block I don’t take, well, I don’t take dengue for the service that they do.
                  From the start of Unions from equatorial guinea, DT (export) is served and VAT is refunded from the cost of the LV
                  1. PHANTOM-AS 26 December 2015 13: 13 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: opus
                    From the start of Unions from equatorial guinea, DT (export) is served and VAT is refunded from the cost of the LV

                    wonderful government - wonderful laws wink
                  2. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • gregor6549 24 December 2015 11: 28 New
    • 18
    • 0
    +18
    I read some comments and wonder. How blind hatred of the Americans can freeze the mind. After all, the Americans managed to take a very serious step in the field of space development. Moreover, it was possible to do this not by the state structure, but by the commercial structure. Yes, not everything they did right away, but it did. It should also be added that serious internal competition has arisen in the US space industry, which in turn can dramatically accelerate the development of space technologies in this country. Well, the last. Since this launch was carried out by a commercial structure, all the pros and cons of such a scheme, as well as the possible profit and loss, were calculated very carefully there. And the associated risks, too. So stop hysterical about the pin ... in, and it's time to start learning something from them. And you can learn first of all effective methods of managing complex technical projects. Well, to separate technology from politics and skilled American people from some of the rulers sitting on his neck. After all, on our neck, too, who just did not sit
    1. Vadim237 24 December 2015 12: 35 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      The Americans will continue to take serious steps in space exploration, unlike us, and we will still stagnate selling engines, launching satellites and that’s all, no promising programs, The lunar program was stolen as well as an extra-heavy rocket with its own orbital station and you can always forget about Mars - Roscosmos - the fall continues.
      1. adept666 6 January 2016 21: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Mars can always be forgotten - Roskosmos - the fall continues.
        And it was not necessary at the time to engage in nonsense, but to develop and optimize the already excellent, excellent RKS Energia. Why sculpt steel Angara? What prevented one accelerator from biting from the first stage (essentially Zenith launch vehicle) to finish up the accelerating block and make the same accordion 1 + 2,1 + 4, thereby obtaining a set of launch vehicles in the thrust class for 200 km of 13-200 tons (Zenith + accelerators of the first stage: 13-40t, then Energy / Volcano + accelerators of the first stage: 40-200 tons and all of these are from the same essentially spare parts (RD-170/171/175, RD-180, RD-191 parts of the same engine, identical tanks of a part of steps, etc.)). Those. if it were not for foolishness with the Angara, then already from 2005-2008, we had the most developed space transport system in the world. Then it was possible to do reusability in detail (first-stage accelerators to start with, for example), divide the snowstorm into two reusable, more compact shuttles - an automatic transport (simpler and cheaper) to replace progress and manned to replace the union.
  • Ajjh 24 December 2015 11: 29 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    This is truly a landmark event. Not the first flight into space of Gagarin of course, but he can rightfully occupy the first three! Like it or not, but a new EPOCH is coming! Cosmos goes forward and it remains only to wish Max and his followers only good luck and success!
    1. Dewa1s 24 December 2015 12: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Why did something so epochal happen?
      1. Erg
        Erg 24 December 2015 12: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I don’t understand what the holiday is about. If back in July 1969, the Americans landed the module on the moon in manual mode. And then they also took off ... wassat Now, if the "falcon" could immediately take off, well, in the sense of the place where he landed, then yes. Although, this would be just a repetition of the "feat" of Apollo 11 ...
        1. shamil 24 December 2015 20: 53 New
          • -2
          • 0
          -2
          And do you believe in flying to the moon?
          1. corporal 24 December 2015 21: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: shamil
            And do you believe in flying to the moon?

            Twenty-five again fool
            They believe in God and an honest government. Flying-tracked.
            1. Glukashin 25 December 2015 03: 39 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              And who tracked these flights to the moon, lunatics?
              1. Rumata 25 December 2015 12: 02 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Earthlings tracked
                1. Dewa1s 25 December 2015 12: 15 New
                  • -2
                  • 0
                  -2
                  Leonov’s words, to put it mildly, are not too powerful argument
                  1. Rumata 25 December 2015 14: 14 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Dewa1s
                    Leonov’s words, to put it mildly, are not too powerful argument

                    There are hundreds of such not very weighty arguments that are going to be serious evidence. What do conspiracy therapists have? Little things like lunar soil, which have long been explained. 12 people walked on the Moon, not 1 or XNUMX, and the USSR didn’t deny it when, for example ...
                  2. corporal 26 December 2015 19: 34 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Dewa1s
                    Leonov’s words, to put it mildly, are not too powerful argument

                    The words of the honored astronaut are not an argument ?????
                    Aren't you from Echo of Moscow or something like that?
                    Or just dolbo..b?
                    1. Dewa1s 28 December 2015 07: 06 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      So you can communicate with your closest circle of friends - friends, relatives, parents. I will not respond rudely to stupidity.
                      The words of the honored retired astronaut are no more than the words of the honored artist like Kirkorov.
    2. shamil 24 December 2015 20: 52 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      This is one of the experiments. Don't say gop until you jumped. And Russia is famous for its simple solutions and, relatively speaking, “eternal” in use.
  • chunga-changa 24 December 2015 11: 36 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    So here they are what rosogin trampolines really are. They claim to be a significant market share, very interesting. This month, “blood from the nose,” Rozogin promised Punite the launch of a “hangar” from the “eastern”, there are another seven days, we will wait. Interestingly, he will be given an order "for success", or is it just limited to a double premium?
  • Ajjh 24 December 2015 13: 57 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    And you didn’t notice how the last 10 years of astronautics news stopped wearing wow! the effect? previously watched the rovers, the Hubble, and now? which of those present will recall all the rovers from memory? I won’t tell you without a wiki, honestly. But the news shaft! they just became ordinary ... Even about 10 years ago landing on a comet would be number 1 news for a year! and now? ... Next - the space H. toe because they laughed at the beginning, they say there won't even be a start to the program. but the program started, and started more than successfully
    Yes, not everything is smooth, there are miscalculations and tragedies, but the first step has been taken. This is just the beginning. private traders go into space, this is the revolution. they will be more effective than state. They spend money more wisely; there are no "rogozins" there. There, engineers, scientists are needed.
    And then they laugh from this ... When even the concept of an electric car was introduced, they also laughed, now for some reason it’s not funny.
    So come on Max! Let's go! (C)
    1. Erg
      Erg 24 December 2015 16: 04 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      I can’t say for others, but I’ll answer for myself. All this cosmic fuss, sorry, progress, reminds me of work to improve the potbelly stove. Prospects for research and space exploration - zero. As we flew "on the wood", so we fly. For a long time already there are new technologies based on antigravity. Sources of energy that do not require oxidation. Cheap, with an endless supply. I look forward to when the scientific world recognizes the theory of relativity as complete nonsense and a dead end. Only officially. It is only necessary to get "permission" from the club "skull and bones" lol . And then a new cosmic era will come.
      1. AUL
        AUL 24 December 2015 17: 08 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Maybe you’ll throw a link to “existing technologies using antigravity” and “Sources of energy that do not require oxidation. Cheap, with an endless supply." And then so stupid and die ...
        By the way, what did your grandfather Einstein not please? It seems to be his relativistic theory in practice has long been confirmed! When calculating the phenomena in the microworld, it works quite clearly for itself!
        1. Erg
          Erg 24 December 2015 17: 46 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The very form of posing your question indicates that links are not what you need. First, you need a simple curiosity smile And as for Einstein’s grandfather ... For a start, there are two points - the speed of light is not the highest (it’s already ruining the “theory”), and the concept of “space” that he introduced is an order (instead of broadcasting) hi
          1. Rumata 24 December 2015 18: 27 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Erg
            To begin with, two points - the speed of light is not the largest (already destroys the "theory")

            May I ask how exactly it destroys? =)
            And in which place did Einstein claim that the speed of light is the highest? STO does not limit speed as such; it speaks of the speed of information transfer.
            Z.Y
            I join the question above regarding existing anti-gravity technologies, very interesting. But are you not an hour-long supporter of the “theory” of the Fabric of the Universe, do they most of all roll along antigravings ??
            1. Erg
              Erg 24 December 2015 20: 07 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              I see no reason to engage in polemics with you hi
              1. Rumata 24 December 2015 20: 17 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Erg
                I see no reason to engage in polemics with you

                Who would doubt that...
            2. Erg
              Erg 24 December 2015 20: 48 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Darwin’s theory (studied at school) is generally accepted, the pyramids were “built” by the Egyptians (and they themselves lived in shacks), the Mayan natives created a calendar (with thousand-year cycles), modern man appeared 40-50 thousand years ago (although excavations disprove this), there is no atmosphere on the Moon, because there is low gravity (however, it is on Pluto), the angle of incidence of light is equal to the angle of reflection (so why do we not see this, observing the Moon, it is at the edges the same as in the center) ... I can continue for a long time. If this world of lies appeals to you, then I am not your interlocutor.
              1. Rumata 24 December 2015 21: 16 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Erg
                Darwin's theory is generally accepted.

                Because the theory of evolution is a scientific fact
                Quote: Erg
                (although excavation refutes this

                What kind of excavation?
                Quote: Erg
                there is no atmosphere on the moon

                Yes, Pluto’s atmosphere is denser due to low temperatures, radiation and composition.
                Quote: Erg
                the angle of incidence of light is equal to the angle of reflection (so why we do not see it, observing the moon, it is at the edges the same as in the center

                Hope this is a joke?
                Quote: Erg
                If this world of lies appeals to you, then I am not your interlocutor.

                This is not a lie around, it’s you who are not educated, do not confuse the hot with the sweet.
                1. Erg
                  Erg 24 December 2015 21: 22 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  You have everything ahead. Good luck hi
            3. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. AUL
          AUL 24 December 2015 19: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0

          What I need - I know a little better than you! For advice on curiosity - thanks, I will try to get it. And the raids on the grandfather - well, this is repeated with enviable regularity. I have been observing this since college. I remember there was such an author-subverter, either Kozlov or Kozel, who had a great scandal in this regard, ridiculed competent people. And after that the arrivals at the service station were repeated, with the same success. It seems that you have embarked on this slippery path. Well, success to you!
          1. AUL
            AUL 24 December 2015 19: 42 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            And by the way, whose order was Einstein so diligently carrying out? American imperialism? International Zionism? Mafia? Aliens?
            1. Erg
              Erg 24 December 2015 21: 01 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Morgana. Take an interest in mother of the genius (there is no sarcasm here). Well, Tesla ... Find a list of scientists who died under "random circumstances", they studied antigravity and energy from the ether. These are dozens of names ... And you also know that - I personally observed levitation, telekinesis. And it was not at a meeting with the "psychic." No - it makes my good friend (is registered. Why? ..) Everything is real here. When I told the peasants, at work, what I saw ... They looked at me like an eccentric. I think, and you will take their side. I’m interested in a person who wants to know, not argue. hi
              1. Rumata 24 December 2015 21: 24 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Clear. Ren TV brain
                Quote: Erg
                No - it makes my good friend

                The Randy Fund will give him a million dollars right away if he can levitate without tricks. If laziness goes far, the Houdini Foundation in Moscow will give him a million rubles if he can show telekinesis in a double-blind environment. Why is he not a millionaire yet? Why are all these miracles always in the kitchen, with one witness who is indignant if they do not believe him?
                Coperfield also flew, in front of people, so what? And under the substances you can not see this. It’s not just that they looked at you like an eccentric.
                Quote: Erg
                I’m interested in a person who wants to know, not argue.

                That is, you need a person who will take a word of everything said and will not ask questions, that is, argue? Bravo
                1. Erg
                  Erg 24 December 2015 21: 42 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Listen to me my friend. As a man I’ll tell a man. Despite the fact that you even hide your name (not the best indicator for the person who is responsible for your words), I will tell you your name - Sergey G. Bobrov. I live in Korolev. So here. 2006 year. June. City Clinical Hospital (central city hospital) Queen. I was lying there in the ENT department. Find nurse Lyudochka. Find female trainees from the medical school who came to practice. Ask how they asked Zhora to show them a miracle. The 8-bed ward was crammed so hypnosis was ruled out. And what did this Zhora do, causing the brain of a stunned person to curl. I will not indicate surnames (not my right). If you move, you will get a forward movement in awareness. I'm waiting for the name and city, friend. Or I'll just consider you a balabol. hi And about the "dirty green pieces of paper" ... for which you put up a word ... Yes, I wanted to spit on them, like Zhorik. For us, the main thing is the children and the strength of the motherland.
                  1. Rumata 24 December 2015 22: 03 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Jora was able to fool a few people? So what? Watch the performances of the illusionists on YouTube, they get up on the streets so that you break your brain for a week about how it was done. Did one magician stagger your whole worldview? How long should I be impressionable? Where is critical thinking? Where are the doubts?
                    Why is this Zhora not known to the whole world? The Secret Techniques of Shaw Lin? There is not a single, correctly verified and documented case of paranormal abilities. Always in the kitchen, in the ward on as many as 9 people !! Copperfield in front of New York, teleported the Statue of Liberty, is he now a level 90 wizard?
                    Here is levitation, although in reality everything is just elementary.
                    1. Erg
                      Erg 24 December 2015 22: 10 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      I thought so. You are a man who is afraid to name his name, which he received from the Father ... Bazaar with women. negative
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                  2. corporal 24 December 2015 22: 04 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Erg
                    And what did this Zhora do, causing the brain of a stunned person to curl.

                    Intrigued. And what did this Zhora do? Can you tell? Isn't it a military secret?
                    1. Erg
                      Erg 24 December 2015 22: 12 New
                      • -1
                      • 0
                      -1
                      I'm tired ... Maybe, somehow, in PM. hi
              2. AUL
                AUL 24 December 2015 23: 22 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                ERG, do you reject attempts to dispute with you? Do you claim absolute truth? Do not allow the thought that suddenly, theoretically, you may be wrong? You know, I got sick of talking with you ...
                Of course, the theory of world ether is cool! But there is an even cooler thing - calorific! That's where antigravity, and levitation, and the perpetual motion machine of the first kind are buried in one bottle. Try to delve into this matter - I think you will like it.
                This concludes the dialogue with you - uninteresting.
  • iouris 24 December 2015 14: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To return a step is half the battle. It is necessary to restart it again, and more than once.
  • fa2998 24 December 2015 16: 09 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Of course, many are critical of the success of the United States, but in my opinion, Americans can be congratulated. They returned the largest and most powerful stage of the rocket launcher. This is a REALLY REUSABLE system. There have been attempts, and orbiting vehicles have returned to the USSR and the USA (Shuttle, Buran), but on our launch vehicles, Energia didn’t return at all, and the Americans were catching their boosters and fuel tanks in the ocean. And Falcon returned to its place — check it, refuel it and again fly. hi
    1. shamil 24 December 2015 20: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The most difficult thing after checking is to give permission to restart. You don’t take it into account, there is the concept of metal fatigue. All this is complicated.
      1. Rumata 24 December 2015 21: 26 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: shamil
        metal fatigue

        The smallest of the problems ...
  • robbihood 24 December 2015 16: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Here is another height taken! And we must not dejectedly trend that the Americans were not on the moon (six landings !!!), but restore order in their cosmonautics. Although, if there is the main one - the trepak Rogozin, with its settlements on the Moon by 2020, and cosmoboots, there will be nothing good. I want to be wrong.
    1. Firelake 5 February 2020 12: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Still not mistaken I write from 2020.))))))
  • Taoist 24 December 2015 16: 23 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Honestly, maybe I just don’t know something ... but it seems to me (from the point of view of an aircraft engineer) the return of any device in the atmosphere of the earth in the “on fire” version is the most energy-consuming and not profitable method. I’m silent about the restrictions on weather conditions when planting such a “pencil” ... I still don’t understand what the Falcon designers were guided by choosing such a difficult method of return. Again, what is the point of saving a significant part of the fuel not for the output of the payload but solely for the return of the apparatus?
    1. sa-ag 24 December 2015 17: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      It’s not clear to me yet what the Falcon designers were guided by choosing such a complicated method of return.

      Well, the first is the engineering task itself, and the second is saving on engines, they are the most expensive article
      1. Taoist 24 December 2015 17: 18 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        What is the saving on engines? The taxiways have a limited resource, it is difficult to throttle them providing a smooth change in traction ... And in this case, we also have increased complexity and the operating time of the power plant of the first stage. If we want to ensure the salvation of the first stage for reuse, would it not be easier to use aerodynamic descent and braking? The "on fire" landing pattern is inevitable for atmosphereless planets but under Earth conditions it is simply wasteful.
        1. Rumata 24 December 2015 18: 00 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Taoist
          If we want to ensure the salvation of the first stage for reuse, would it not be easier to use aerodynamic descent and braking?

          How will it look like? What will protect the stage from damage in the upper atmosphere, before the opening of parachutes? The only thing that comes to mind is firing off engines in a heat-resistant capsule.

          As I understand it, there was an option to use engines in the upper layers, and then parachutes, but in this case it is necessary to get wet and corrosion will complicate repeated launches. Roughly speaking, it’s cheaper to spend 300 more on fuel than a couple of million on engine tests, especially if it is sea water. Plus transportation, which in the case of Falcon Heavy will cost a pretty penny as it will be 000 times heavier than Proton. How much does it cost, for example, to catch and transport Proton from the Pacific Ocean to Kazakhstan? Even if flown near Florida, it will cost tens of millions.
          1. Taoist 24 December 2015 20: 14 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Why splash down? In fact, systems like the Soviet "Centaur" have long and quietly landed any cargo on the ground without damage ... Again, what prevents the use of a planned landing? Or is an automatic landing system (still rolled out on Buran) more complicated and more expensive than a vertical landing? I won’t believe in life ...
            1. Rumata 24 December 2015 20: 36 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Quote: Taoist
              quietly land any cargo on the ground without damage

              Not a problem to lower the load in a metal capsule, we are talking about the return of the carrier without damaging it during the descent. The descent vehicles heat up to 7000 degrees, at a speed of 7M, experiencing overloads of 10g .. The Falcon will fall apart and burn before entering dense layers. It seems that from orbit, at zero speed, the descent vehicle falls while accelerating, in fact it flies into the atmosphere at almost the first cosmic speed (7.9 km \ s), ten times faster than the initial speed of the AK-47 bullet.
              Quote: Taoist
              Again, what makes it difficult to use a planning landing?

              For a planning landing, you need a glider. Sense of making a second shuttle or Buran, which will be tens of times more expensive?
              Quote: Taoist
              Or is an automatic landing system (still rolled out on Buran) more complicated and more expensive than a vertical landing? I won’t believe in life ...

              What difference is automatic or not? Both Buran and the Shuttle were found too expensive.
        2. sa-ag 24 December 2015 19: 41 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Taoist
          What is the saving on engines?

          You, relatively speaking, bring the payload 2-3 times with one engine, I think it’s possible to get a plus on the payback, it’s not the state budget to master, here the funds are limited
          1. Taoist 24 December 2015 20: 18 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            And who is bothering to plant this engine for reuse? They shot the engine block and put it on a parachute ... Even the entire stage was completely quietly lowered without any fuel at all ...
            1. Rumata 24 December 2015 20: 54 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Taoist
              And who is bothering to plant this engine for reuse? They shot the engine block and put it on a parachute ... Even the entire stage was completely quietly lowered without any fuel at all ...

              What will protect this unit from damage during the descent? Even if it were possible to open the parachute at the entrance to the atmosphere, it would have burst nafig at such speeds, so the descent vehicles slow down using the density of the atmosphere and only at the last stage open the parachutes. Even if we created a mega-super-duper parachute, which could slow down the load from 7000 km / s to 50-60 m / s, the descent would take at least 5 hours ...
              1. corporal 24 December 2015 21: 54 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Rumata
                Even if we created a mega-super-duper parachute that could slow down the load from 7000 km / s to 50-60 m / s,

                Why slow down with a parachute, when the atmosphere can perfectly make it up to 300-400 km / h (approximately). And then let the parachute work.
                Moreover, it’s not a fact that firstthe stage accelerates to 7 km / s.
                1. Rumata 24 December 2015 22: 43 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Quote: Corporal
                  Why slow down with a parachute, when the atmosphere can perfectly make it up to 300-400 km / h (approximately). And then let the parachute work.

                  Yes, but how to protect this bandura with such a descent?
                  Quote: Corporal
                  Moreover, it is not a fact that the first stage accelerates to 7 km / s.

                  You are right, I for clarity. The first step to the first space course does not accelerate, plus mixed up with km \ s, km \ h, but this is not so important. Judging by their video, the separation of the second stage occurs at a speed of about 6500 km \ h.
    2. psiho117 24 December 2015 17: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      It’s not clear to me yet what the Falcon designers were guided by choosing such a complicated method of return. Again, what is the point of saving a significant part of the fuel not for the output of the payload but solely for the return of the apparatus?

      Similarly ... What prevented the use of the parachute descent method, and lay the first step somewhere in shallow water?
      There, after all, obviously not 17% of the mass of fuel, but more - 17% turned out to take away the difference from the mass of the old rocket, and this one is probably with the latest ultralight alloys and composites, so there should be about 30%, as knowledgeable people say.
      Plus, the method of planting itself - planting a pencil "on the butt" - this is real hemorrhoids.
      You can put it in a pool with foam, or on an inflatable pillow, but many damping systems can be figured out.

      So, I’m afraid that there the situation with Mask will come out like with his electric car - it was delayed for 15 years, and the cost was 3 times, and people really "burned" at work - they plowed without rest, holidays and weekends, all non-workaholics Musk stupidly kicked out.
      And here comes a more complicated situation, with expensive missiles - I'm afraid it will be an order of magnitude more complicated.
      1. atalef 24 December 2015 17: 43 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: psiho117
        Plus, the method of planting itself - planting a pencil "on the butt" - this is real hemorrhoids.
        You can put it in a pool with foam, or on an inflatable pillow, but many damping systems can be figured out.

        In this case (landing on the priest), the missiles become fully universal. The descent is not controlled by parachute, as a result, it can be carried anywhere, in this case it can be returned even to the site of the mounting case, so as not to bother with the transportation.
      2. Rumata 24 December 2015 18: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: psiho117
        You can put it in a pool with foam, or on an inflatable pillow, but many damping systems can be figured out.

        Plant it
        Quote: psiho117
        pencil "on the ass"
        , and get into the pool with foam like two fingers?
        Z.Y
        Imagined an inflatable pillow for one and a half thousand tons belay
        1. Kadavercianin 24 December 2015 21: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Rumata
          and get into the pool with foam like two fingers? belay


          Well, some even fall into the site, even in the floating area.
    3. Kadavercianin 24 December 2015 21: 57 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      I completely agree that the vertical landing is not the most stable system, it looks more like show-offs from the cycle, look - it’s cool and can even be practical, we can probably launch it and then plant it anywhere, while the design becomes more complicated and heavier, there are nuances in operation, increased requirements for engines, not to mention the increased requirements for the control system. All this is good and interesting, but somehow excessive, huh?
      If you really wanted to return everything, then the aerodynamic descent in part by plane, it seems certainly not exactly no more difficult under certain conditions, even economically more profitable.
      ZY
      Descent fully as a shuttle is optional.
  • srha 24 December 2015 17: 25 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It is strange that the appearance of the BSS-1912SP Boeing platform in 702, where the XIPS ion engine with a specific impulse, 3400-3500 s, is an order of magnitude more than the Breeze one, has passed by imperceptibly, has passed for the same job, use only a couple of hundred kg instead of a few tons of fuel.
    By the way, it was the BSS-702SP platform that was used in this launch! http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/spacex-falcon-9-debut-dual-satellite-miss
    ion /
    1. Rumata 24 December 2015 18: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: srha
      1912-m

      1999
      Quote: srha
      It’s strange that it passed completely unnoticed

      Why not noticeable? Start up, improve. Only among heavy platforms, the Boeing has 10 competitors, each with its own pros and cons
  • vignat21 24 December 2015 20: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Whatever they say, this is a landmark event in space exploration. SpaceX is run by specialists, not effective managers from the production of motorized wheelbarrows.
    1. iouris 24 December 2015 21: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The event, of course, is significant, but without knowing the details, it is difficult to judge whether it was possible to create a truly effective technology and design.
      Disposable design, lighter, more reliable and much cheaper. The engine should be virtually trouble-free, and ensuring trouble-free operation during repeated flights and durability will be very expensive.
  • AlNikolaich 24 December 2015 21: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I read the comments of knowledgeable and competent, and realized that I DO NOT BELIEVE! If the first step returns to the dense layers of the atmosphere at a speed of the order of 7 km per second. no control system can ensure a landing on fire! The body falls along a ballistic trajectory. Therefore, descent vehicles, nuclear warheads and the bow of the shuttles and Buran have a special shape. Which, thanks to its design, allows the device to safely pass this fiery hell on its way to the ground, without damage! Now imagine a statically unstable pencil shape spontaneously moving to the ground in hypersound! Well, who studied termeh? The body will tumble so that no control system takes control of it!
    A takeoff control will end along with the engine thrust vector! That is, the moment when the second stage separated, and the thrust of the engines of the first stage decreased, so that the rocket went to land, that is when the system goes out of balance! And out of control! I guess we were fed a fake!
    1. Rumata 24 December 2015 22: 17 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      I do not believe!

      There is so much hype on this. Usually the descent vehicle resets speed in orbit and begins to fall along the tangent, extinguishing speed. If the entry angle is large, the module does not have time to extinguish the speed and breaks the parachutes.

      Falcon, in orbit, makes a 180-degree turn, turns on the engines against movement and dampens speed. During the descent, the engines are always directed against the movement, the descent trajectory is very close to vertical. Roughly speaking, it enters the atmosphere at speeds a couple of orders of magnitude lower than the descent vehicles.
      1. Glukashin 25 December 2015 04: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You just, a few posts above stated that the plus is that you do not have to bother with transportation. But what is needed from the diagram? Or will Musk set up the pitches around the equator and fly in circles around the ball?
        1. Rumata 25 December 2015 12: 08 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, at least not much read on the topic before refuting. The step sat there from where it was launched, on Cape Canaveral, this is written in black and white in the article above. Before that, they tested landing on an offshore platform, hence the figure
  • leon1204id 24 December 2015 21: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Elon Rive Musk seems to be not only a scientist but a dreamer, but here comes the return of the 1st step to the ground. He still has a project of the Dragon V2 ship with landing engines.
    By all logic, it would be nice to take off and land on the same device.
    Probably everyone read the adventures of the pilot Pirks. Musk is on his way. Are we going to imitate again? winked
  • Kadavercianin 24 December 2015 22: 13 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Honestly, I’m a little surprised by such screams about the sign of the event and the new era, I’m sorry, but this is not the first SpaceX rocket to go down that way, albeit the heaviest; in full, operation is not running; launches with its help are not the cheapest, it may become cheaper if mass production is mastered or a special program is received from the government; fundamentally new fuel or fundamentally new engines are also not installed there.
    The only innovation is a vertical landing, but the question is really as effective as we hear every day, no one argues that the technical solution is cool and cool in itself, but what does it give such a super-breakthrough? The returnability of the steps is certainly good and necessary, but the method is more likely to show off than the pragmatic calculation. There is a truth in all this that has touched the future - landing on other planets, well, and the rest to kick so as not to show off and itch themselves.
    Well, there is no new era here, neither from a technical nor from a technological point of view, it is quite rational to some extent, the development of the media construction - the transition to reusable media is interesting, useful, but no more.
    The development, for example, of a nuclear rocket engine for interplanetary space flights is a much more epochal phenomenon.
  • Former battalion commander 24 December 2015 23: 58 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It is very similar to the beginning of sunset, which has become numb in the development of traditional astronautics ... In just ten years, an unknown company has furnished the “grandees” of the astronautics ... And everything comes from IDEA with an idea and a goal. There will be no doubt at all! And the goal of the company is the MINIMUM COST of putting the cargo into orbit. Everything is subject to this! And after all achieved ...
    1. Nirvanko 27 December 2015 16: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Do not count your chickens before they are hatched. The minimum cost can be calculated after the operation of the complex, but for now everything is at the level of applications. A similar PR and "revolution" was with the Tesla Model S but in fact a sedan for 100 thousand is inaccessible to most buyers.
  • Nirvanko 27 December 2015 16: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If you ask those who believe that the Americans were on the moon: why these flights stopped so abruptly, then you are unlikely to get a clear answer.