Military Review

Development of rocket engine on methane starts in Russia

95
Roscosmos announced that the industry’s financing program for the period up to 2025 had funds for the development of the latest rocket engine. It is reported that we are talking about an engine that can work effectively on methane. The development work will start in the coming year, and in the coming year the financing of the project should be about 470 million rubles. In total, Roskosmos estimates the cost of developing a new rocket engine capable of carrying out traction on natural gas at 25,2 billion rubles.


According to Roskosmos specialists, not all of this amount will go towards the development of a methane rocket engine (propulsion system of launch vehicles) as such. The program includes work on the creation of so-called bottom screens, nozzle cooling tips, prototypes of new-generation liquid-propellant rocket engines with multi-stage protection systems.

Development of rocket engine on methane starts in Russia


Information Agency Interfax publishes a statement by the representative of the draft Federal Space Program, which draws special attention. Thus, a source of information suggests that a demonstration version of an engine capable of operating on methane will be created despite the fact that construction of a carrier for such an engine is not yet being discussed.

From the statement of the representative of the project FKP:
Thus, we are thinking of providing a groundwork in order to keep up with foreign competitors in terms of technology. While we are talking about creating an engine of average thrust for the second stage of a promising rocket. It was originally thought that the Phoenix rocket will be equipped with methane engines (its development is also planned by the FKP project), but later, taking into account the budget situation, they decided not to make a fundamentally new rocket, but to return to the idea of ​​recreating the Russian Zenith with the upgraded FH-171 engine .


Variants of possible methane engines were worked out even in Soviet times by specialists from the Voronezh chemical automation design bureau, the Samara TsSKB Progress and other scientific institutes.

One of the promising options for the use of such a rocket engine - flights to Mars. The fact is that a rocket that can go to the Red Planet should be equipped with a methane engine, since methane can be synthesized from water and carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere. However, so far this is only the idea of ​​scientists, the implementation of which is unlikely to happen in the coming years.

Meanwhile, it reports on successful tests of an ionic rocket engine, created jointly by the Voronezh Chemical Automation Bureau and MAI. From the message press service of Roskosmos:

The tests were successfully conducted on a special vacuum bench and confirmed the compliance of the engine parameters with the characteristics laid down in the terms of reference.

Work continues on the engine: a series of new fire tests are planned to build up a resource and test the stability of proven performance during long-term operation.

Unlike liquid rocket engines (LREs), which have been developed by KBXA for more than half a century, electric rocket engines have become a new line of work in the enterprise in recent years. Intended for use as part of spacecraft, they can contribute to solving a wide range of tasks: correction and stabilization of the working orbit of satellites, their removal from low to high orbits, as well as the implementation of flights into deep space.
Photos used:
http://www.federalspace.ru/
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. AdekvatNICK
    AdekvatNICK 14 January 2016 16: 36
    +4
    This is a big step in space by the way.
    And what about private traders in our space industry? found only one company.
    1. poquello
      poquello 14 January 2016 16: 49
      13
      Quote: AdekvatNICK
      ... And what about private traders in our space industry? found only one company.

      and why the hell did they surrender to you ?, let me ask
      1. tol100v
        tol100v 14 January 2016 17: 27
        +6
        Quote: poquello
        .. And what about private traders in our space industry? found only one company.
        and why the hell did they surrender to you ?, let me ask

        Or maybe a fishing friend is late ?!
        1. poquello
          poquello 14 January 2016 17: 37
          0
          Quote: Tol100v
          Quote: poquello
          .. And what about private traders in our space industry? found only one company.
          and why the hell did they surrender to you ?, let me ask

          Or maybe a fishing friend is late ?!

          what kind of fishing ?, if it is understood on Pluto, but if on the other then all places are fed
          Fish bait consists of:
          the basics;
          feed base;
          additives.
          1. Darkmor
            Darkmor 14 January 2016 18: 19
            +2
            So what?
            Fishing in Transcarpathia on a methane engine. A carbon dioxide canister in the trunk, splash down on the lake, pump a full tank of water, go fishing, and back on synthesized methane to yourself in odnushka in Biryulyovo.
            Here are just problems with traffic jams you won’t get, and parking spaces will be expensive :)
      2. AdekvatNICK
        AdekvatNICK 14 January 2016 19: 13
        +2
        Do you think this industry is not needed?
        1. bulvas
          bulvas 14 January 2016 19: 27
          0
          Quote: AdekvatNICK
          Do you think this industry is not needed?


          I need it. I am for

          And in electronics, and in space and in everything else.

          Thanks to the state. companies manage to preserve and develop technologies, restore lost potential, and most importantly, maintain and increase personnel.

          When the time comes and young people get stronger, 100% private companies will begin to appear, first in small volumes and then larger ones.

          Grandfathers (my age and older) can creak and grumble about the "private owner" as much as they like, but no one listens to them anymore - entrepreneurship has been given the green light, so everything will be fine.

          No state can ensure the normal development of the country if it tries to do everything on its own, at the hands of officials.


        2. poquello
          poquello 14 January 2016 19: 54
          0
          Quote: AdekvatNICK
          Do you think this industry is not needed?

          I believe that the presence of private traders in the space sector is not a criterion for assessing the success of our space program. Except for the astronaut tourists naturally.
          1. bulvas
            bulvas 14 January 2016 20: 38
            +1
            Quote: poquello

            I believe that the presence of private traders in the space sector is not a criterion for assessing the success of our space program. Except for the astronaut tourists naturally.



            To assess the success of the cosmonautics - is not

            To assess the level of development of the country and the normal activity of the population (as opposed to criminal activity) - is critical


            1. poquello
              poquello 14 January 2016 22: 11
              +1
              Quote: bulvas
              Quote: poquello

              I believe that the presence of private traders in the space sector is not a criterion for assessing the success of our space program. Except for the astronaut tourists naturally.



              To assess the success of the cosmonautics - is not

              To assess the level of development of the country and the normal activity of the population (as opposed to criminal activity) - is critical

              I post it in every topic?
              The history of SpaceX would not be a success story if it were not for the unprecedented support of the US authorities - as large as if the state itself was the owner of the company. To $ 200–250 million from the creators at the stage of the company’s formation (2002–2006), the authorities added another $ 500–700 million, representing assistance as payment for future Falcon rocket flights.
              http://slon.ru/business/spacex_gazprom_po_amerikanski-1044958.xhtml
              1. bulvas
                bulvas 15 January 2016 00: 06
                0
                Quote: poquello
                I post it in every topic?


                If a question for me is my answer: this is how you like

                What you wrote about the success story of SpaceX speaks of government support for a private initiative, in which the state is very interested.

                Again, if the information is reliable (something I don’t like the link)

                The main thing is that the initiative was shown not by NASA (a state institution), but by private people.

                If, as a result of this initiative, the state will receive a successfully implemented project that will advance technology and be profitable
                - why not?

                In addition, the Americans certainly want to take away space launch contracts from Russia, and are ready to pay for it, knowing that
                1 - make a profit
                2 - harm Russia

                I see in this only that acceleration is needed in our space industry, otherwise we will remain "on Earth"

                Private traders or only state ones will help in this. the company doesn’t matter, the main thing is for Russia to win
              2. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Sid.74
      Sid.74 14 January 2016 16: 55
      +2
      But ours are also constructing a nuclear space installation. As far as I remember, the hull has already been tested for a nuclear reactor.

      Oh, I found it! wink
      Technological tests of the nuclear reactor vessel of the installation for spacecraft have been successfully completed at the State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom JSC Dollezhal Scientific Research and Design Institute of Power Engineering (NIKIET), the press service of the institute reported.

      In Russia, since 2010, the project of creating a transport and energy module based on a megawatt-class nuclear power propulsion system, unparalleled in the world, is being carried out. The composition of the reactor installation includes a nuclear reactor and the systems necessary for heat generation, as well as for controlling and protecting the reactor.

      The unique structural material of the vessel is capable of ensuring the operation of the reactor for more than 100 thousand hours. During this time, an ordinary spacecraft can reach such a distant planet of the solar system as Pluto.
      1. Haettenschweiler
        Haettenschweiler 14 January 2016 17: 01
        +1
        - Rogozin and his servants have not yet been able to put things in order even at the Vostochny cosmodrome. Although he beat himself in the chest with his heel and "ponty beat" with all his might. I can imagine how much will be plundered from these programs. And happiness is even more if these technologies do not immediately float away to our "Western partners". Not that I was not happy with the development of cosmonautics - this is the future of mankind, whatever one may say, but something worries me, lest Roskosmos turn into Skolkovo II.
        1. An64
          An64 14 January 2016 17: 09
          +2
          Quote: Haettenschweiler
          Although he beat himself in the chest with his heel and "ponty beat" with all his might


          "In April 2012, Rogozin, on the air of Vesti Nedeli, said that" we will make a cosmodrome by 2015, I give a grudge "..."
          1. poquello
            poquello 14 January 2016 17: 14
            0
            Quote: An64
            Quote: Haettenschweiler
            Although he beat himself in the chest with his heel and "ponty beat" with all his might


            "In April 2012, Rogozin, on the air of Vesti Nedeli, said that" we will make a cosmodrome by 2015, I give a grudge "..."

            let him go at 16m, I was not so mistaken, corrected for bablokuev
            1. Temples
              Temples 14 January 2016 17: 20
              +4
              "In April 2012, Rogozin, on the air of Vesti Nedeli, said that" we will make a cosmodrome by 2015, I give a grudge "..."

              So it wasn't his tooth laughing
              Well, the launch site is ready.
              And the rocket will fly in the spring.
              So everything is fine.
              And the rush is needed when catching fleas.
              1. Haettenschweiler
                Haettenschweiler 14 January 2016 17: 43
                +4
                Quote: Temples
                And the rush is needed when catching fleas.


                - When it comes to protracted terms due to, for example, conditions (the Yekaterinburg metro was laid through rocks that were not expected, which greatly impeded tunneling, for example) - this is one thing. And when it comes to the fact that the builders are not paid, they go on strike, and the friends and relatives of the "nasyalnik" have taken round positions around him and saw the state (read - people's) money "on their own" - this is completely different. And the saying here becomes irrelevant.
              2. Amurets
                Amurets 14 January 2016 17: 55
                +3
                Quote: Temples
                And the rocket will fly in the spring.
                So everything is fine.

                Well, of course, everything is fine. They brought the carrier from Samara, but he doesn’t enter the MIK, that Putin came to sort it out. And the Golikovsky auditors from the Accounts Chamber do not get out from Vostochny, check and look for everyone who stole.
            2. Haettenschweiler
              Haettenschweiler 14 January 2016 17: 41
              +3
              Quote: poquello
              let him go at 16m, I was not so mistaken, corrected for bablokuev


              - Will they let me in? Or will three quarters remain in an unfinished state, will the cut-off MCC and the starting field work, at best? There is already a pure fortune-telling on coffee grounds. But. Rogozin already I couldn’t confirm my words by deed. And then was it worth changing the dim-iPhone on this post?
              1. Temples
                Temples 14 January 2016 17: 51
                +1
                Of course, it will remain unfinished.
                Moreover, the starting field for potatoes will be launched!
                And I’ll only guess by the cards - coffee, and he will be stolen!
                But how else? laughing

                Of course, Rogozin could not do it.
                And you could!
                You could say!
                And it is worth a lot!
                So everything will be as you said! wassat
              2. poquello
                poquello 14 January 2016 18: 02
                +1
                Quote: Haettenschweiler
                Quote: poquello
                let him go at 16m, I was not so mistaken, corrected for bablokuev


                - Will they let me in? Or will three quarters remain in an unfinished state, will the cut-off MCC and the starting field work, at best? There is already a pure fortune-telling on coffee grounds. But. Rogozin already I couldn’t confirm my words by deed. And then was it worth changing the dim-iPhone on this post?

                I don’t even know, well, you can try to fundamentally knock out a tooth for him, unless of course he doesn’t shoot your eggs in Macedonian.
                In the 90s, functionaries of which only from their parts of the body were not put on the rails, but we went to Zh, and the consequences were much more sensitive, but they didn’t cut anyone off.
          2. Sweles
            Sweles 14 January 2016 18: 29
            +1
            Quote: An64
            Quote: Haettenschweiler
            Although he beat himself in the chest with his heel and "ponty beat" with all his might


            "In April 2012, Rogozin, on the air of Vesti Nedeli, said that" we will make a cosmodrome by 2015, I give a grudge "..."


            it is necessary to always lay in the budget the percentage of expenditure "for theft" and start from this percentage.
            the most greedy contractors
            average greed
            not greedy
            "the most greedy" need to unfasten a lot "up" like a redhead, "medium-greedy" - not a lot and "little greedy" with whom you can't get enough, but who work more than they steal, you can entrust standing projects. And such tables should hang on the walls of all large officials who distribute priorities and funding ...
            1. DPN
              DPN 14 January 2016 22: 12
              0
              For the boss, a bullet in the forehead, and for relatives - confiscation acquired by hard not feasible labor. Not immediately, of course, but to explain how this can end.
        2. evge-malyshev
          evge-malyshev 14 January 2016 17: 49
          0
          Quote: Haettenschweiler
          - Rogozin and his attendants have still not been able to put things in order even at the Vostochny cosmodrome.
          "..there's something alarming to me, lest Roskosmos turn into Skolkovo II.
          "

          And what does it mean Rogozin did not put things in order in the East? He, by the way, is the Deputy Chairman of the Military Industrial Complex.
          And where does Rogozin, Roscosmos and Skolkovo II?
          Rogozin, by the way, was neither seen in corruption, nor cuts, nor other criminal acts.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. Saratoga833
          Saratoga833 14 January 2016 17: 52
          +3
          Skolkovo, along with Chubais, has long turned into a parable! Vladimir Putin doesn’t even know and see very obvious things? And he continues to feed this thief! His image is not supported in any way!
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 14 January 2016 18: 16
            +3
            Quote: Saratoga833
            Skolkovo, along with Chubais, has long turned into a parable! Vladimir Putin doesn’t even know and see very obvious things? And he continues to feed this thief! His image is not supported in any way!


            and Putin "does not see" for your reasons for what? answer options
            Putin blinded
            -Putin is looking in the wrong direction
            -Putin looks, but does not see
          2. DPN
            DPN 14 January 2016 22: 15
            0
            And then with whom will the GDP work?
        5. NEXUS
          NEXUS 14 January 2016 18: 05
          +1
          Quote: Haettenschweiler
          - Rogozin and his attendants have still not been able to put things in order even at the Vostochny cosmodrome.

          Absolutely true. As they did not pay, they still do not pay wages. But Rogozin, with enviable constancy, mumbles about the achievements of the Russian military-industrial complex. Yaseni was postponed indefinitely, PAK FA, according to him, they should have been put into production in the 15th year.
          And now a question on the topic - WHERE IS DELHI ANGARU? After all, the same mister Rogozin shouted that she "has no analogues in the world."
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 14 January 2016 18: 17
            0
            Both Angara and PAK FA will go into continuous operation after 2020.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 14 January 2016 18: 25
              +1
              Quote: Vadim237
              Both Angara and PAK FA will go into continuous operation after 2020.

              The PAK FA will arrive (again from Rogozin's statement) in '18. Regarding the Angara, everything is very vague. The VP stressed that he was interested in the "heavy" Angara, and at the meeting it was clear that the bureaucrats were taken by surprise. And now the competition for methane engine. For me, this is how they bury the Angara. There is nothing new about the Angara in free sources. When was the East one supposed to be commissioned for launching the same Angara? And where is it all?
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 14 January 2016 22: 02
                0
                They will finish the hangar and will not do without it, because Proton will not be launched after 2020.
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 14 January 2016 22: 09
                0
                Until they finish and test the engine of the second stage, PAK FA will not buy, and our MO will only buy it with a new engine.
        6. ilya_oz
          ilya_oz 14 January 2016 23: 05
          0
          The lag in the East is minimal. As if in other countries large projects are always carried out on time.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. seti
      seti 14 January 2016 17: 09
      +4
      Maybe there is no great need for such an engine. Rather, not yet. But the fact that design thought and idea is and works speaks volumes. As well as the fact that under such difficult financial conditions there is money for such expensive developments. Good luck to our designers.
      1. opus
        opus 14 January 2016 23: 17
        0
        Quote: seti
        Maybe there is no great need for such an engine

        Yes

        the specific impulse of the liquid oxygen-liquid methane fuel is 3.4% higher than the liquid oxygen-kerosene fuel, but 20.5% lower than the liquid oxygen-liquid hydrogen fuel.


        Cons:
        low density, low boiling point and, as a result, inconvenience during storage, a mixture of air and methane gas is explosive.
    4. Blondy
      Blondy 14 January 2016 18: 36
      +1
      Quote: AdekvatNICK
      And what about private traders in our space industry? found only one company.

      So they already knocked out accessories for Proton on their knees in cooperative garages, after which hardly anyone dared to experiment with private traders and effective managers for a long time.
    5. Blondy
      Blondy 15 January 2016 02: 05
      +2
      Quote: AdekvatNICK
      This is a big step in space by the way.

      By the way, not a big step, but a big PR.

      I quote from the site Popular mechanics, feel the difference:

      Russia will recreate the Zenit rocket on methane fuel

      taking into account the situation with the budget, they decided not to do a fundamentally new rocket, but to return to the idea of ​​reconstructing the Russian Zenith
      To create a new unit, designers suggest upgrading the RD-171 engine. "We plan to make a demonstrator of the engine on methane, even taking into account the fact that it is not planned to build a carrier with such an engine yet."
      Up to 70 percent of Russian components are installed on the Zenit rocket, which is being assembled by Dnepropetrovsk Yuzhmash. The RD-171 engine of the first stage of the Zenit launch vehicle and its upper stage are produced in Russia. The missile control system is also at the Pilyugin Research Institute of Automation and Instrumentation.

      It has already been shown here that methane is not a special breakthrough. In my opinion, this looks more like a regular cut.
  2. Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 14 January 2016 16: 37
    +3
    Another nanotechnology-style project? The methane efficiency is an order of magnitude lower than that of existing types of rocket fuel. Or do I not know something? request
    1. kil 31
      kil 31 14 January 2016 16: 41
      +6
      According to experts from Roscosmos, not all of this amount will go to the development of a methane rocket engine
      This is scary. Now they will do one-day activities and transfer part of the money to them. I am for the necessary things.
    2. Proxima
      Proxima 14 January 2016 16: 47
      10
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      Another nanotechnology-style project? The methane efficiency is an order of magnitude lower than that of existing types of rocket fuel. Or do I not know something? request

      I dare to remind you that "by an order of magnitude" is 10 times! The most important criterion for engine efficiency is the specific impulse, and it is just higher for methane engines than for kerosene engines (the aforementioned RD-171 engine).
      1. Lelek
        Lelek 14 January 2016 17: 06
        +1
        Quote: Proxima
        I dare to remind you that "by an order of magnitude" is 10 times!


        That's right. Even the fact that work with various engines is underway, and according to the statements of the designers quite successfully, is pleasing. It all comes down to financing, and with this we have a stress today. yes
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 14 January 2016 19: 21
        0
        Quote: Proxima
        The most important criterion for engine efficiency is the specific impulse, and it is just higher for methane engines than for kerosene engines (the aforementioned RD-171 engine).

        Not much.
        90% or more of liquefied natural gas consists of methane. It is non-toxic, passively corrosive. By density, methane is twice lighter than kerosene, but six times denser than hydrogen. Theoretical specific impulse of fuel "liquid oxygen - liquid methane" on 3.4% higher than fuel "liquid oxygen - kerosene", but 20.5% lower than fuel "liquid oxygen - liquid hydrogen". In terms of volume specific impulse, methane is inferior to kerosene.
        http://is2006.livejournal.com/687581.html
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 14 January 2016 21: 28
          0
          [quote = Ingvar 72] Methane is inferior to kerosene in volume specific impulse. [/ quote] http://is2006.livejournal.com/687581.html[/quote]
          Dear Ingvar, please deal with such concepts as the rate of expiration, specific impulse, volume specific impulse. The most effective among chemical engines (hydrogen) in volume specific impulse is inferior to kerasin and so what? EFFICIENCY to volume specific impulse has NO RELATIONSHIP.
      3. Scraptor
        Scraptor 16 January 2016 20: 44
        0
        Low-pulse kerosene engines are placed on the first seats and methane exhaust is toxic
    3. poquello
      poquello 14 January 2016 16: 52
      -8
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      Another nanotechnology-style project? The methane efficiency is an order of magnitude lower than that of existing types of rocket fuel. Or do I not know something? request

      distant sight - we’ll push and fly
    4. adept666
      adept666 14 January 2016 18: 08
      +6
      Or do I not know something?

      1) less burden on the environment (than kerosene and even more so heptyl), especially with straits;
      2) the cost of liquefied methane is 2-2,5 times lower than that of kerosene;
      3) in comparison with hydrogen it is less explosive and much cheaper;
      4) the specific thrust impulse of a liquid-propellant rocket engine for oxygen + methane fuel is almost 200 m / s higher (for us this is very important since we start> 50 degrees north of the equator) than for oxygen + kerosene fuel, and the temperature of combustion products with oxygen decreases by 200 ° С with the same intra-chamber parameters (which means less wear and more opportunities for reuse as part of reusable stages);
      5) the combustion of methane with oxygen does not cause soot formation, which makes it possible to use the afterburning of a reducing gas-generating gas (DVGG) in the LRE scheme (the oxidized (DOGG) generator gas is also burned up on kerosene RDs, but so far we only seem to have a more reliable and cheaper open-circuit scheme. At the same time, DVGG (theoretically) should have less accident rate in comparison with DOGG;
      6) methane surpasses kerosene in cooling properties.
      Cons:
      1) lower boiling point (cryogenic installation required).
      2) lower density (flames, all other things being equal, can be taken less).

      In general, somewhere between kerosene and hydrogen. Well, plus methane can not only be mined, but also produced (and not only on Earth) smile
    5. opus
      opus 14 January 2016 23: 28
      +1
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      The methane efficiency is an order of magnitude lower than that of existing types of rocket fuel. Or do I not know something?

      don't ... don't know.
      Efficiency (term) does not apply to methane. This (efficiency) for the system (device, machine)

      1. Many factories - suppliers of high-quality kerosene fuel have remained abroad Russia.
      2. Large proven reserves of natural and associated gas
      3. Environmental safety even during emergency discharge of fuel components;
      4. The cost of shopping mall
      5. Occupying a “niche” between kerosene and hydrogen, methane makes it easy to create engines any concept: closed with an oxidizing gas generator (GG), closed with a reducing GG, open (open) and even such an exotic circuit for domestic engine building as the so-called “Expansion” or heat exchange, when liquid methane, passing through the cooling jacket of the combustion chamber, is gasified and rotates the TNA turbine, and then it is dumped into the combustion chamber and burned there.

      5. The specific impulse of thrust is increased and the energy-mass characteristics of the launch vehicle will improve (compared to a pair of kerosene + O2);
  3. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 14 January 2016 16: 40
    +3
    Developments and plans - more and more, flying products - less.
    Methane engines in general are only needed for a reusable system, disposable and kerosene fly perfectly. What are our plans for reusable missiles?
    Everything goes to the whistle and reports, then they are surprised that 150 billion. on "non-targeted spending" "disappears".
  4. Uran
    Uran 14 January 2016 16: 42
    -1
    it's great
  5. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 14 January 2016 16: 47
    0
    Boosters have different tasks ... sizes ... Efficiency ... and, therefore, engines need different ... development of a methane engine will give the industry new knowledge ... opportunities ...
  6. Primus pilus
    Primus pilus 14 January 2016 16: 48
    +1
    The main thing that would be cost-effective.
    1. Lelek
      Lelek 14 January 2016 17: 11
      +1
      Quote: Primus Pilus
      The main thing that would be cost-effective.


      At first (design, prototype, debugging) it is always not profitable. Only the conveyor is cost-effective. This is true in all world practice. yes
  7. lysyj bob
    lysyj bob 14 January 2016 16: 51
    +3
    "In total, Roskosmos estimates the cost of developing a new rocket engine capable of running on natural gas at 25,2 billion rubles."
    the Americans were just about to spend 35 lardes of their bucks on fine-tuning the seats from the F-2.
  8. Const
    Const 14 January 2016 16: 52
    +1
    This is what I understand as an investment in the future, these are not some "nanotanks" and e-books "from Chubais."
  9. newcomer
    newcomer 14 January 2016 16: 56
    +4
    and what!? cheap, cheerful and technological. we have overtaken the planet by another mile on rocket technology. the main thing is to make everything on time. because they conceived a new rocket under the new engine, then decided to return to the zenith. in general, the news is good. but there are many if, yes if only.
    1. KVIRTU
      KVIRTU 14 January 2016 17: 05
      +2
      Overtaken? Don’t tell, NASA did it already in 2007 ...
      Here is the link: http: //science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/04may_methaneblast/
      And we are just starting ... request
      1. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 14 January 2016 18: 15
        0
        Quote: KVIRTU
        And we are just starting ...


        Once you have to start. And it will be the same as with aircraft engines ...
      2. adept666
        adept666 15 January 2016 11: 49
        0
        Overtaken? Don’t tell, NASA did it already in 2007 ...
        This is only a demonstrator with 3,5 tf of thrust; KBHA played with such toys in the late 90s and early 2000s: RD0110MD, RD0146M. Now we are talking about engines for the first stage with a thrust of 200 tf and the second stage with a thrust of ~ 45 tf, i.e. and the development of a fuel system (roughly speaking, missiles in general).
    2. An64
      An64 14 January 2016 17: 15
      -2
      decided not to make a fundamentally new rocket, but to return to the idea of ​​re-creating the Russian Zenit

      Wikipedia and all other sources say that Zenit was never Russian ... what
      And how are they going to put our engines on a rocket that we don’t?
      Again we want to step on the same rake that with engines for ships and helicopters?
      Or will we order missiles from the "allies"?
      1. adept666
        adept666 15 January 2016 19: 48
        0
        Wikipedia and all other sources say that Zenit was never Russian ... what
        And how are they going to put our engines on a rocket that we don’t?
        Again we want to step on the same rake that with engines for ships and helicopters?
        Or will we order missiles from the "allies"?
        Here the situation is completely different, in the rocket launcher, the most important part is the engines, and they are at the zenith of our first stage: RD-170 Made in NPO Energomash, and RD-120, although it was produced in Ukraine, was developed by the same NGO, so there are no no problem. smile
  10. Igluxnumx
    Igluxnumx 14 January 2016 17: 03
    0
    We were born to make a fairy tale come true ....
  11. Comrade Glebov
    Comrade Glebov 14 January 2016 17: 03
    +1
    Quote: Const
    This is what I understand as an investment in the future, these are not some "nanotanks" and e-books "from Chubais."

    And from Chubais so far, apart from "nanomethane", there is nothing from his toilet, not "nanotanks" or "nanotanks". Let's hope that the allocated funds will be spent expediently and all efforts will be justified. Good luck to our scientists and designers!
  12. Tra-ta-ta
    Tra-ta-ta 14 January 2016 17: 11
    0
    ..and attract funding from Emir Qatar.
    It will be interesting and prestigious for them, and there are wise heads ...
    You look - and stop crap ...
    1. Lelek
      Lelek 14 January 2016 17: 14
      0
      Quote: Tra-ta-ta
      .and attract funding from Emir of Qatar.
      It will be interesting and prestigious for them, and there are wise heads ...
      You look - and stop crap ...


      No need to be "stupid", dear. fool
      1. Tra-ta-ta
        Tra-ta-ta 14 January 2016 17: 32
        +1
        Lyova! Such a woman cannot but like ...
        An approach is needed .. Cunning and affection.
        Rasputin is not enough for us.
  13. LÄRZ
    LÄRZ 14 January 2016 17: 13
    +2
    Quote: Comrade Glebov
    Our scientists and good luck designers!
    And also good luck and successes of TFR.
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. newcomer
    newcomer 14 January 2016 17: 19
    +7
    if they have done it, why don’t they use it, but ponte in the Senate, but then they return to our engines. maybe they did the same as f 35, pulse gun, laser gun_ I want everything at the level. but ours do it once and for all!
  16. Private27
    Private27 14 January 2016 17: 28
    +1
    Quote: lysyj bob
    "In total, Roskosmos estimates the cost of developing a new rocket engine capable of running on natural gas at 25,2 billion rubles."
    the Americans were just about to spend 35 lardes of their bucks on fine-tuning the seats from the F-2.

    Since they saw ** grandmother ** in the Pentagon, our stool did not even dream.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 January 2016 18: 21
      0
      They don’t saw anything at the Pentagon - these are manufacturers, they want to snatch pieces for other projects and research.
  17. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 14 January 2016 17: 30
    +1
    Why on methane?
    What is methane more efficient? Or is it cheaper?
    1. Beaver
      Beaver 14 January 2016 17: 48
      +4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Why on methane?

      One of the promising options for using such a rocket engine is flights to Mars ... since methane can be synthesized from water and carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere. ... can contribute ... to deep space flights.

      Further beyond Mars, the planets are almost entirely composed of methane, nothing needs to be synthesized. These are, it seems, prospects. hi
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 14 January 2016 18: 08
        +3
        Quote: Castor
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Why on methane?

        One of the promising options for using such a rocket engine is flights to Mars ... since methane can be synthesized from water and carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere. ... can contribute ... to deep space flights.

        Further beyond Mars, the planets are almost entirely composed of methane, nothing needs to be synthesized. These are, it seems, prospects. hi

        Well, you are already bent! That's right, of course you said, but the reason is much more prosaic. The fact is that methane engines are very close to hydrogen. Those, in turn, have the highest specific impulse for chemical jet engines. But methane, in contrast to hydrogen, is not so low-boiling and not so volatile, therefore it does not require such a complex and expensive double-walled casing with channels for inert gases, etc. And besides, methane itself is cheaper than hydrogen.
  18. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 14 January 2016 17: 35
    +6
    Darken something. This is already 25 start. Less than two years ago, the Military Review wrote about the methane engine from TsSKB Progress.

    Here: http://topwar.ru/48054-cskb-progress-predlagaet-sozdat-raketnyy-dvigatel-rabotay

    uschiy-na-spg.html

    Even as of 1998, the corresponding engines were developed at least: MV Keldysh Research Center, NPO Energomash, KBKhimmash, FPG Engines NK, NIIIMash and KB Khimavtomatiki.

    Да вот: http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/nk/1998/17-18/17-18-1998-3.html.

    This is from the category of what I already wrote about in another topic today: Either effective managers have been starting to develop the same thing for 20–25 years, that is, it is a boltology aimed at cutting funds, or it is robbers who previously poured the previously allocated funds into their pockets.

    As for the ion engine I support; the business is necessary and important, especially considering that we are talking about tests, and not about pictures.
    1. poquello
      poquello 14 January 2016 17: 45
      +1
      Quote: Gormengast
      Darken something. This is already 25 start.

      Duc 25 times .., well, as for the first time, although maybe they just renewed it - there’s not much money
  19. Signaller
    Signaller 14 January 2016 17: 43
    +3
    One of the promising options for using such a rocket engine is flights to Mars.
    To the promise !!!!! At a time when the whole economy is in a tight spin and may not come out of it, a flight to Mars is another money laundering, no more. Moreover, engines such as RD 180 operating on natural gas or hydrogen have already been created. Only debug and demand for a new type of fuel. I think the next wash. And then, why the hell do we need this Mars ????? That will be a lot of money, then no one will be against it. In the meantime, the people will soon eat the last crackers.
    1. Gormenghast
      Gormenghast 14 January 2016 17: 51
      +2
      Rogozin wanted to fly to the moon last year (I think he just heard enough chatter "expertsAnd recently, in December, the entire manned moon was cut out of the FKP. Obviously, there is no money. You just don’t need to chat.

      And the engines do not need to be changed; they are; here; 280 tons of traction:
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 14 January 2016 18: 24
        0
        Maybe they want to bring it to the F 1 capacities, but with less expense, we have moved the flight to the Moon to 2030.
  20. srha
    srha 14 January 2016 18: 22
    +2
    "the increase in the specific thrust impulse of a liquid-propellant rocket engine fueled by oxygen-methane fuel is 196 m / s greater (for reference, it corresponds to ~ 19,6 s) than with oxygen-kerosene fuel, and the temperature of the combustion products with oxygen decreases by 200 ° C at the same intrachamber parameters ", there are others - http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum13/topic581/?PAGEN_1=28, but Musk seems to have solved them in the engine on Merlin kerosene in Falcon 9.

    And ..., methane boils at -160 degrees C, which means that additional steps are required for cooling and thermal insulation, otherwise the pressure is up to 200 atm.
    The density of liquefied methane is 0,42 kg / l, versus 0,8-0,7 kg / l of gasoline, which means that more tanks are needed - extra weight.

    Therefore, I think that the disadvantages exceed the advantages and for rockets for the Earth such engines are hardly relevant.
  21. Odysseus
    Odysseus 14 January 2016 18: 28
    +3
    Not a very understandable project. If they want to solve the notorious "thrust problem" and create a fundamentally new engine, then it is necessary to concentrate forces and resources on fine-tuning the nuclear projectile and for the long-term future of the ion engine.
    And if they want to remain within the framework of the LPRE, then it is not clear why do we need LPRE on methane? And this with a lack of funding and despite the fact that, as already rightly noted above, "There are more and more developments and plans, and less and less flying products."
    It would be better if they tried to recreate a really workable Soviet RN Energy.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 January 2016 22: 12
      0
      The Ion engine has a small thrust, it only works for satellites and research stations.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 15 January 2016 14: 18
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        The Ion engine has a small thrust, it only works for satellites and research stations.

        Thanks, I know. I mean an "advanced" ion thruster for deep space, starting from zero gravity.
  22. rica1952
    rica1952 14 January 2016 18: 39
    +1
    In terms of specific impulse, methane is significantly inferior to the same heptyl with amyl, not to mention oxygen-hydrogen pair, so this is news with a 40-year-old beard.
  23. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 14 January 2016 18: 47
    +2
    I read the article with a timid hope about the message that ours had finally begun testing the photon engine, or on the lean horses of gravity.
    Will we live to see this kind of discoveries that allow people to explore and colonize space, or will the whole thing for all of us end on Earth (with a grand nuclear microwave meat grinder), after another cut of natural hydrocarbons between the countries of the "civilized" world?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 January 2016 19: 23
      0
      Space exploration will be, but our participation in this will be minimal - deliveries of rocket engines and putting the payload into orbit, the latter will last another 15 years, and then foreign countries themselves will launch satellites into orbit.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 14 January 2016 19: 29
        +2
        Quote: Vadim237
        Space exploration will be, but our participation in this will be minimal - deliveries of rocket engines and putting the payload into orbit, the latter will last another 15 years, and then foreign countries themselves will launch satellites into orbit.

        Yah! laughing And let me ask, on whose engines the United States is currently releasing most of its cargo into space?
        Perhaps I’ll tell you the unimaginable, but today, Russian engines are the most reliable and economical in the world. And how incredible for you, the Russian Federation is a leader in this matter in the world and is definitely not going to give up these positions. And this is all a simple and well-known fact. .
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 14 January 2016 22: 20
          0
          Recently, the United States conducted tests to return the first stage of the launch vehicle - is there also our engine there? Time will pass and they themselves will create rocket engines for the entire segment of missiles that they are launching now.
      2. Mama_Cholli
        Mama_Cholli 14 January 2016 19: 50
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        Space exploration will be, but our participation in this will be minimal - deliveries of rocket engines and putting the payload into orbit, the latter will last another 15 years, and then foreign countries themselves will launch satellites into orbit.

        I hope we won’t get stuck on rocket engines and go on introducing new developments.
        pisi:
        By the way, it’s very good to make profit from your goods for 15 years, especially if you don’t then invest these funds in different foreign funds, but use them for the same scientific / technical research.
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 14 January 2016 20: 16
      +1
      Quote: Mama_Cholli
      I read the article with a timid hope about the message that ours had finally begun testing the photon engine, or on the lean horses of gravity.

      But do not we swing at William at ours at Shakespeare smile
      If you talked about the photon engine. If you talk about the future, you can really bring the NRE. And then this is a very complex project which, unfortunately, is unlikely to be implemented in the near future.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 14 January 2016 22: 24
        0
        Perhaps such a NRE will appear in 15 20 years, but for now about dreams - http://dicelords.narod.ru/rockets/rocket3c2.html
      2. Mama_Cholli
        Mama_Cholli 15 January 2016 11: 11
        0
        And what? )) Until the end of the 20th century, people could not imagine that you can communicate on a cell phone ...
  24. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 14 January 2016 19: 06
    +1
    The only real advantage of methane is its low cost (True, Yaytsenyuk says that "Expensive" laughing ) Kerosene, heptyl, hydrazine, hydrogen - these are all products processing; and methane comes from the earth.

    And all other parameters - specific impulse, density, boiling point, explosion hazard - this is all plus or minus; somewhere better, somewhere worse. No "breakthrough"Methane does not. Only in inflamed brains is methane somehow associated with Mars - on Mars it needs to be synthesized, while hydrogen (which is better) can simply be obtained by electrolysis from water."
    1. Mama_Cholli
      Mama_Cholli 14 January 2016 19: 27
      +1
      Quote: Gormengast
      The only real advantage of methane is its low cost (True, Yaytsenyuk says that "Expensive" laughing ) Kerosene, heptyl, hydrazine, hydrogen - these are all products processing; and methane comes from the earth.

      And all other parameters - specific impulse, density, boiling point, explosion hazard - this is all plus or minus; somewhere better, somewhere worse. No "breakthrough"Methane does not. Only in inflamed brains is methane somehow associated with Mars - on Mars it needs to be synthesized, while hydrogen (which is better) can simply be obtained by electrolysis from water."

      + The most promising will be an engine with a replenished fuel supply. For example, hydrogen, or helium, which is in bulk in space and which can also be used in thermonuclear reactions.
      The fence of the fuel space surrounding the engine and its further use is complicated, but extremely profitable, especially on long-haul flights.
      1. Gormenghast
        Gormenghast 14 January 2016 20: 01
        +1
        I am also in favor of Petrov on "Muromets"flew to the white star VK 71016. (Strugatskys;"Private assumptions") smile
        1. Mama_Cholli
          Mama_Cholli 14 January 2016 20: 12
          0
          I fully support.
          But with just one amendment, there are many Petrovs, Ivanovs, Sidorovs and to different stars ...
  25. da Vinci
    da Vinci 14 January 2016 19: 12
    0
    Will there be any problems with the intellectual property rights on the Zenit launch vehicle? wink
    1. Gormenghast
      Gormenghast 14 January 2016 20: 08
      +1
      70% of Russian-made components, including the RD-171 propulsion engines and upper stages, without which Zenit is of no interest to anyone, will not reach the geostationary.

      About a specific percentage - maybe an exaggeration; but, nevertheless, the heart of the rocket is made in Russia. If we replace the missing part of the components with Russian ones, I don't see an intellectual property problem. But if THREE "Zeniths" are tied into a package (like, for example, "Delta-4 Heavy"), then you will get a super-heavy carrier and there is nothing to fence in the garden.
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. pimen
    pimen 14 January 2016 21: 14
    0
    there is such a suspicion that with the current level of technology and (theories), astronautics as a whole, with the exception of orbital automata, has no prospects. From the word "in general"
  28. AID.S
    AID.S 14 January 2016 22: 33
    +1
    Let there be Rosgazkosmosprom ..
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 14 January 2016 23: 31
      +1
      This will be another daughter of Gazprom.
  29. Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 15 January 2016 03: 41
    +1
    it is advisable to equip it with a methane engine, since methane can be synthesized from water and carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere.
    And you can synthesize yourself you know from what, the more the crew, the more methane))))
    Give PIG BREEDING on MARS!
  30. Egen
    Egen 15 January 2016 04: 40
    +1
    In the words of Zadornov, I can’t understand why planes fly and do not wave wings)
    - in the sense of why methane thrust / momentum is greater than kerosene. If you look from the point of view of energy, then yes, the methane octane if it rolls over - to 116, but it loses in joules on 1, the experimental gas / gas ratio is from 1,1 to as much as 1,6, depending on the purity of the gas, well compare gasoline. Or in space looks at the octane and not J? Well, figs with them)
    Another moment about which they are silent.
    Methane is present on our home planet mainly in a bound form, with all sorts of necessary and not very impurities. for example, in natural gas it is on average 60%. In almost pure form up to 99,92%, methane is contained in coal. But there is another problem - moisture (water). Those. in any case, the methane produced on Earth must be at least slightly but somehow purified. It is clear cheaper than kerosene to produce, pleasure is not so much expensive as "voluminous", but that is not the point - I do not think that methane is 100% pure on Pluto, especially on Mars, where there is an apple flavor) And who how to purify it than in space will be? Or is there a forward-flow engine, what does it have to chew on the drum? )