Military Review

The European Agency refused to use the Russian "Union-ST" to launch satellites

210
This year, the European Space Agency (ESA) will not use the Russian Soyuz-ST carrier to launch satellites of the Galileo navigation system - the spacecraft will launch their own heavy Ariane-5 missiles into orbit, reports Look with reference to the head of the agency Johann-Dietrich Werner.


The European Agency refused to use the Russian "Union-ST" to launch satellites
Soyuz-ST in the Guiana Space Center

“This year we will launch the first Galileo satellites on Ariane-5,” said Dietrich.

“The Ariane-5 heavy-class carrier will be able to launch four Galileo spacecraft into orbit while the Europeans can only deliver two satellites at a time on board the Soyuzov,” explains the publication.

In December, Soyuz-ST put 11 and 12 satellites of the navigation system into orbit.

At the end of March, 2015 G, head of Arianespace Corporation, Stefan Israel, stated that the Russian rocket "did an excellent job with the task of putting Galileo satellites into orbit."

It is planned that a total of 2020 satellites will be placed into orbit by 30 g. The system developers claim that Galileo will be more accurate than its analogs, and “will provide Europeans with independence from the American GPS, the Russian GLONASS and the promising Chinese Compass”.
Photos used:
pax.ru
210 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. avvg
    avvg 16 January 2016 10: 24 New
    17
    And we will survive it too!
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. SRC P-15
        SRC P-15 16 January 2016 10: 35 New
        16
        And when you need to launch one or two satellites, you still have to go to bow to Russia - you won’t send the “ship” half empty.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 16 January 2016 10: 40 New
          0
          Launched on the Vega launch vehicle
          1. meriem1
            meriem1 16 January 2016 12: 09 New
            +4
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Launched on the Vega launch vehicle

            And what did not run on VEGA before ???
            1. Mahmut
              Mahmut 16 January 2016 13: 58 New
              +6
              We decided to pack more eggs in one basket. It seems like the risk is greater, but the profitability is higher. In principle, they risk their eggs, they have the right.
            2. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 16 January 2016 14: 03 New
              +1
              It’s cheaper in the Union, and now import substitution
            3. opus
              opus 16 January 2016 14: 49 New
              +6
              Quote: meriem1
              And what did not run on VEGA before ???

              ? belay
              LV Vega Launched satellites (PN) since 2012
              Italy LARES
              Italy ALMASat-1
              Italy E-st @ r
              Romania Goliat
              Hungary MaSat-1 /
              Poland PW-Sat
              France ROBUSTA
              Italy UniCubeSat-GG
              European Union Proba-V (Proba Vegetation)
              Vietnam VNREDSat-1A
              Estonia ESTCube-1
              Spain XaTcobeo
              Italy AVUM / LARES A & H / SS
              Kazakhstan KazEOSat-1 (DZZ-HR)

              Sentinel-2A
              Lisa pathfinder
              1. kugelblitz
                kugelblitz 16 January 2016 15: 23 New
                +1
                European missiles are one of the most expensive.
                1. opus
                  opus 16 January 2016 15: 39 New
                  +7
                  Quote: kugelblitz
                  European missiles are one of the most expensive.

                  1. What "fright"?
                  Quote: opus

                  Withdrawal cost
                  Arian ECA launch vehicle (launch weight, kg 777000): 150 million euros, but it costs about 170 million euros per launch
                  can bring two satellites with a total mass of 10 kg and one satellite with a mass of 000 kg to the GPO.
                  Total of almost 21 tons
                  7142 Euro / kg
                  Soyuz-ST launch vehicle (launch weight of 313 kg) can withdraw up to 000 kg (from Guiana, and maybe it’s from Belarus, then in fact 9000-3 kg) the launch cost is € 4000-60 million.
                  from 8000 Euro / kg
                  + with delivery of trouble
                  + The Soyuz-ST-B launch vehicle is going to TsSKB-Progress, and it needs to be delivered to Guiana:




                  % bank loan rate (for working capital of the enterprise) there is 0% or NEGATIVE, we have from 18% per annum.

                  All of Europe is smaller than the RF RF, transport is ideal. we have?
                  Something in Moscow, something in St. Petersburg, something in the Urals, and something in Novosibirsk?
                  Gather it all, and then take it from 5000 km to the spaceport, by train.


                  2. Based on what and who made this conclusion?

                  The cost of ground services, and especially insurance, is not regularly taken into account, the cost of which can vary greatly depending on missile failure statistics. Russia does not take LCI into account at all (USSR costs for developing everything)

                  Vostok launch vehicle $ 1 / kg hi In the early 90s, the cost of starting was only $ 7-8 million to attract foreign customers. Since 1991, decommissioned.

                  On March 7, 1988, the Vostok launch vehicle (an earlier modification) launched the Indian Earth Remote Sensing Satellite IRS-1A into orbit. The launch cost was $ 7.5 million

                  The launch of the IRS-1C on the Molniya-M rocket cost $ 12.8 million.


                  the cost of one launch of the Vega launch vehicle NOW in the global market is from 35 to 45 million euros
                  Starting weight 137 kg = at DOE, kg 000 - 1
                  As it were, in comparison with Soyuz-ST.
                  But how much does ESA earn (well, at least 80% profitability, or even all 150%) and TsSKB-Progress (in the red?)?
                  1. Boos
                    Boos 16 January 2016 16: 52 New
                    +3
                    Your information is impressive, and here we are fooled and cannot get drunk in any way ...
        2. Haettenschweiler
          Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 10: 41 New
          +4
          Quote: SRC P-15
          And we will survive it too!


          - “Roskosmos” may not survive. He survived by orders from the outside. There will be no orders - there will be no our space program.

          Quote: SRC P-15
          And when you need to launch one or two satellites, you still have to go to bow to Russia - you won’t send the “ship” half empty.


          - Firstly, they can cooperate, and then he will not go “half empty”. Secondly, the main threat is Falcon-9, a conveyor-made carrier. If the Americans bring it to mind, no one will buy launches from Russia.
          1. Oleg14774
            Oleg14774 16 January 2016 10: 43 New
            16
            Quote: Haettenschweiler
            Roscosmos may not survive. He survived by orders from the outside. There will be no orders - there will be no our space program.

            It will survive if officials do not steal.
            1. Haettenschweiler
              Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 10: 46 New
              -16
              Quote: Oleg147741
              It will survive if officials do not steal.


              - So I say - the end of our space program, if there are no orders.
              1. Starover_Z
                Starover_Z 16 January 2016 11: 29 New
                14
                Quote: Haettenschweiler
                Quote: Oleg147741
                It will survive if officials do not steal.


                - So I say - the end of our space program, if there are no orders.

                And how was the cosmonautics born and raised in the Union from zero to orbital stations ?!
                Then, after all, they created everything themselves, and even the Warsaw Treaty countries pulled it up, carried it into space!
                After all, a little more and certainly would have flown both to the Moon and to Mars ?!
                1. Haettenschweiler
                  Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 11: 41 New
                  17
                  Quote: Starover_Z
                  And how was the cosmonautics born and raised in the Union from zero to orbital stations ?!


                  - We are no longer the Union. Even Yezhov, the “iron commissar” could be shot in the Union, and in the Federation of super-thieves like Vasilyeva they simply let go for “communized” money.

                  Quote: Starover_Z
                  After all, a little more and certainly would have flown both to the Moon and to Mars ?!


                  - By the way, yes, I saw a program with a man from the Martian program - they (a small team) were placed in a special imitation of a ship designed to fly to Mars in order to evaluate how the crew will behave in conditions of long isolation. It means that they were really seriously preparing for this. It is unfortunate that they did not have time.
                2. varov14
                  varov14 16 January 2016 12: 52 New
                  +7
                  So the Union worked for itself, and Russia, due to old developments, works for the uncle, but Russia itself does not really need this. The blue dream of the Gaidar forum is to stand for a day and to fall through the night, then fantasy, and even more so, desires do not work.
                3. ver_
                  ver_ 16 January 2016 13: 20 New
                  -5
                  ... and what the hell to do there? ...
                  1. FlyEngine
                    FlyEngine 16 January 2016 17: 37 New
                    +1
                    On Mars?

                    I have long noticed that the more a short-sighted person, the more his utilitarian interests. Why do we need space? You can spend the money on EAT! This is a completely non-Russian spirit. The soul of the Russian was always exalted and directed into the sky. And this nonsense of yours is even disgusting.
                4. Boos
                  Boos 16 January 2016 16: 55 New
                  0
                  That in the Union, and now everything depends not on the replenishment of the budget, but on the speed of its plundering and squandering. There will not be enough income here, which we are already observing, unfortunately ...
                  Quote: Starover_Z
                  Quote: Haettenschweiler
                  Quote: Oleg147741
                  It will survive if officials do not steal.


                  - So I say - the end of our space program, if there are no orders.

                  And how was the cosmonautics born and raised in the Union from zero to orbital stations ?!
                  Then, after all, they created everything themselves, and even the Warsaw Treaty countries pulled it up, carried it into space!
                  After all, a little more and certainly would have flown both to the Moon and to Mars ?!
              2. hrych
                hrych 16 January 2016 11: 43 New
                16
                Quote: Haettenschweiler
                the end of our space program

                It is said loudly, again corrupt officials, etc. One feels the hand or mouth of Bulk cakes ...
                There was a time when they survived, even tourists had to be transported, but this time ended irrevocably, the main customer, the Ministry of Defense, is increasing the satellite constellation at an accelerated pace. And do not forget that in a manned space program there is one monopolist and this is the Russian Federation and the only manned carrier. There are also Chinese Tuikunauts in the same counterfeit Union, only repeating the flights of our first cosmonauts, a couple of turns and vice versa, without a rotational station, there is about a 60-year backlog. There is such an ISS project, there, in addition to a constantly-working crew, a bunch of modules, i.e. Russian, American, EU and even Japanese. It is now supplied only with Progress (after disasters with the Dragons, etc.) - an unmanned Union, and the pilots' shift, well, again we are. There are carriers in the EU, why didn’t they serve the EU group, it turned out to be unprofitable for the Unions and the dependence is critical because it is a dual-purpose group, after all. The EU also needs to show the results of joint public education, otherwise the EU is completely bursting at the seams due to the economic crisis and migrants. We need something vivid and memorable, albeit unprofitable, such as Concord, but before the first catastrophe, which, unlike NASA and the interference (the Shuttle death destroyed their manned space program, well, NASA’s critical dependence on our engines like Rd- 180 etc.) The European Space Agency will not survive.
                And you immediately end. In Russia, the end is always the beginning of an even more grandiose, at least the last millennium, if there were less alarmists and traitors, it would be very good.
                1. Haettenschweiler
                  Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 11: 56 New
                  -4
                  Quote: hrych
                  It is said loudly, again corrupt officials, etc. One feels the hand or mouth of Bulk cakes ...


                  - Well, as they say, the pig will find dirt. I think you often find the "oval" of all stripes. I won’t comment on the rest, because it’s exactly by the saying “I heard a ringing - but I don’t know where it is”. It was about something else.
                2. varov14
                  varov14 16 January 2016 12: 59 New
                  0
                  Yes, astronautics and the nuclear industry are still keeping abreast, as practice shows - until the first stool, that's the trouble. They multiply like cockroaches.
                  1. hrych
                    hrych 16 January 2016 13: 51 New
                    +2
                    As they say, judge according to their deeds. The armed forces that we have now are created under Mr. Serdyukov, the first victorious war of New Russia, not only for control of the Greater Caucasus Mountain Range, no more, no less. The adoption of Yars, Mace and Iskander, etc. Shoigu is not a magician, when he came it was all created. We need a serious analysis of the situation. The army is now in perfect order with us, is it so stool, and what did he get in his time and in what condition (I’m talking about EBN).
                    1. gunya
                      gunya 16 January 2016 15: 51 New
                      +1
                      Before praising the Fuhrer stool, think about it: when all the systems you listed were created. This is all Soviet development.
                      “First victorious” - but would it have happened if not for a good kick from Beijing?
                      And how many mistakes were made?
                      1. hrych
                        hrych 16 January 2016 19: 45 New
                        +1
                        Firstly, the winners are not judged, there was a Supreme and there was his Minister and there was a Victory. Analysis is the General Staff’s business. No Soviet developments, all this was created in New Russia, but there was continuity of generations, but also Tsialkovsky and Mendeleev worked in the Russian Empire. In the same rocket science, the USSR succeeded in liquid rockets, including the brilliant Sineva, but there was a complete lag behind the enemy in solid fuel, hence the problems with operation, response speed and ... cost, as in production, operation and transportation, and by an order of magnitude. Yars, Mace and Iskander are our trump cards in the arms race and they are solid fuel.
                    2. Andrey Yuryevich
                      Andrey Yuryevich 16 January 2016 16: 22 New
                      -1
                      Quote: hrych
                      The armed forces that we have now are created under Mr. Serdyukov,

                      are you serious now ??? he only sold and reduced, without creating nichrome.
                      1. hrych
                        hrych 16 January 2016 20: 02 New
                        +1
                        It was not he who was cutting, but the Supreme. So it was necessary. Still, one way or another, until modern times, the army was modeled after the Soviet, albeit in a reduced and depressing state. Moreover, its vices, like bullying and theft in geometric progression, Ukrainians-zapadentsy dominate in from the middle ranks to the generals. It got to the point that the enemies - Ichkeria, officers and ensign sold weapons and ammunition. The soldier was framed and sold into slavery. This abomination was necessary and needed to be dispersed. Therefore, the Supreme set a civilian manager, without unnecessary attachments, etc. But he performed the tasks implicitly. I repeat, the result is on the face. Even the notorious Mistrals already look different when the ships of the Syrian Express - our BDK take four times less cargo, and given the volume of cargo a couple of such things would be very useful. Even military analysts such as Tymoshenko and Baranets, as soon as they did not go out on the Mistrals, as well as on our website. So what? Unfortunately, the first guessed the plans of our Supreme - intelligence and analysts of the enemy, which they did by blocking the transfer of products literally in front of the Syrian company. But if you turn on the analysis, then a picture emerges that it is possible that the beginning of the company is timed to the commissioning of these devices. It is impossible to consider everything unambiguously and categorically, years will pass and everything will look different. As the saying goes, History and descendants will judge, even through the Trotskyist-Khrushchev propaganda, "The wind of history will dispel ... well, as Stalin said, according to the recollections of Kolantai.
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 18 January 2016 22: 07 New
                        0
                        On what? The cargoes are simply transported to the ports by ordinary ships, the Soviet lighters are still in the service of the US Navy, and it is good that the French themselves broke this deal - in such a "ship" the Nepapuans would immediately drown the battalion of paratroopers with aviation.
              3. Gorodovik
                Gorodovik 16 January 2016 17: 36 New
                0
                Really said too loud. But you have gone to the other extreme. Like only we can into space. The US is slowly completing its ship, which has already been fired into orbit. The same Chinese do not stand still. And India is actively working in this direction.
                Pro Supply. It is supplied not only with progress. There are Japanese and European supply ships. So yes, we are leaders, but this leadership is temporary unless we give out something new. But this is a problem. We need to play for the future and not for today.
                And look for traitors less. For it can go into paranoia
                1. hrych
                  hrych 16 January 2016 20: 16 New
                  +1
                  I repeat, China is 50-60 years behind, i.e. takes the first steps, and the path is long, difficult and bloody. The Americans will tell you. About supply, yes there are many, but the main Progress. Dragon, Japanese HTV, all this in the wings. We give good statistics on the rotation of pilots: Union - 47 flights, at the moment there is no alternative. By truck, Progress is 62, the American Dragon and Sinus are 11, the Japanese HTV is 5. Everything else ceased to exist, including the Shuttle (37) and the European ATV (5). We see that the deceased Shuttle with 37 serving starts, something like that and then opposite 109 the launches of the manned and cargo Union are completely worthless. Without the Russian Federation, the ISS is not possible. Therefore, when there were thoughts about disconnecting the Russian module and its existence as a separate station, then practically everything else becomes space debris intended for descent from orbit.
            2. Born in USSR
              Born in USSR 16 January 2016 12: 55 New
              +4
              Quote: Haettenschweiler
              - So I say - the end of our space program,

              You are a strange person. Please specify whose particular cosmonautics comes to an end. Personally, I strongly doubt that these are words about Russian cosmonautics. A couple of days ago, you defended Israel with foam at the mouth. And now you claim that, your Russia, is losing space. Please explain which side you are on.
          2. BIGLESHIY
            BIGLESHIY 16 January 2016 11: 34 New
            +2
            Quote: Oleg147741

            It will survive if officials do not steal.

            This is impossible, “we have not the 37th year” (V.V. Putin)
          3. Vladimir 1964
            Vladimir 1964 16 January 2016 13: 24 New
            +2
            Quote: Oleg147741
            It will survive if officials do not steal.


            Oleg, do you yourself believe in what you write about? repeat
            Well, unless of course you were joking, although what kind of jokes there might be, especially in these difficult times. But the official will always steal, and the more difficult the situation, the more they will steal, and suddenly tomorrow there will be nothing left. belay
        3. edeligor
          edeligor 16 January 2016 10: 54 New
          +3
          Quote: Haettenschweiler
          Secondly, the main threat is Falcon-9, a conveyor-made carrier

          You want to say that the "Union" is not assembled in a conveyor way ?! The whole problem is the start price. But to believe the Americans, who because of competition do not disdain anything, I would not.
          Quote: Haettenschweiler
          Roscosmos may not survive. He survived by orders from the outside. There will be no orders - there will be no our space program.

          You are the alarmist, my friend. Do not write in a glass, dear, break through.
          1. Haettenschweiler
            Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 11: 04 New
            -1
            Quote: edeligor
            You want to say that the "Union" is not assembled in a conveyor way ?! The whole problem is the start price. But to believe the Americans, who because of competition do not disdain anything, I would not.


            http://mash-xxl.info/info/746980/ - вот тут всё хорошо (хоть и скуповато) описано. Нет, "Союз", "Протон" и прочие носители собираются не на конвейере. Отсюда их дороговизна. Дурацкий американский "Фалькон" именно этим и опасен - дешевизной. Ну и ещё тем, что США всегда могут надавить политически и экономически на своих вассалов и принудить их к сотрудничеству с ними, в ущерб отношениям с Россией. Фразу про "веру американцам" вообще не понял. О какой конкуренции речь, если на сегодняшний день для своих космических пусков они используют наши ракетные двигатели?

            Quote: edeligor
            You are the alarmist, my friend. Do not write in a glass, dear, break through.


            - I’m a realist, and I don’t believe a penny in the fact that the “gunny” can “steer” from this dangerous situation. He cannot do anything. And the nation that sent the first man into space will be left without space at all.
            1. edeligor
              edeligor 16 January 2016 11: 33 New
              +4
              Quote: Haettenschweiler
              I did not understand the phrase about "faith in the Americans" at all.

              Yes, yes, it is about Falcon. They sing too beautifully about its cheapness. After the F-35, airborne lasers and other "lunar programs"; I want to answer with the phrase of Stanislavsky - "I DO NOT BELIEVE !!!
              "
              Quote: Haettenschweiler
              do they use our rocket engines today for their space launches?

              Not even that, but they can’t create !!! And RD180, it is ALREADY yesterday.
              1. Haettenschweiler
                Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 11: 44 New
                +1
                Quote: edeligor
                Yes, yes, it is about Falcon. They sing too beautifully about its cheapness. After the F-35, airborne lasers and other "lunar programs"; I want to answer with the phrase of Stanislavsky - "I DO NOT BELIEVE !!!


                - It seems that Falcon-9 is being developed by a private corporation. Which has not yet had time to compromise itself as the US military.

                Quote: edeligor
                Not even that, but they can’t create !!! And RD180, it is ALREADY yesterday.


                - Yes, they are not strong and work in this direction, as I understand from publications. Russia regularly supplies them with taxiways, even in the face of powerful sanctions on everything and everyone. And for some reason, our "mirror answers" do not apply to RD.
                1. varov14
                  varov14 16 January 2016 13: 18 New
                  +1
                  From the previous comments, I realized that RD180 is yesterday, if today exists, then yesterday's “snow” is the best know-how - to earn, earn and earn money again.
                2. kugelblitz
                  kugelblitz 16 January 2016 15: 20 New
                  0
                  Falcon has primitive gluttonous engines, with low pressure in the chambers, and even requires fuel for landing the stage. Which requires post-flight diagnosis and repair. About cheapness, this is advertising and nonsense.
                  1. Gorodovik
                    Gorodovik 16 January 2016 17: 41 New
                    0
                    You forget that missiles are one of the most science-intensive and complex mechanisms. How do you think it is easier to create this colossus anew or just let it down check and refuel. Maybe for the money and a small savings but nonetheless. And this is an experience to which our cosmonautics can only dream
                    1. kugelblitz
                      kugelblitz 16 January 2016 18: 00 New
                      +4
                      SHCHTA ?! First, take an interest in the volume of work after the return of the stage, and then speak. The Americans have experience, but if you look into the rabbit hole, you will find out about the complex "tube" technology of engines, which does not increase the pressure in the combustion chamber, and therefore the specific impulse. Accordingly, the engine itself becomes heavier, and more fuel and rocket sizes are required in increasing increment.
                      Sometimes it’s funny for me to read naive comments, they say the Americans and Europeans created rockets so perfect that dense Russians can never catch them.
                      Fuel, for example, also costs a lot of money, and the GHG launched into orbit by the same Falcon, with the landing of the stage, is ridiculous for such a starting mass. No wonder they are planning a methane engine, primarily to reduce the cost of starting. Often it just comes out cheaper to assemble a disposable rocket than to make a heavy, voracious reusable rocket. The history of the Shuttle is hinting.
                3. kugelblitz
                  kugelblitz 16 January 2016 15: 22 New
                  +1
                  The Americans tried to create an RS-68 combustion chamber using a similar technology, but Delta-4 exploded at the start ... the proud democratic birds did not catch it.
              2. Andrey Yuryevich
                Andrey Yuryevich 16 January 2016 16: 24 New
                0
                Quote: edeligor
                And RD180, it is ALREADY yesterday.

                but they will fly on it tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.
            2. hrych
              hrych 16 January 2016 11: 47 New
              -3
              A realist and other -ist, he always comes down, well, to those who masturbate, while engineers and workers collect Unions, Protons and Angara ...
              1. Haettenschweiler
                Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 11: 53 New
                +3
                Quote: hrych
                A realist and other -ist, he always comes down, well, to those who masturbate, while engineers and workers collect Unions, Protons and Angara ...


                - I am an engineer. And you are a tram boor. What have you collected in your life, which "Hangar"? You are trying to justify your kvass patriotism?
                1. hrych
                  hrych 16 January 2016 11: 55 New
                  0
                  Unemployed engineer, but very talented? Patriotism may be leavened, by the way, a delicious and healthy drink, but some of the Pepsi generation laughing .
                  1. Haettenschweiler
                    Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 11: 57 New
                    +3
                    Quote: hrych
                    Unemployed engineer, but very talented?


                    - "Work", baby, "work." And the talented one, probably, has still not been kicked out. Well, or just literate.
                    1. hrych
                      hrych 16 January 2016 12: 05 New
                      -1
                      What industry engineer?
                    2. Haettenschweiler
                      Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 12: 11 New
                      0
                      - Low-current networks. Why are you interested in?
                    3. hrych
                      hrych 16 January 2016 12: 16 New
                      -2
                      Electrician means. In the management company, probably work.
                    4. Haettenschweiler
                      Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 12: 20 New
                      +6
                      - I would be glad to work in the "management company" (ZhEK'e, if in Russian), bring people quite concrete and tangible benefits, but, to my great regret, there are too low salaries, and it would be impossible for me to maintain my large and friendly family. Perhaps altruism is not enough in me. And the condition of electric networks is lousy, not because hard workers do not know how to work, but because the money pledged to repair and modernize each individual house magically disappears every time a major overhaul period approaches. As a result, the entire "overhaul" repair comes down to painting and whitewashing the walls in the entrances.
                    5. Born in USSR
                      Born in USSR 16 January 2016 13: 05 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Haettenschweiler
                      I would be happy to work in the "management company" (ZhEK'e, if in Russian)

                      Allow, allow, but after all ZhEK, it is only a subordinate link in a managing company!
          2. varov14
            varov14 16 January 2016 13: 45 New
            0
            I clearly strained the Russian language, although I sometimes suffer from it myself, assuming that the thought flashed through my head is understandable. Poke on add - went into the "expanses", re-read, I realized that I was bogged down, but I already have old age. Insanity is sneaking up, and you, judging by the epaulets, are still in force.
      2. varov14
        varov14 16 January 2016 13: 32 New
        +1
        But I’m a pessimist for the past 25 years, and the last 15 have killed everything, although our company is the largest in the world, well, or one of the largest - I have not followed up in recent years. And only the Gaidar club masturbates with us, as however you put them in, it’s obvious that it’s a realist.
  2. opus
    opus 16 January 2016 15: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: edeligor
    You want to say that the "Union" is not assembled in a conveyor way ?!

    no not conveyor

    22-24 pH per year

    and SpaceX - no

    The three main booster units of the Falcon 9 rocket at the SpaceX plant.
    The company plans to increase their output to 40 per year



    Spacecraft Dragonr-spacecraft



    1. opus
      opus 16 January 2016 15: 06 New
      +6
      ==============================================
      At a cost, no brainer

      1.US was lucky not only with latitude. Their spaceport is located on the seashore, and there is no problem bringing the steps on a ship or barge:

      Among Europeans, the Kourou space center is also located on the very shore, which again allows the use of large steps - 5,4 m at Arian-5:


      We have TROUBLE: Here it is - secret enemy Russian cosmonautics - railway gauge:

      The first stage N-1 with a diameter of 17 meters was welded already in Baikonur, the central block of "Energy" was transported by plane. The diameter of the "Proton" is actually 4,1 m, the side tanks of the first stage are joined already during the assembly of the rocket in Baikonur. And, according to rumors on the Internet, when transporting rocket blocks, you have to block oncoming traffic by rail.

      Already on Angara wagons with a diameter of 2,9 m the oversize index is clearly visible - it is almost limit in width (5 out of 6):

      2. It is cold with us.
      The costs of air conditioning are 3-5 times less (heat pump, and lower from + 40 ° C to + 22 ° C ... delta 20-15 ° C) than to heating (from -20 to + 20 ° C, delta 40 ° C)
      1. prosto_rgb
        prosto_rgb 17 January 2016 20: 14 New
        0
        Quote: opus
        1.US was lucky not only with latitude. Their

        Quote: opus
        2. It is cold with us.
        Air conditioning costs 3-5 times less

        Cooling is a more energy intensive process.
        As always, all the enemies of the world interfere with Russian astronautics.
        Even Rogozin, and then shot in the leg.
    2. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 16 January 2016 15: 29 New
      0
      The engines at the Falcons are rotten, due to the complex fuel supply and control system. But the most important minus is an open circuit and a combustion chamber. Nozzles do not remember exactly which system, but along the way a primitive colander a la is one of the versions of the V-2.
      And if the tube engine cooling system, then the price there is cosmic and supposedly low price is just dumping and subsidies of the American government. Another drank karochi wassat
      1. opus
        opus 16 January 2016 16: 11 New
        +1
        Quote: kugelblitz
        The engines at the Falcons are rotten, due to the complex fuel supply and control system.

        what nonsense.
        world's most efficient rocket engine

        For 470 kg of mass
        Thrust (vac.) 825kN
        Thrust (SL) 756 kN
        Thrust-to-weight ratio 180
        Chamber pressure 9.7 MPa (1,410 psi)
        Isp (vac.) 311 seconds (3.05 km / s)
        Isp (SL) 282 s (2.73 km / s)

        + REUSABLE (up to 40 times)
        will be at least something to compare


        With equal thrust of rocket engines, their comparative thrust-weight ratio will not be decisive namely, specific impulse. .The higher its value, the less fuel the liquid propellant rocket uses to disperse a certain mass and, therefore, the higher the thrust ratio of the launch vehicle stage.

        Thus, the thrust-to-weight ratio of the Falcon 9 1.1 LV is 1,2 (thrust of 600 tons / 503 tons of rocket mass), and the Zenith 2 with RD 171 1,5 (thrust of 720 tons / 470 tons of rocket weight) with a similar payload of 13 tons for the NOO.
        RD-171 "closed cycle"
        Quote: kugelblitz
        But the main minus is the open circuit and the combustion chamber

        Open-circuit rocket engine gas-generator cycle

        Now try the same GG (the jet spurts from the side) to play in the CS from 200 atm.
        WHAT TNA is needed?
        will live long?

        1. But how much easier and cheaper, as well as more reliable
        2. Work and do not sneeze: Vulcain LRE, HM7B (Arian5), RD-107 (Soyuz launch vehicle), RD-108 (Soyuz, East), RS-68 (Delta 4, Ares V) RS-27A (Saturn 1B ) J-2X (Space Launch System, Ares V and 1) F-1
        1. opus
          opus 16 January 2016 16: 12 New
          +2
          Quote: kugelblitz
          but along the way a primitive colander a la is one of the versions of the V-2.

          la la "along the way" (or against the coat?)
          Whose is this?

          Quote: kugelblitz
          And if the tube engine cooling system, then the price there is cosmic and supposedly low price is just dumping and subsidies of the American government. Another drank karochi

          1. Not "tubular"
          2. What do you care about the American budget? You are an American?
          TAKE CARE OF OUR BUDGET
          RD 191 standing on the "armament" of the Angara launch vehicle, in relative prices considered one of the most expensive kerosene rocket engines in the world - 36 000 $ / tf (250 million rubles).

          RD 180 (RN Atlas 5) nominally costs NASA - at $ 30 / tf (11 million $).

          the price of RD 171, on the basis of which RD 180/191 was created, is within 22 000 $ / tf ($ 13-15 million)
          modifications of NK 33-1 for the new Soyuz 2-3 launch vehicle can be up to 25 000 $ / tf (4,5 million $).
          Merlin 1D with an approximate price in 15 000 $ / tf (~ $ 1 million)

          3. "In short" the penguin .. know why?
          He constantly sits on the snow with his buttocks.
          1. kugelblitz
            kugelblitz 16 January 2016 18: 21 New
            +1
            Something you attract facts by the ears, and as I remember with RD-180, this notorious specific impulse is the highest. And all thanks to the closed circuit and high pressure in the combustion chamber (263 at). Among the Americans, the RS-25 is the most effective. closed cycle. But due to the tube construction, the pressure in the combustion chamber does not exceed 192 atmospheres. The heir to the RS-68 was much worse and therefore merged.
            And here is Merlin-1C and a pipe!
            1. opus
              opus 16 January 2016 18: 48 New
              0
              Quote: kugelblitz
              And here is Merlin-1C and a pipe!

              Well, yes, yes, "penguins in the snow with a short genital organ"
              ?

              Spin-forming Merlin Engine Nozzle

              Merlin 1D (in stock)

              And a bit of history

              Merlin 1A
              http://www.thespacereview.com/archive/gallery/3-2b.jpg
              Merlin 1C / D


              the outer stainless steel jacket (which provides the bulk of the strength of the chamber) is explosively formed. The cooling channels are milled out of the inner copper combustion chamber liner, on top of which the jacket is braised.








              Quote: kugelblitz
              Efficiency! EFFICIENCY, CARL! An open circuit cannot exceed a closed circuit in this regard. It’s the same as opposing a steam engine to a diesel engine. Drag steam then drags, but eats a lot!

              Further (in my opinion) it makes no sense to talk.
              Like the hero of the photo of your avatar, go to school, to school (not the hero, but also the hospital needs ... mb and do you need to visit the same?)
            2. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 16 January 2016 19: 02 New
              0
              AHAHA !!! wassat They did even worse, cutting out from a blank on a CNC machine! Yes, here it would be cheaper to solder the tubes! wassat
              Do you have any idea how much time is required for processing, tooling and so on?
              Yeah! Not for nothing that I still consider the best RS-25 of American engines, they didn’t do anything better than it.
            3. opus
              opus 16 January 2016 23: 31 New
              0
              Quote: kugelblitz
              nor acted even worse, cutting out from a blank on a CNC machine!

              what stupidity.
              The design of the middle part of the LRE chamber:
              1 and 2 - the inner and outer walls of the rocket engine chamber;
              3 - axle; 4 - collector; 5 — branch pipe with a flange


              The most widespread practice of firms in the USA, England and France is the method of manufacturing walls from profiled steel or aluminum tubes (see Fig. 30, c), although the method indicated in Fig. 30, b is also applied.

              Shirt 2 is made of high strength materials - steel, titanium. It can be made continuous along the entire contour of the wall or in the form of individual rings, which is determined by the calculation of the strength of the rocket engine with the minimum weight of the structure. In some designs, the shirt is made by winding steel tape or dragging, followed by soldering. Shirts made of fiberglass impregnated with plastic are also used.

              The trunnions 3 perceive the traction force of the chamber and are welded to the reinforced part of the jacket of the LRE chamber. In order to avoid large deformations of flexible pipelines when turning swinging chambers, fuel and oxidizer can be fed through axial drilling in the pins.
              Quote: kugelblitz
              Not for nothing that I still consider American RS the best RS-25

              what can you "count" there?
              When

              Quote: kugelblitz
              Nozzles I don’t remember exactly which system, but along the way a primitive colander a la is one of the versions of the V-2.

              Quote: kugelblitz
              And here is Merlin-1C and a pipe!

              Quote: kugelblitz
              It’s the same as opposing a steam engine to a diesel engine.

              ?
              What are we talking about?
              At U.S. not
              Quote: kugelblitz
              sawing from a blank on a CNC machine!

              after all?
              we have a mallet, a sheet of tin and are ready "channels"?
              Yes?

              Channels for the shopping center can be formed in several ways:
              a) installing corrugated spacers between the jacket and the wall (Fig. 30, a); 6) by soldering the U-shaped profiles with the subsequent groove along the surface of the fit of the shirt (Fig. 30,6);
              c) by soldering profiled tubes (Fig. 30, c);
              d) milling, etching or extruding longitudinal channels in
            4. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 17 January 2016 08: 37 New
              +1
              Ours use soldering with spacers to form channels, this is the fundamental difference. The Americans tried to tear this technology to RS-68, for the heap, abandoning the closed RS-25 cycle.
        2. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 16 January 2016 19: 17 New
          +1
          In order not to be unfounded, as do the RD-107
          The process of induction brazing the nozzle of the combustion chamber of a rocket engine. The process temperature is 975 ° C.

          Installation of half rings on the critical section of the combustion chamber of a rocket engine in the welding area

          Milling of fuel channels combustion chambers rocket engine.
        3. opus
          opus 16 January 2016 23: 42 New
          0
          Quote: kugelblitz
          In order not to be unfounded, as do the RD-107

          Why sho YOU? Why is it only part of it?
          Quote: kugelblitz
          Milling of the channels of a combustible combustion chamber of a rocket engine.

          Yes?
          Quote: kugelblitz
          They acted even worse sawing from a blank on a CNC machine! Yes, here it would be cheaper to solder the tubes!


          yeah ...
          OJSC "Kuznetsov" Machining industry. Milling processing center DMU-160 FD, able to handle large-sized parts of complex shape with a diameter of up to 1,6 meters and weighing up to 2 tons.


          Processing of the stator rings of the engine compressor (though this is not RD, but NK-32) on a turning and rotary machine (but not the point).


          mb
          Quote: kugelblitz
          Yes, here it would be cheaper to solder the tubes!

          ?

          Strain Moscow, find the differences?





        4. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 17 January 2016 08: 33 New
          +1
          Yeah, I wrote the same induction soldering nozzles of a rocket engine combustion chamber.
          We look at the cultivated area RD-107 and compare it with Merlin. At the same time, Americans use gas burners for soldering, and not EMR for heating. What is the difference? Even heating, no oxidizing effect!
          Secondly, you brought the production of turbojet engines, with bodies of revolution, where you really can not do without such machines! wassat
        5. Vadim237
          Vadim237 17 January 2016 10: 12 New
          0
          It doesn’t matter how they do the engines - the main thing is that this is mass production and the engines work.
        6. opus
          opus 17 January 2016 13: 48 New
          0
          Quote: kugelblitz
          At the same time, Americans use gas burners for soldering, and not EMR for heating.

          Americans do not use gas burners
          -Americans mastered friction welding (which we are unable to complete for the Angara)
          Quote: kugelblitz
          no oxidizing effect!

          generally nonsense.
          both in induction and soldering, an inert gas
          Quote: kugelblitz
          Secondly, you brought the production of turbojet engines, with bodies of revolution, g

          LRE we have, of course, bodies of drawing, square, that is?
          By tape or rings or soldering = shirt- machining
          The head of the rocket engine - machining
          Nozzle, criticism - machining.
          Oh yes, I forgot, you’re an appologist: a mallet and a sheet of tin on a mandrel, and so does the cooling path of our rocket engine?
        7. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 17 January 2016 14: 29 New
          0
          Something in your pictures do not observe the very friction welding? I see the gas burner heating, and the most fun welding and soldering are completely different things, especially with regard to different metals and alloys. wassat
          And friction welding is not such an ubertechnology, but simple and undemanding soldering with heating with high-frequency currents is an ingenious move, from the point of view of the technologist!
          And as a mechanical engineer in your beautiful pictures, I saw two bottlenecks - the first excessive amount of machining, the second option with burners just killed on the spot - heating is uneven and stresses can occur, and therefore cracks!
          During soldering, an inert gas may not be required in the presence of flux, or weak oxidation of metals. wassat
  • kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 16 January 2016 18: 38 New
    0
    By the way, I remembered what nozzles they were, they used pin ones, the colander was at F-1. The price of the engine is greater, but it beats off with less mass and the cost of a rocket with fuel. For some reason, the Americans consider it profitable to say, say, RD-180, and not the European Vunderwaffle Volcano. The gas-generating gas is burned in the combustion chamber and the “pushing” force is relatively small.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 16 January 2016 19: 25 New
      +1
      Quote: kugelblitz
      The gas-generating gas is burned in the combustion chamber and the “pushing” force is relatively small.

      If my memory serves me right, on the pump of our engine (RD-170, etc.) the pressure reaches 500 atmospheres, in the combustion chamber - up to 250. So, to supply the gas exhausted by the pump turbine to the combustion chamber of the engine is not a problem at all.
    2. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 16 January 2016 19: 28 New
      0
      I won’t lie, I don’t remember exactly, I climbed to the minimum for numbers, and in this situation, all the more so, I’ll “fly myself”.
    3. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 16 January 2016 19: 55 New
      +1
      Found http://lpre.de/energomash/RD-170/index.htm#flow_schematic_descr
      On the pump (RD-170 engine)
  • opus
    opus 16 January 2016 23: 53 New
    +1
    Quote: Bad_gr
    RD-170, etc.) the pressure reaches 500 atmospheres, in the combustion chamber - up to 250. So, to supply the gas exhausted by the pump turbine to the combustion chamber of the engine is not a problem at all.

    Yes, what are the "problems" ...
    500 atmospheres (FIVE) at the exhaust pipe (nozzle) TNA.
    (and the stump is clear, it’s not to merge into the atmosphere, but into the LRE chamber, where 200 ... atmospheres, and even the efficiency must be given)
    Ugh .. what a trifle
    revolutions from 13870 rpm to 22810 rpm), despite the fact that TNA (our USSR, RF) weighs up to 2tn!
    What problems?

    The materials used in the manufacture of the impellers and the pumps themselves are such tn: 12X18H10T, 08X15H5D2TU, etc.

    The fuel pump (G), oxidizer (O) and the turbine are located on the same shaft and in addition to some of the O + G components being self-igniting (they light up when they come into contact with each other: АТ + UDMH, oxygen + hydrogen, etc.), and “behind the wall” is a turbine with a gas temperature of about 500 degrees. To eliminate the flow of components into neighboring areas, O-rings, labyrinth seals, impellers and much more are used. The number of dissertations defended by seals is not calculable.
    About cavitation, which is the worst enemy of the pump blades and destroying them in seconds, have already been written here.
    And despite all the tricks, technological progress and bright minds of our scientists, up to 70% of accidents during missile launches occur due to malfunctions in the TNA

    There is no need to talk about the reusability of such rocket engines and TNAs. they would have 50 seconds to fuck and that's it ...

    Huh?
    And it’s not easier than the laval nozzle on the exhaust pipe - you look at both the thrust and the momentum .. not of course not as with the "closed circuit" however ...
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 17 January 2016 00: 08 New
    0
    Quote: opus
    And it’s not easier than the laval nozzle on the exhaust pipe - you look at both the thrust and the momentum .. not of course not as with the "closed circuit" however ...

    Laval's nozzle is heavy. But the engines, where the nozzle grows to high-altitude, we have been tested. That is, instead of two steps, you can do one.

    Tests and engines using three-jet fuel were also tested. In what state this development is now, I have not seen any data.
  • opus
    opus 17 January 2016 01: 55 New
    0
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Laval nozzle heavy

    ?
    Is there a “lighter” nozzle for accelerating the gas flow passing through it to supersonic speeds?
    what can be "heavy" in the most unloaded (thermally, mechanically) part of the rocket engine?

    So easier?


    nothing that such a piece of UI is lost?

    Quote: Bad_gr
    where the nozzle grows to high-altitude, we have been tested.

    "grows" ... with a nozzle nozzle Trident 2D5 flies ...
    we passed .... NPO Iskra has 30 years of experience creating sliding nozzles for a rocket engine
    Nozzle nozzles RD-58MF


    Quote: Bad_gr
    That is, instead of two steps, you can do one.

    okay?
    poor characteristic speed and grandfather Tsiolkovsky

    (empty containers dragging on themselves?)

    Delta Clipper (DC-X, USA), RVT, and Kankoh-maru (Japan), Armadillo Aerospace, New Shepard by Blue Origin, a project of a single-stage reusable OMRN launch vehicle, our KORONA ...

    Woz and now there.
    Quote: Bad_gr
    on three-fuel fuel. In what state this development is now, I have not seen any data.

    "Theory of rocket engines" Alemasov, Dregalin, Tishin, under the editorship of V.P. Glushko- this issue is devoted as much as two paragraphs.

    RD-704
    http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/51/300px-rd-701_rocket_engine.jpg
    and RD-701 (1 chamber)
    And nothing has changed...
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 18 January 2016 00: 24 New
    0
    Quote: opus
    empty containers dragging on yourself?

    But do not drag another motor. And if the cost of one motor is subtracted from the launch price, then it may be cheaper to put cargo into orbit for money than a rocket which has one step more.
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 17 January 2016 00: 10 New
    0
    Quote: opus
    And despite all the tricks, technological progress and bright minds of our scientists, up to 70% of accidents during missile launches occur due to malfunctions in the TNA

    Give specific examples.
    I remember only one such case when an engine that underwent modernization in Ukraine collapsed (a contract between the United States and Ukraine).
  • opus
    opus 17 January 2016 02: 17 New
    0
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Give specific examples.

    On May 16, 2015, after the launch of Proton-M with the Mexican communications satellite Mexsat-1 at the estimated time, the spacecraft did not separate from the third stage of the launch vehicle. As a result, the satellite was lost. The cause of the disaster is the failure of the steering engine of the 3rd stage due to increased vibration loads caused by an increase in the imbalance of the rotor of the turbopump unit.

    Proton-K (8K82K): September 27, 1967,22, November 1967,27, 1969, March 69, 8 (AMC Mars M-48), the main unit 8D49 of the engine 3DXNUMX of the XNUMXrd stage of the rocket spontaneously turned off. This happened due to the imbalance and duplexing of the bearings of the rotor of the turbopump unit, as a result of which the gap in the gas sealing element of the TNA turbine was completely selected, which led to the ignition of the turbopump unit
    .
    November 16, 1996 (SC) "Mars-96". ..the second overclocking unit went abnormally (ТНа did not enter the mode) ..

    On May 20, 1997, when the two-stage Zenit-2 launch vehicle launched by the Dnepropetrovsk NPO Yuzhnoye with the spacecraft of the Cosmos series was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, an emergency shutdown of the first-stage engine occurred at the 49th second (TNA failure)


    On October 27, 1999, the Express-A1 communications satellite was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome using the Proton-K launch vehicle. At the 4th minute of the rocket’s flight at an altitude of 105 km, the first marching engine RD-0211 and then the entire propulsion system (it includes four RD 0211) of the second stage of the carrier failed first.

    etc.
    For the lines:
    During the satellite’s launch, the second start of the marching engines of the MD-3 booster block went abnormally, 29 seconds after launch, the 400-ton rocket exploded and collapsed due to a technical malfunction in its first stage, and the carrier rocket engine stopped at the 83rd second of the flight my job...
    almost always TNA.

    The most loaded element of the rocket engine (and the most expensive, if specific weight)
  • kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 17 January 2016 09: 07 New
    0
    And what is not in the list of "advanced" foreign missiles with a burnt out nozzle? There you can conduct such statistics that it’s generally better not to fly into space. wassat
  • opus
    opus 17 January 2016 13: 44 New
    0
    Quote: kugelblitz
    And what is not in the list of "advanced" foreign missiles with a burnt out nozzle?

    Specialist Drushlachny (
    Quote: kugelblitz
    By the way, I remembered what nozzles they were, they used pin ones, the colander was at F-1. The price of the engine is greater, but it beats off with less mass and the cost of a rocket with fuel.

    Do you even know what it is about?
    Well, for an amnesiac, I remind you:
    Quote: opus
    And despite all the tricks, technological progress and bright minds of our scientists, up to 70% of accidents during missile launches due to malfunctioning of the TNA

    And then burnout nozzle?
    And for reference: basically the camera and criticism will burn out, and the nozzle is the LEAST LOADED (thermally, mechanically) part of the rocket engine (even the tip is not cooled there)

    Quote: kugelblitz
    foreign missiles

    1. I speak generally about rockets.
    2. I can cite the imported one (according to TNA), but:
    -they have less LRE, a lot of turbojet engines
    -I am afraid (if you do not really understand what it is in Russian: TNA and nozzle do not distinguish) = WHY DO YOU IN ENGLISH?
  • kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 17 January 2016 14: 15 New
    +1
    I understand all the terms, only similar to your criticism of the turbopump, I criticize the low reliability of the western combustion chambers. wassat
    Specialist Drushlachny (

    Explicitly hurt, once again the transitions to personalities have gone lol
  • opus
    opus 17 January 2016 19: 45 New
    0
    Quote: kugelblitz
    I criticize the low reliability of western combustion chambers.

    no need to criticize.
    NEED TO PROVE (at least something)
    Tn "unreliable" -the only in the world reusable, in fact. without la la
    proven by practice
    Quote: kugelblitz
    Explicitly hurt, once again the transitions to personalities have gone

    Well, sorry.
    no, not hurt.
    just how do I react after such pearls?
    Quote: kugelblitz
    And here is Merlin-1C and a pipe!


    ?
    Well, at least think about it before tearing someone else's stupid article.
    1. Merlin is not two-chamber (and the cameras cannot be doubled due to the suspension), and not the Falcon in the picture
    2.This is actually the LR-87 from LGM-25C Titan II and photos from NMK


    Here's how after that

    to react?
    Quote: kugelblitz
    . Nozzles do not remember exactly which system, but along the way a primitive colander a la is one of the versions of the V-2.

    ?
  • kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 17 January 2016 20: 52 New
    0
    Honestly, Merlin was not particularly interested, because of the primitive design. RS-25, F-1, H-1 yes, interesting engines. But thanks to you, I realized that my instinct did not fail, even exceeded expectations due to clumsy production technology.
    As for the "only" I do not agree, because NK-33 and RD-170 can be called the same Makar. Well esno RS-25.
    Still annoying is the number of engines, which drastically reduces reliability, if I was an astronaut, I flew rather on a Proton than on this miracle rocket. wassat
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 17 January 2016 23: 50 New
    0
    Considering the recent unpleasant events with the launch of Protons, few people now dare to fly on this rocket.
  • opus
    opus 18 January 2016 11: 26 New
    0
    Quote: kugelblitz
    not interested, because of the primitive design.

    1. "primitive"?
    P:simple, uncomplicated in design, low in performance technique, artlessly and rudely made


    2.Merlin -1D: $ 15 / tf (~ $ 000 million)
    The “cheapest” engine closed cycle can be considered LRE NK 33-1. Given the restoration of production, the price of the modification of NK 33-1 for the new Soyuz 2-3 launch vehicle can be up to $ 25 / tf ($ 000 million).

    RD 191 standing on the "armament" of the Angara RN, in relative prices, is considered one of the most expensive kerosene LPR in the world - 36 000 $ / ton (250 million rubles).

    3.Mack has already shown his superiority over Russian modern rocket scientists, if you compare the time of the creation of the "Angara" and Falcon. 4 years from Falcon 1 to Falcon 9 Reusable ..
    In 2012, the first Dragon truck successfully launched to the ISS and a satellite was launched into geostationary orbit ...

    And even yesterday’s accident is significant:

    Quote: kugelblitz
    RS-25, F-1, H-1

    no L-1 NRE ... belay

    Quote: kugelblitz
    Still annoying is the number of engines, which drastically reduces reliability, if I was an astronaut, I flew rather on a Proton than on this miracle rocket.


    forward


    don't see much difference

    ===============================

    Since 1967, 404 launches of the Proton rocket have been made. Of these, 49 ended in failure during the operation of the first three stages and the upper stage.
    MORE THAN 10% !!!

  • kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 18 January 2016 18: 10 New
    +1
    Again, a pull by the ears, the amount for the purchase of 101 engines is about 1 billion bachets, or about 11-15 million bucks. Engines Falcon 9 pieces, a total of 9 lyam. lol
    If you compare with a Zenith close in parameter, then the cost of the RD-171M engine is 13,5 lemons! Moreover, it has single TNA, a simpler fuel and oxidizer supply system ... ahem, again crap with this Falcon, is it better for the Atlas-5 Americans to develop further?

    As for "primitiveness", he meant a dense open cycle, and if Musk is so directly dragging himself from reusability, why didn’t he install the most advanced American RS-25?

    The proton has 6 engines of the first stage, and the problems began to deliver recently due to the decline in the culture of production. wassat
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 18 January 2016 21: 06 New
    0
    The reusable RS-25 was designed for 25 launches, the RD-171 is a much better weight category to start with 10.
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 17 January 2016 11: 27 New
    0
    The listed accidents are basically the third stage. We talked about the engines of the first stage of the RD-170 series (171, 180, 190), where the parameters are outrageous, and there are no accidents due to their cause yet.
  • opus
    opus 17 January 2016 13: 40 New
    0
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Listed accidents

    that’s not all, just laziness. You will find yourself if there is interest.
    I know these statistics from stitched notebooks when the course was: design and calculation of TNA LRE (or something like that)
    Quote: Bad_gr
    We talked about the first stage engines

    Let me remind you I (!) Talked about
    Quote: opus
    and the bright minds of our scientists up to 70% of accidents during missile launches are due to malfunctioning of the TNA

    and TNA, which is on the 1st, on the 3rd — no difference (on the 3rd even worse, far)
    .


    As a part of the Zenit-2 and Zenit-3SL LVs, three accidents of the RD-171 engine occurred:
    October 4.10.1990, 2 - the fifteenth launch of the Zenit launch vehicle, which ended in an accident at the third second of the flight as a result of an explosion of the first-stage engine. According to the conclusion of the emergency commission, engine failure occurred due to the destruction of the swing unit of the gas path of the second chamber. The most probable cause of the fire was the ignition initiator getting into the internal cavity of the swing unit in the form of a substance of organic origin with concentrated heat during the combustion of more than 30 kilojoules.
    (how could he get there, except for the prosa TNA?)

    20.05.1997/2/XNUMX - the twenty-eighth launch of the Zenit LV, which ended in an accident at the 49th second of the flight as a result of emergency shutdown of the engine of the first stage. The rocket fell 28 kilometers from the launch complex. The causes of the accident were not covered in detail, but on indirect grounds we can assume the ignition of the turbine.


    January 31.01.2007, 3 - the launch of the ZenitSL LV from the Odyssey offshore launch platform crashed, the rocket exploded at the launch. The Russian-Ukrainian interdepartmental commission for the investigation of the accident found that the cause of the accident was the ignition of a metal particle accidentally introduced from the outside in the oxidizer pump. This was the first flight of the upgraded RD-171M engine, ironically, one of the main goals of the modernization was to increase reliability.
  • opus
    opus 17 January 2016 13: 41 New
    0
    25.12.2009/171/1 during the fire acceptance test of the RDM engine at the stand of NPO Energomash OJSC, the engine failed with the destruction of the material part of the engine and individual systems of the stand. The commission, which included specialists from various departments of NPO Energomash, examined the results of processing telemetric measurements and the results of the analysis of the state of the material part, the results of the calculated estimates and the results of specially organized and conducted experimental studies concluded the following. XNUMX. Engine failure during its operation at the nominal traction mode occurred in the result of a fire for 17,6 seconds in the gas cavity behind the turbine turbine at the junction of the exhaust manifold of the turbine with the gas path of one of the chambers (chamber No. 2). The development of combustion led to destruction of 18,2 seconds gas path of the engine behind the turbine, explosion and fire. 2. The initiation of fire occurred as a result of ingress of a foreign object (substance) into the gas cavity in the process of manufacturing an engine that could not be detected by the routine inspection and control procedures. 3. The most probable is the organic nature of the foreign object (substance) that has entered the gas path during work with the subassembly of the “gas duct block” of the engine. 4. The identified cause of the RD-171M engine failure does not require the adoption of corrective measures for the RD-171M, RD-180 and RD-191 engines that have passed the fire acceptance tests. 5. The Commission developed and recommended a set of corrective measures to prevent the ingress of foreign objects (substances) into the internal cavities of all types of engines, and the introduction of an additional procedure for inspecting the gas path of engines at the final stages of assembly. However it is not very clear how, in the presence of organic pollution, ignition occurred only at the 18th second of engine operation.

    etc.
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 17 January 2016 14: 05 New
    0
    Thanks for the information.
    But I remain of the opinion that our engines are the best. Children's diseases will disappear over time, and record characteristics will remain.
    PS
    Compared with modern foreign rocket engines, our NK-33 (70s development) - their tomorrow.
    I think so.
  • opus
    opus 17 January 2016 19: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Thanks for the information.
    But I remain of the opinion that our engines are the best.

    please always happy.
    BUT I did not say NEVER that our worst !!!!
    We have our +, we have them, and also with minuses.
    But (if you raise the statistics and rummage around) we have accidents associated with THAT MORE.
    And not only because the Americans use TTRD intensively (and they were leaders here in the 60s (Polaris and Minitman), but in the USSR only in the 80s (Topol and R-39)), but and because of the "closed" circuit.
    An open circuit is simpler and more reliable. And they are easier to implement reusable, and of a large dimension (ours on Energia was 4-chamber, it was not possible to stabilize the processes, and even produce a single-chamber)


    turbine of the most powerful rocket in the world engine RD170 (RD171) design NPO Energomash has a capacity of ~ 270000 hp (~ 200000 kW), which is 1/3 of the Dnieper power built in the 30s of the XX century. The self-weight of the TNA of this engine is ~ 1900 kg, and the relative mrel = 7 g / hp. . For comparison: the relative mass of automotive internal combustion engines is 1500-2000 g / hp, of jet engines
    - 200-400 g / hp
    masterpiece!!! Just how much does it cost?

    Quote: Bad_gr
    Compared with modern foreign rocket engines, our NK-33 (70s development) - their tomorrow.

    not sure.
    RD-0146 - gas-free liquid rocket engine developed by the Chemical Engineering Design Bureau in Voronezh, analogue of the American engine RL-10V-2.
    The engine was developed since 1997, and its development funded GKNPC them. M.V. Khrunicheva and the American company Pratt & Whitney.
    and this is a masterpiece: KBHA turbocharger is the fastest in the world among serial LPRE

    By the way:

    The Russian Breeze-M RB has a C5.98M engine, which operates on the same components as the RD-275.

    engine is designed for multiple inclusion in outer space (up to 8 inclusions) and continuous operation (up to 3200 s). OPEN DIAGRAMS
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Our NK-33 (70s development) - their tomorrow.

    no.
    30 years the rocket engine was unclaimed (neither by anyone, nor ours, nor by them).
    Due to the cheapness and availability. Now, yes.


    The American company Orbital Sciences refused to buy the modernized NK-33 (AJ-26) engines from the Kuznetsov Samara engine building company, which was supposed to be used on the Antares launch vehicle, losing about $ 500 million from terminating the Kuznetsov deal.
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 18 January 2016 20: 38 New
    0
    Quote: opus
    ..... and a large dimension (ours on Energia was 4 x chamber, it was not possible to stabilize the processes, and to manufacture a single chamber)

    And what is single-chamber better than 4-chamber? The single-chamber F-1, although it entered operation almost 10 years later than our RD107-108, had an efficiency, if my memory serves me, only 2% higher than ours.
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 18 January 2016 21: 08 New
    0
    5% lower ... by the fact that he is American laughing albeit an unreliable enchanting dull ... and therefore is not used now, and they are buying a half from the Soviet
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 17 January 2016 23: 44 New
    0
    Just for some reason, the material - high alloy steel - is not high quality.
  • opus
    opus 18 January 2016 13: 13 New
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    Just for some reason, the material - high alloy steel - is not high quality.

    I do not know.
    Well this is not the whole nomenclature, and it is not indicated which stavl where. mb it is a bolt or nut or pipe.
    What is completely there, in fact, I did not remember in my youth (without a special notebook), and now ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 17 January 2016 00: 00 New
    0
    Quote: opus
    opus (7) RU Today, 16: 12

    Quote: kugelblitz
    but along the way a primitive colander a la is one of the versions of the V-2.

    la la "along the way" (or against the coat?)
    Whose is this?

    RD 170
    1. opus
      opus 17 January 2016 02: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Bad_gr

      RD 170

      well done.
      Now the "specialist" with the face of Vitka Klitschko
      Quote: kugelblitz
      but along the way a primitive colander a la is one of the versions of the V-2.

      explain to him about the nozzle and drushlag and about the A-4 rocket engine from V-2



      On the left - RD-107/108, in the center - RD-180, on the right - F-1 (the first stage of "Saturn-V")
    2. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 17 January 2016 08: 25 New
      0
      There was an early experimental version of the A-4 with a colander. wassat
    3. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 17 January 2016 09: 47 New
      0
      Now look at the most advanced American RS-25 wassat

    4. opus
      opus 18 January 2016 13: 19 New
      0
      Quote: kugelblitz
      There was an early experimental version of the A-4 with a colander

      that's just not necessary.


      Thiel’s liquid propellant rocket engine as it was (the entire pre-engine worked out on A-1 and A-3)

      RD-100 not far gone

    5. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 18 January 2016 18: 48 New
      0
      There was a colander, but I can’t find a picture, so I’ll have to replace the Wesserfall rocket wassat

    6. opus
      opus 18 January 2016 19: 21 New
      0
      Quote: kugelblitz
      There was a colander, n

      Speculation


      At the end of 1941, the first fire bench test of the A-4 rocket was carried out, in which an explosion occurred due to personnel error, the rocket and the stand were destroyed. In 1942, experimental launches began. The first successful launch of the fourth rocket took place on October 3, 1942. For the first time in the world, a rocket reached supersonic speed and touched the border of space, reaching an altitude of 90 km and flying 192 km. Obert himself, then in Peenemuende, congratulated von Braun and the developers. A large boulder was erected at the launch pad with the inscription: “On October 3, 1942, this stone fell from my heart. Werner von Braun. "

      Mixture formation in the chamber was performed using prechambers on the hemispherical end of the chamber in the center and on concentric circles 19 prechambers were placed in which the fuel components were mixed by simple jet injection, which also negatively affected the specific thrust impulse. But it was practically impossible to find another technical solution for a camera of this size and shape.. With this design you can congratulate its author - Dr. Werner Thielwho died on 17.8.44 during a raid by British aviation, not Peenemuende.
    7. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 18 January 2016 20: 21 New
      0
      There was an option, at the bench test level, but the flaws forced me to switch to the version with prechambers. But the experience later allowed to create a pot for Wesserfall, under its displacing fuel supply system.
  • kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 17 January 2016 08: 54 New
    0
    Okay, I won’t torment you (although you’re constantly trying to get personal), I’ll dig up pictures for you (with which you like to spam here).
    RD-107

    High tech colander F-1



  • kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 17 January 2016 09: 42 New
    +1
    But the NK-33 with its "diesel" advancement, relative to the "steam engine" F-1. Were applied centrifugal fuel nozzles and oxidizer gas nozzles

    What kind of beast is this, centrifugal and jet gas. Well, roughly similar to these.
  • kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 16 January 2016 18: 27 New
    0
    Efficiency! EFFICIENCY, CARL! An open circuit cannot exceed a closed circuit in this regard. It’s the same as opposing a steam engine to a diesel engine. Drag steam then drags, but eats a lot!
  • SRC P-15
    SRC P-15 16 January 2016 10: 59 New
    +5
    Quote: Haettenschweiler
    Quote: SRC P-15
    And we will survive it too!

    Well, if you attribute to me someone else's quote, then it would be nice to put the pluses for it for me. laughing
    Quote: Haettenschweiler
    If the Americans bring it to mind, no one will buy launches from Russia.

    The same thing was said about their Shuttles.
    R.S. Did you answer me with a minus? Well, quite reasonably.
    1. Haettenschweiler
      Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 11: 09 New
      -12
      Quote: SRC P-15
      Well, if you attribute to me someone else's quote, then it would be nice to put the pluses for it for me.


      “I don’t know how it happened, honestly.” I apologize. I probably did something wrong.

      Quote: SRC P-15
      The same thing was said about their Shuttles.


      - “Theirs” “shuttles” fly as before, and quite often ... but what about our beautiful “Buran”?

      In 1990, work on the Energy-Buran program was suspended, and in 1993 the program was finally closed. The program was closed by a decision of the USSR Ministry of Aviation Industry at the agency level, but there was no official closure, only the President of the Russian Federation can cancel this program.

      In October 1995, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine V.N. Shmarov announced that, as part of the implementation of the new military doctrine, the country's government had decided to reduce the military space forces and liquidate the Buran spacecraft receiving aerodrome, but said that by 2000 Ukraine will have a "compact orbital grouping of military space forces of 4-5 vehicles."

      In 2002, the only Buran was destroyed during the collapse of the roof of the assembly and test building in Baikonur, in which it was stored with ready-made copies of the Energia launch vehicle.
      1. greshnik80
        greshnik80 16 January 2016 11: 14 New
        13
        What time are you from? Their Shuttles no longer fly. I dare to assure you of this.
      2. Tersky
        Tersky 16 January 2016 11: 22 New
        13
        Quote: Haettenschweiler
        "Theirs" "shuttles" fly as before, and quite often ...

        belay .... On the 16 of May 2011 of the year from the launch site at Cape Canaveral, the last launch of the Space Shuttle took place. Starting from this date, cargo delivery and change of crews of astronauts to the ISS are made by our "Unions".
      3. Fafnir
        Fafnir 16 January 2016 11: 24 New
        +5
        You are ... Change the training manual. Shuttles no longer fly.
        1. Haettenschweiler
          Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 11: 34 New
          -8
          Quote: Fafnir
          You are ... Change the training manual. Shuttles no longer fly.


          - You ... change the training manual. For the "shuttles" were replaced by "dragons", but the essence remained the same.

          Quote: greshnik80
          What time are you from? Their Shuttles no longer fly. I dare to assure you of this.


          “They just got replaced by Dragons.” The essence of this has not changed.
          “The first“ commercial ”launch of the spacecraft to the ISS was on October 7, 2012. The launch took place from the cosmodrome at Cape Canaveral in Florida at 20:35 local time. Dragon spaceship docked with the ISS on October 10.

          The truck delivered about 450 kilograms of payload to the ISS, including materials for 166 scientific experiments. Back to Earth, Dragon successfully returned about 900 kilograms of cargo, including decommissioned station details, as well as over 330 kilograms of research results.

          The ship undocked from the ISS on October 28, 2012 at 17:29 Moscow time, and returned to Earth, splashed in the Pacific at 23:22 Moscow time, at a distance of about 300 km from the coast of California.

          In the future, 11 more expeditions to the ISS are planned under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract, with an estimated value of $ 1,6 billion, concluded between SpaceX and NASA. "
          1. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 16 January 2016 11: 53 New
            +3
            Quote: Haettenschweiler
            “They just got replaced by Dragons.” The essence of this has not changed.

            Dragon has changed an unused device. And by the way, it has a common name with the Shuttle. It will never be manned. And this, write how many launches the Americans have had since the last shuttle flight
            1. Haettenschweiler
              Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 12: 01 New
              -1
              Quote: Pilat2009
              He will never be manned.



              On May 29, 2014, the company introduced a manned version of the Dragon reusable vehicle, which will allow the crew not only to get to the ISS, but to return to Earth with full control of the landing procedure. In the Dragon capsule, seven astronauts can simultaneously be located. Unlike the cargo version, it is able to dock with the ISS on its own, without using the station manipulator. The main differences are the controlled landing on engines (parachute scheme as a reserve), support for soft landing and a salon with chairs for astronauts and a control panel. It is also stated that the descent capsule will be reusable, the first unmanned flight is scheduled for 2015, manned - for 2016.

              Quote: Pilat2009
              And this, write how many launches the Americans have had since the last shuttle flight


              - Eight launches of the "Dragon", the ninth - an explosion.
              1. Fafnir
                Fafnir 16 January 2016 13: 00 New
                +4
                Yeah. And I’m finishing the Typhiter in the barn. Trial start in 2017. With sufficient funding, of course am If you demand proof, I’ll make a layout and a loud statement in the press. laughing
              2. Pilat2009
                Pilat2009 16 January 2016 13: 38 New
                0
                Quote: Haettenschweiler
                Eight launches of the "Dragon", the ninth - an explosion.

                That is, the nifiga is not safe. Who wants to fly into space?
              3. Gorodovik
                Gorodovik 16 January 2016 17: 47 New
                0
                Well, actually accidents happen. About 9 percent of accidents were ripped off in our space. And this is with spent media. In vain you show sarcasm.
              4. Fafnir
                Fafnir 16 January 2016 19: 16 New
                +2
                And you compare the failure statistics of cargo and manned systems. Then understand sarcasm.
      4. Tusv
        Tusv 16 January 2016 11: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: Haettenschweiler
        You ... change the training manual. For the "shuttles" were replaced by "dragons", but the essence remained the same.

        Piss in the toilet. A dragon is never a manned ship, unlike a space shuttle. Do you understand how a truck differs from a manned ship?
        1. Haettenschweiler
          Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 12: 02 New
          -5
          Quote: Tusv
          Piss in the toilet.


          - And learn the Russian language ... come in handy in life.

          Quote: Tusv
          A dragon is never a manned ship, unlike a space shuttle.


          - A manned version is already being developed. It seems that in the sixteenth year they want to start using the manned version.
          1. Tusv
            Tusv 16 January 2016 12: 19 New
            +4
            Quote: Haettenschweiler
            And learn the Russian language ... come in handy in life

            Great Russian has a lot of shades. To study it you need, like a cat, 9 lives.
            A manned version is already being developed. It seems that in the sixteenth year they want to start using the manned version

            Beta version? Not really in the Russian space taxi, only 2 passengers and no shock absorbers when landing, no air conditioning. Open the vent window nizya - last century :)
          2. Haettenschweiler
            Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 12: 24 New
            +4
            Quote: Tusv
            Great Russian has a lot of shades. To study it you need, like a cat, 9 lives.


            - Probably, you mean the numerous dialects of the Russian language. Indeed, the “Muscovites” hitch, and the Permians “hitch”, but still the Russian language is one.

            Quote: Tusv
            Beta version? Not really in the Russian space taxi, only 2 passengers and no shock absorbers when landing, no air conditioning. Open the vent window nizya - last century :)


            - But the problem is not at all that the Russian "hard workers" are worse (what kind of air conditioning, when should the crew be in spacesuits?), But that they have a good alternative. Even if the “Dragon” is worse and even more expensive ... will you ensure that the USA does not use the whole set of its “leverage” on partners to force them to buy launches from them? Even if they manage to sell their F-35, despite all the already known problems and its price.
          3. Tusv
            Tusv 16 January 2016 12: 41 New
            0
            Quote: Haettenschweiler
            but the fact that they have a good alternative. Even if the Dragon

            If my memory serves me, then the weighty alternative is called Orion.
            Even if they manage to sell their F-35, despite all the already known problems and its price.

            The customer is NATO, the contractor is the United States. Ordered - get it. No one canceled two percent. Money to dust. Will finish both the budget and the pepelats :)
          4. Haettenschweiler
            Haettenschweiler 16 January 2016 12: 46 New
            0
            Quote: Tusv
            If my memory serves me, then the weighty alternative is called Orion.


            - Before the "Orion" even before the moon. A launch is scheduled for 2018.

            Quote: Tusv
            The customer is NATO, the contractor is the United States. Ordered - get it. Yes, no one has canceled the percentage. Money to dust. Will finish both the budget and the pepelats :)


            - The Americans will finish it, but other countries, even in the NATO bloc, do not have a machine.
          5. Gorodovik
            Gorodovik 16 January 2016 17: 49 New
            0
            Quote: Haettenschweiler
            - Before the "Orion" even before the moon. A launch is scheduled for 2018.


            Only two years left. Obviously not like before the moon Roscosmos
          6. Scraptor
            Scraptor 18 January 2016 21: 52 New
            0
            And whether to the moon Roscosmos? The Soyuz spacecraft with which he now carries the Americans to the ISS (Mir-2) is the Soviet command module of the lunar spacecraft, in which, unlike the Apollo (which now for some reason do not fly), there is not only air conditioning but also a toilet. laughing
    2. ver_
      ver_ 16 January 2016 13: 30 New
      0
      ..it was announced that in the 2nd year Russia will stop flying to the ISS ..
    3. Scraptor
      Scraptor 18 January 2016 21: 55 New
      0
      and sell his share to the Chinese like Gorshkov india wassat

      Americans will have “neighbors” (though not via Amur-Ussuri)
      let them continue on to the ISS and carry them laughing yes
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 18 January 2016 21: 47 New
    0
    F-35 they have the same "own" as the module "Dawn" / "Dawn" on the ISS. laughing
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 16 January 2016 17: 38 New
    0
    "Dragon is not manned" - you tell its developers.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 18 January 2016 21: 55 New
      0
      So what? already flew with pilots?
  • iliitchitch
    iliitchitch 16 January 2016 11: 02 New
    -8
    Quote: Haettenschweiler
    - Firstly, they can cooperate, and then he will not go “half empty”. Secondly, the main threat is Falcon-9, a conveyor-made carrier. If the Americans bring it to mind, no one will buy launches from Russia.


    Yes to score on these, nobody else surpassed us in rocket engines. Let bamboo be smoked, but we have a little broth ... We are waiting. It will be necessary - the State will print money on this topic, and let all kinds of curls shut up.
  • LvKiller
    LvKiller 16 January 2016 12: 15 New
    0
    Do you know the starting weight of this "falcon"? And the weight that this American disgrace casts on the GSO? This is another competitor.
  • Orionvit
    Orionvit 16 January 2016 13: 12 New
    0
    I do not know. what they bring there and where, but so far, that Russia is practically the only one serving the ISS, and the only country that makes manned launches. Let's see what they do, but with the example of the United States, it is clear that the space program is clearly dying out. Won and rocket engines are bought from Russia, probably not from a good life. As they say, “we will see”, but it seems to me that this is all politics. They will make one launch, well, the second (provided that it works out), and then they will come to Russia again.
    1. Gorodovik
      Gorodovik 16 January 2016 17: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: Orionvit
      the only country that makes manned launches.

      But the Chinese are still flying. And many countries are already working on manned ships. It's a question of time.

      Quote: Orionvit
      but with the example of the usa, it is clear that the space program is clearly dying out.

      Yes. He sends devices into deep space. Actively working on a manned ship. It seems they started up already on a test flight. And he is developing a new engine for deep space flight. Nassovsky space is dying away at an active pace
  • jovanni
    jovanni 16 January 2016 14: 18 New
    +3
    Why bow? Just a business. If I drive a foreign car, this does not mean that I go to bow to the manufacturer ...
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 16 January 2016 10: 39 New
    +2
    Not yet, but very soon there will be a manned ship Dragon.
  • Amurets
    Amurets 16 January 2016 10: 53 New
    0
    By the way or not by the way. Today in the news it was from Vostochny, the first manned launch is planned for 2019 and immediately on the "Hangar". There will be no manned launches at Soyuz from Vostochny.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 January 2016 17: 42 New
      0
      How Angara 5 can fly in 2019 with a manned ship if the final tests of this rocket are completed only in 2023.
  • Sweles
    Sweles 16 January 2016 11: 06 New
    -1
    it's just a space auction, they want to bring down the price of launches on our alliances, can we do that? -Yes we can. The Union is a cheap and streamlined spaceship. For example, salaries at the Samara RCC Progress are such that there’s simply no where to reduce, people of the engineer and hard workers will not suffer, but if the main beneficiary of the start-ups of unions cut incomes, then there will be nothing wrong.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 16 January 2016 11: 27 New
      +3
      For some reason, no one paid attention to the fact that they refused to launch Soyuz-ST, and this is a cosmodrome in French Guiana on the north-east coast of South America, which was specially built for our rocket, which means that in the near future the Union will favor another they are unlikely to refuse rockets.
      Simply, at the moment, launching four satellites at once with one rocket is more economical than launching these four satellites with two missiles. There will be cargo for our missile - they will use it, and not some other one (which was probably calculated when choosing which missile to build a launch complex in Guiana)
      1. Orionvit
        Orionvit 16 January 2016 13: 58 New
        0
        You confuse a little economic feasibility with political conjuncture. It was necessary for politicians to impose sanctions against Russia, they did not look at multibillion-dollar losses and introduced them to their detriment. And it was precisely politicians and states who commanded outer space always and everywhere, and not economists and businessmen at all.
      2. Bayonet
        Bayonet 16 January 2016 16: 07 New
        0
        Quote: Bad_gr
        and this is a cosmodrome in French Guiana on the northeast coast of South America, which was specially built for our rocket,

        Not certainly in that way. The Kourou space center in French Guiana began to be built in 1965 at the initiative of the French Space Agency (CNES). The first launch from the Kourou cosmodrome was carried out on April 9, 1968. In 2007, work began on the launch site to build a site for launching Russian Soyuz-2 rockets.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 16 January 2016 18: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Bayonet
          .... at the cosmodrome, work began on the construction of a site for launching Russian Soyuz-2 missiles.

          This is what was meant. Moreover, it is not a cheap option (with a hangar on top of a rocket standing on the launch pad).
  • Alekseev
    Alekseev 16 January 2016 11: 18 New
    +5
    Quote: avvg
    And we will survive it too!

    That's for sure, but you need to draw the right conclusions.
    No one will allow a Russian corporation into its economic and technological niches, except by great necessity. And no WTO will help here.
    First of all, we must rely on the domestic market. Accordingly, limit the use of currency, introduce the ruble for foreign trade.
    You can buy abroad, as a rule, only parts, assemblies, some separate technical solutions, but not toilet paper and building materials for a billion dollars.
    It still has a floating rate, of course, significantly reduces imports, but much more needs to be improved in currency regulation and, most importantly, to establish normal lending to industry. There are no examples in history. Take, for example, lending to industry in Germany at the end of the 30s of the last century.
    One thing you need to know firmly in an economic system based on the US currency of Russia simply will not be allowed to develop effectively without washing, so skating.
    1. your1970
      your1970 16 January 2016 12: 53 New
      0
      "Take, for example, lending to industry in Germany at the end of the 30 of the last century."
      Who credited? A number of the largest oligarchs, including the American ones? Maggi, Nivea, Nestle, Standard Oil, Ford, SKF, General Motors, General Electric, Kodak, Aybiem, Coca-Cola corporations (By the way, they started doing Fantu in Germany under Hitler !!!) etc.
      How did it end? Nuremberg ...
      So do not give such examples of lending, like Germany in 30.
    2. iliitchitch
      iliitchitch 16 January 2016 16: 43 New
      -2
      The parasites are pressing us hard. But is it time to "get rid of the ruble"? Stupidly, "buy a brick" to arrange for everyone, including the Chinese. They’re not going anywhere, they’ll buy it. Are they isolating us? Come on, there isn’t enough tape.
    3. iliitchitch
      iliitchitch 16 January 2016 19: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: Alekseev
      One thing you need to know firmly in an economic system based on the US currency of Russia simply will not be allowed to develop effectively without washing, so skating.


      In such a system, we are just passengers, they will cheat like suckers, it’s more profitable to play with a catalan with a speckled deck. If they said “A” in Syria, now “B” in the economy is necessary. The Chinese are pissed off, do not make sudden movements, well, okay. I hope the President knows what he’s doing. Yes, what kind of bolt should I steam in the morning about the exchange rate of some dollar ???
  • opus
    opus 16 January 2016 14: 44 New
    0
    Quote: avvg
    And we will survive it too!


    Why not "survive something"?
    I will explain now:
    Quote: Author
    will not use Soyuz-ST’s Russian carrier to launch Galileo satellites - spacecraft in orbit will launch their own Ariane-5 heavy missiles

    1. Only for the period 1995-2007, Arianspace placed orders for 99 pH at EADS, 43 launches were made, of which 39 were successful.
    Do you need to go somewhere?
    2. The cost of withdrawal
    Arian ECA launch vehicle (launch weight, kg 777000): 150 million euros, but it costs about 170 million euros per launch
    can bring two satellites with a total mass of 10 kg and one satellite with a mass of 000 kg to the GPO.
    Total of almost 21 tons
    7142 Euro / kg
    Soyuz-ST launch vehicle (launch weight of 313 kg) can withdraw up to 000 kg (from Guiana, and maybe it’s from Belarus, then in fact 9000-3 kg) the launch cost is € 4000-60 million.
    from 8000 Euro / kg
    + with delivery of trouble
    + The Soyuz-ST-B launch vehicle is going to TsSKB-Progress, and it needs to be delivered to Guiana:

    + Mobile service tower (manufactured with us, delivered there, assembled there, it must be maintained in good shape, again, it’s all ours)
    In general, when ESA was NEEDED

    they took advantage.

    For practically GSO (GALILEO) indicators are even worse.
    3. RB "Frigate" has been naughty lately
    (Soyuz-ST-B LV with the Frigate-MT booster block and two European Galileo satellites launched from the Kourou equatorial spaceport on August 22, 2014, did not launch satellites into the calculated orbit due to the abnormal operation of the Fregat-MT RB, presumably as a result of an error in the software on board and containing the incorrect flight mission)

    Quote: SRC P-15
    And when you need to launch one or two satellites, you still have to go to bow to Russia - you won’t send the “ship” half empty.


    1. The use of different options for payload containers allows the simultaneous launch of two to three satellites and placement of up to eight microsatellites. The launch vehicle is used to supply the International Space Station (ISS) with the help of cargo ships.
    2.VN Vega (Vega - Vettore Europeo di Generazione Avanzata)
    May 07, 2013 02:06:31 VERTA ser№ VV02 - the first commercial launch

  • The comment was deleted.
  • nycsson
    nycsson 16 January 2016 19: 13 New
    -1
    Quote: avvg
    And we will survive it too!

    The farther into the forest, the more firewood. Of course we survive. Man gets used to everything. And to starvation too. wassat
  • GDV
    GDV 16 January 2016 10: 25 New
    +1
    Import substitution?
  • Sorokin
    Sorokin 16 January 2016 10: 29 New
    +2
    No, of course, the component of commercial confrontation is clear. But we will see what happens. There were already examples.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 16 January 2016 10: 32 New
      +5
      This is only the beginning, every year less and less will use our services to remove the payload.
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 16 January 2016 10: 33 New
      +7
      The cost of launching Ariana-5 is 150 million Euros. 4 satellites
      Union of 70 million, 2 satellites
      That is, the Union is cheaper, but Arian-5 is European. Ie European import substitution.
      1. corporal
        corporal 16 January 2016 10: 38 New
        +6
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Ie European import substitution.

        Europeans act wisely. In order not to steal their potential, they will support their space industry, although this will cost them a little more.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 16 January 2016 10: 42 New
          +2
          Not the fact that more expensive. After all, firms engaged in production will pay taxes, workers will pay taxes, etc. Plus, you won’t have to pay another pile of unemployed benefits.
          1. NIKNN
            NIKNN 16 January 2016 10: 53 New
            +2
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Not the fact that more expensive. After all, firms engaged in production will pay taxes, workers will pay taxes, etc. Plus, you won’t have to pay another pile of unemployed benefits.

            That's the point. Our workers would be paid 2 times more and taxes were removed, but not PLATO introduced request
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 16 January 2016 10: 56 New
              -1
              Quote: NIKNN
              That's the point. Our workers would be paid 2 times more and taxes were removed, but not PLATO introduced

              To do this, you need to raise your ass, and at bureaucrats it is like a black hole.
            2. Fafnir
              Fafnir 16 January 2016 11: 29 New
              +8
              That's about PLATO is not necessary! These trucks were pulled up with overload on a single-lane highway uphill at a speed of 15 km / h! Believe me, after such trips you will not only enter PLATO and there will be a desire to shoot them!
      2. Pilat2009
        Pilat2009 16 January 2016 13: 52 New
        0
        Quote: BlackMokona
        The cost of launching Ariana-5 is 150 million Euros. 4 satellites

        You will also enable the uncertainty factor. There will be an emergency launch and 4 satellites will be covered with a copper basin.
        We now need to work on reliability so that the image is iron. The Union is a well-developed machine (if we subtract the human factor), it is not for nothing that they are now using + environmentally friendly fuel instead of Progress. What will happen there with the Angara is still unknown.
        By the way, there are interesting ideas in the SU - so that the SU of the booster block and the starting stages was one, otherwise it is difficult to match them from different manufacturers
  • 15 apr
    15 apr 16 January 2016 10: 30 New
    +3
    Well, well done, work on yourself, since 4 satellites are launched immediately.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 16 January 2016 14: 41 New
      0
      Quote: 15Apr
      Well, well done, work on yourself, since 4 satellites are launched immediately.

      It’s just stupidly load-carrying capacity. It was possible to put 6 on the Energy.
      Meanwhile:
      Roscosmos plans to begin developing a natural gas rocket engine in the near future
      In TsSKB already feel the problems of production of rocket kerosene. Soyuz rockets, which are made in Samara, now fly on artificially created fuel, because initially only certain types of oil from specific wells were used to create kerosene for these missiles. This is mainly the oil of the Anastasievsk-Troitsky field in the Krasnodar Territory. But oil wells are depleted, and the currently used kerosene is a mixture of compositions that are extracted from several wells. According to experts, the deficit problem will only get worse here.

      At TsSKB Progress, it was believed that the use of engines on LNG would “ensure a relatively low start-up cost - 1,5–2 times lower than on kerosene engines, high environmental friendliness, higher specific characteristics, a single engine and fuel type“ LNG + liquid oxygen ", which will greatly simplify the ground infrastructure."
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 16 January 2016 14: 41 New
      0
      Quote: 15Apr
      Well, well done, work on yourself, since 4 satellites are launched immediately.

      It’s just stupidly load-carrying capacity. It was possible to put 6 on the Energy.
      Meanwhile:
      Roscosmos plans to begin developing a natural gas rocket engine in the near future
      In TsSKB already feel the problems of production of rocket kerosene. Soyuz rockets, which are made in Samara, now fly on artificially created fuel, because initially only certain types of oil from specific wells were used to create kerosene for these missiles. This is mainly the oil of the Anastasievsk-Troitsky field in the Krasnodar Territory. But oil wells are depleted, and the currently used kerosene is a mixture of compositions that are extracted from several wells. According to experts, the deficit problem will only get worse here.

      At TsSKB Progress, it was believed that the use of engines on LNG would “ensure a relatively low start-up cost - 1,5–2 times lower than on kerosene engines, high environmental friendliness, higher specific characteristics, a single engine and fuel type“ LNG + liquid oxygen ", which will greatly simplify the ground infrastructure."
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 16 January 2016 17: 11 New
        0
        While they will build and test this engine on methane, half of the satellites abroad will be launched using an air launch - Roscosmos should take into account that foreign firms will completely abandon our help in removing the payload.
        1. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 16 January 2016 19: 56 New
          0
          Quote: Vadim237
          by air start

          If everything was so simple, then our Air Launch would become a monopolist.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 17 January 2016 10: 23 New
            0
            In the 20s it will become.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 18 January 2016 22: 44 New
              0
              And where are the expensive Arians (which, in comparison with the Unions, are still not intended for manned launches)?
  • Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 16 January 2016 10: 31 New
    -3
    I wish you a bad start. smile
    1. corporal
      corporal 16 January 2016 10: 39 New
      +8
      Quote: Vladimirets
      I wish you a bad start

      Colleague, with all due respect hi It is shallow and unworthy.
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 16 January 2016 10: 40 New
        +2
        Quote: Corporal
        shallow and unworthy.

        I agree, but I want it so much. repeat
        1. corporal
          corporal 16 January 2016 10: 44 New
          +2
          Quote: Vladimirets
          but I want it so much

          You are angry today wassat
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 16 January 2016 10: 52 New
            +5
            Quote: Corporal
            You are angry today

            Yeah, right now I’m hungry for glassworm, I feed the bear, I sbatsayu on the balalaika and feel better. laughing
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 18 January 2016 22: 45 New
              0
              The only question that remains is why were these Frenchmen presented with a starting table in Kourou?
        2. evil partisan
          evil partisan 16 January 2016 11: 55 New
          +2
          Quote: Vladimirets
          I agree, but I want it so much.

          Let the launch be successful yes. But past the right orbit winked .
  • yuriy55
    yuriy55 16 January 2016 10: 36 New
    0
    Yes, really, it would be time for ourselves ... slowly ... It's so simple, almost the same:

    I sat reading a newspaper (Charlie Ebdo?) ... Someone fired a rocket ... laughing
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 16 January 2016 10: 38 New
    0
    It is of course their right to choose a medium. But the "Union" for many years has shown itself as a reliable means of delivery.
    1. corporal
      corporal 16 January 2016 10: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: rotmistr60
      But the "Union" for many years has shown itself as a reliable means of delivery.

      So no one argues. But, apparently, they do not want to be completely dependent on either NASA or Roscosmos.
    2. Sorokin
      Sorokin 16 January 2016 11: 21 New
      +2
      Yes, everything rests on the Proton engines. They haven’t come up with anything better. Sorry of course for narrow thinking. But these engines are being assembled in Lyady. And while the factory is working. And it will work. They have no alternative to our taxiways and mustache.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 16 January 2016 17: 13 New
        0
        Now there is no alternative, and tomorrow it will appear.
  • 33 Watcher
    33 Watcher 16 January 2016 10: 40 New
    0
    And what about the spaceport in French Guiana? It was built for the Union ... Will it be converted to Arian? Or..?
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 16 January 2016 10: 49 New
      +2
      Kuru was originally built near Vega and Arian - 3 site. But under the Union, one site was later completed.
    2. Nymp
      Nymp 16 January 2016 10: 50 New
      0
      I removed the question from the language! It is necessary to rummage in the Internet, can infa on this account?
    3. barclay
      barclay 16 January 2016 10: 51 New
      +1
      Under the "Union" there is only one of the sites. There are others.
    4. Aleksander
      Aleksander 16 January 2016 11: 03 New
      -1
      Quote: Observer 33
      And what about the spaceport in French Guiana?


      And is it French Guiana? It’s time for Brazil to clean it ....
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. 33 Watcher
      33 Watcher 16 January 2016 18: 07 New
      0
      Already for the question, minus, well, you give ..!
  • Not_invented
    Not_invented 16 January 2016 10: 40 New
    +2
    What will happen when Musk connects with its reusable missiles and China with its cheap ones? :(
  • barclay
    barclay 16 January 2016 10: 41 New
    +2
    Well, this was to be expected over time. Probably this time has come. Europeans are technically advanced enough to use only one launch vehicle (especially not their own). But, most likely, they will not immediately refuse from the "Unions".
    1. Orionvit
      Orionvit 16 January 2016 13: 38 New
      +1
      I want to correct, the Europeans were quite technically developed. Now everything is moving by inertia, while specialists who were trained in the 80s are still alive. In Europe, a terrible shortage of qualified personnel. For example, in England in the field of military production or at nuclear power plants, foreigners cannot be legally employed. Scandal, no one to work. Almost all pensioners have their own, but there are no new personnel. Either stupid graduates of modern liberal education, or even stupid newcomers Negroes and Arabs.
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 16 January 2016 10: 44 New
    0
    It may blame, but based on the interests of Russia, I will be glad for the failure of European missile launches. Use GLONAS, you bastards! Why should Europeans navigate future owners from Africa and the Middle East?
  • Olegater
    Olegater 16 January 2016 10: 45 New
    +3
    This is to be expected. Refusal from our carriers is good on the one hand. Let them fall to rockets and cause damage. I’m not sure that during the time when they used our media, Europe somehow developed and improved its media. On the other hand, we will not receive money from sales of carriers, and yet the financing of our space industry will slightly decrease. And another point - the increasing launches of Europeans of GPS satellites, this indicates preparation for a global conflict (I am not panicking, but trying to summarize what has been said) in the end, these navigation satellites will be used for military purposes. One more thing "The developers of the system claim that Galileo will be more accurate than its counterparts, and" will provide Europeans independence from American GPS, Russian GLONASS and promising Chinese Compass "" but independence is doubtful, given how the politicians of the euro ...... we went under the louse. This is nothing more than an addition to the Amer ZhPS.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 16 January 2016 11: 03 New
      +4
      Well, Arian-5 has excellent 83 launch statistics - 4 files, and all 4 files are the first 15 launches. After more than one emergency.

      It was Arians who brought Rosetta out, it is Arians who are now using the ATV program (delivery of scientific blocks and important cargoes to the ISS).

      Vega will be easy, but so far it’s been collected in pieces, two a year.

      Well, if Elon copes, there will be a revolution in space affairs. The Falcon is assembled as a Ford, and then they are again launched into space, which further reduces the cost. The last mission in December 2015 for the first time completely completed the program, brought out all the satellites, and the stage sat down softly.
      1. sir_obs
        sir_obs 16 January 2016 11: 22 New
        +3
        There is no revolution here. The return steps were worked out by both the Americans and us. With the same fit and even pro-nary hollows. But such a scheme was abandoned. Repeated preparation for the launch of such a stage is not much cheaper than manufacturing a new one. And he eats more fuel, for landing you need to decently store up.
        Only hassle with cleaning from soot and soot. And if you look at the stage it is all black, and especially in the area of ​​engines. And everything should be mirror polished so as not to create additional temperature loads. In addition, it is not known how the structure itself withstood the landing, the modet deformed it and how much the engines will work reliably during repeated starts.
        There are so far more questions than answers to them.
        And in addition, all starts at the American go to the stoton of the sea. So, they will have to land in the wild, that is, on the platform. And they still haven’t succeeded.
        It is too early to make all bets on this project.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 18 January 2016 22: 54 New
          0
          All that remains is the question of why all this if the step can simply be parachuted wassat
  • Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 16 January 2016 10: 46 New
    +2
    Come on, the whole earth's orbit is one big garbage dump. there is little trash there, so we will dirt the near-earth space ahead of schedule, just do not yell, that Russian satellites fly nearby, and they behave strangely.
  • APASUS
    APASUS 16 January 2016 10: 51 New
    0
    I hope they have had 10 years to fix a computer error, so let's see.
    Good luck!
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 16 January 2016 10: 58 New
      +2
      For 10 years, Ariana-5 has 59 successful launches, without a single setback.
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%BF%D1%83%
      D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%B8%
      D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%90%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD-5
  • Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 16 January 2016 10: 55 New
    +1
    This is reasonable from the point of view of Europe. There is competition in the space launch market. "Arian 5"- the missile is expensive, and then there is"Falcon-9"came to the market. They need to load their rocket.

    I'm interested in examine the whole scheme for theft. Specifically, explore the launch contract. The service tower, as far as I know, was made in Russia; for whose money? If it turns out that it’s ours and if it turns out that on the European side the contract easily allows you to refuse to use the Soyuz-STA missile ( infrastructure will not pay off), then it will be either sloppiness or theft. Who traveled to Europe and signed defective contracts? To the nail!
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 16 January 2016 14: 33 New
      0
      Quote: Gormengast
      Who traveled to Europe and signed defective contracts?

      I don’t know who was driving there, but there was infa that they bought 15-20 launches in the near future. In addition, they launch not only Galileo, but also third-party satellites, since it’s easier to launch from Guiana, it’s more weight and higher orbit
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 16 January 2016 10: 57 New
    +3
    Well, yourself, so yourself ... We will survive! Good luck from the heart ... hi
  • Deniska
    Deniska 16 January 2016 11: 03 New
    +1
    Why worry then? You just need to strive to create a cheaper, lifting and competitive rocket.
  • vfqjh
    vfqjh 16 January 2016 11: 15 New
    0
    Flag in their hands! The staff also boasted that without our engines they could cope with space, and the contract was extended. In how !!!
  • MolGro
    MolGro 16 January 2016 11: 24 New
    0
    Well, compare 2 rockets of different classes) stupid!
    Ariane-5 (NOO-21t, GPO-6,5t) is comparable only with Proton-M (NOO-23t, GPO-6,74t, GSO-3.7t) or Angara-A5 (NOO-38t, GPO-12t GSO-10t) and then not in favor of Europeans)
    1. Gormenghast
      Gormenghast 16 January 2016 13: 16 New
      0
      "Angara-5" only with KVTK will have such characteristics. And when this oxygen-hydrogen booster block appears - is unknown. Dates are called only when they are respected. Hydrogen technology in Russia has been lost since the dismemberment of the USSR.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 16 January 2016 19: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: Gormengast
        "Angara-5" only with KVTK will have such characteristics. And when this oxygen-hydrogen booster block appears - is unknown.

        Ariane-5 is our competitor only because of the more favorable location of the cosmodrome (closer to the equator). The rocket itself is not the top of perfection: some powder boosters are worth something.
        By the way, if we recall the ozone layer, the products of the combustion of solid fuel accelerators with ozone are not very friendly: after their interaction, huge holes remain in the ozone layer.
  • Cfif2303
    Cfif2303 16 January 2016 11: 34 New
    +1
    God forbid that European missiles do not fall ... a lot of garbage ...
  • Pencil
    Pencil 16 January 2016 12: 04 New
    0
    I think the matter is different. I already wrote once that, in principle, insurance covers damage. But purely material. But the damage from the loss of satellites, which were created over the years, which laid a huge intellectual base, designed to provide a technical advantage for the next 10 years, this will not be covered by any, even 10-fold insurance. When, for example, they drown a unique satellite tracking missile launches, which have been done for 10 years. Who will give the country another 10 years and billions of rubles to repeat? Razzzz - and the country is thrown back 10 years. Only the governing green managers - believe that money is everything ...
    1. Tusv
      Tusv 16 January 2016 12: 49 New
      0
      Quote: Pencil
      When, for example, they drown a unique satellite tracking missile launches, which have been done for 10 years. Who will give the country another 10 years and billions of rubles to repeat? Razzzz - and the country is thrown back 10 years. Only the governing green managers - believe that money is everything ...

      The ten-year development is billions, but also the complete works of technical documentation for cloning during the year
  • TsUS-Air Force
    TsUS-Air Force 16 January 2016 12: 13 New
    -1
    Vova is the right kid, he will not let the astronautics bend!
  • k1000
    k1000 16 January 2016 12: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: Haettenschweiler

    - “Roskosmos” may not survive. He survived by orders from the outside. There will be no orders - there will be no our space program.

    To date, there are more than 2 launches of the Soyuz-50 launch vehicle from Plesetsk and Bike, and Soyuz-ST has been launched 2 times from Guiana, what can you "not survive" here?
    Of course we have a lot of problems, but not everything is so gloomy
  • Leprekon
    Leprekon 16 January 2016 12: 32 New
    +1
    Yes, and to hell with them. But only in case of failure with their rocket, establish a new, increased tariff for using ours!
  • Support
    Support 16 January 2016 12: 43 New
    +3
    PUTIN, damn it, shoot down all the ministers led by the prime minister, disperse the main bandits-the deputies and there will be grace in Russia .... they’re embarrassed, they’ve already been so stupid ...
  • Orionvit
    Orionvit 16 January 2016 13: 19 New
    0
    Quote: Haettenschweiler
    Quote: Oleg147741
    It will survive if officials do not steal.


    - So I say - the end of our space program, if there are no orders.

    You say that the space program and Roscosmos is a commercial enterprise. In all countries, space programs have always been funded by the state, and commercial launches, this is so, to maintain the pants, to slightly reduce the financial burden, well, to show yourself. It’s like advertising and political agitation, and of course wipe the nose of competitors.
  • Ajent cho
    Ajent cho 16 January 2016 14: 17 New
    0
    Those. Do they have their own "import substitution"? lol
  • Gerhard
    Gerhard 16 January 2016 14: 58 New
    +1
    I want the comments of the dubil who broadcast about trampolines that the "trampoline" turned out to be a rocket?
    1. Tusv
      Tusv 16 January 2016 15: 30 New
      0
      Quote: Gerhard
      I want the comments of the dubil who broadcast about trampolines that the "trampoline" turned out to be a rocket?

      Maybe they can. All the same, the French collected the sixth Ariana for 6 years, but settled on the fifth. It remains only to run
  • Stranger
    Stranger 16 January 2016 15: 25 New
    +2
    Hi, they scored the main thing, they just wash money. By the way, this is not the first time, I live 14 years in Ger. on all channels, I’ll understand and deny which Great Cosmonauts a-ts and some information about the USSR and R.
  • gergi
    gergi 16 January 2016 16: 06 New
    -2
    God grant the calves of the wolf catch. See do not be divorced, Europeans!
  • electrooleg
    electrooleg 16 January 2016 16: 56 New
    0
    I wonder what their percentage of failure and unsuccessful launches will be compared to our missiles.
  • evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 16 January 2016 17: 28 New
    +2
    Well ... refused and refused. We survive. Moreover, their own carrier arrived in time.
  • Old26
    Old26 17 January 2016 00: 35 New
    0
    Quote: SRC P-15
    And when you need to launch one or two satellites, you still have to go to bow to Russia - you won’t send the “ship” half empty.

    Something recently in VO more and more similar blunders began to appear. The title is one - the text is different. In the heading, France REFUSED to launch its navigation satellites by our Unions-ST, in the text that in 2016 it would not launch by the Unions.
    In 2016, 4 satellites will be launched with one rocket. In 2017, our Union will launch the next TWO satellites

    Quote: hrych
    Yars, Mace and Iskander are our trump cards in the arms race and they are solid fuel.

    Of the three mentioned, two are Soviet-made


    Quote: Orionvit
    I do not know. what they bring there and where, but so far, that Russia is practically the only one serving the ISS

    So what? How long will this go on? The pilots are really HOWLY only we are. In the trucks we are already pushed aside. European and Japanese take several times more cargo than the "Progress", plus the "Dragon" and "Swan"

    Quote: Orionvit
    Russia is the only country that produces manned launches.

    You have to understand that a country like China is in a different, alternative reality ????

    Quote: Orionvit
    Let's see what they do, but with the example of the United States, it is clear that the space program is clearly dying out.

    Who? We have? It seems ... Others, on the contrary, are developing their space programs.

    Quote: Orionvit
    Won and rocket engines are bought from Russia, probably not from a good life.

    How much is this, how can a mantra be repeated? We bought a hundred, but as much conversation as if we had bought tens of thousands of engines. And while they are buying, we have at least a factory afloat. A stop? What then? But they will stop it in the next two to three years. Engines with similar characteristics are now undergoing fire tests.

    Quote: Orionvit
    As they say, “we will see”, but it seems to me that this is all politics. They will make one launch, well, the second (provided that it works out), and then they will come to Russia again.

    It will be late to watch. The Americans are developing 5 or 6 new ships, including only one pure cargo. Dates of test flights - 2016-2017. But we moved our new ship to 2024. And what will be more preferable for the customer. Send, even for a large amount, 4-5 cosmonauts to orbit at a time, or pay Russians, albeit cheaper for a single launch, but at least 3 launches ???
  • project sity
    project sity 17 January 2016 17: 32 New
    0
    I don’t know why hope in Europe! They have already heated Russia with the Ministry of Industry, and here it is.
  • prosto_rgb
    prosto_rgb 17 January 2016 20: 21 New
    0
    what is there to argue?
    Caution Curved Humor.