Military Review

Roscosmos announced the abandonment of the project to develop missiles with a returnable 1-th stage

97
The Federal Space Agency reported that they are refusing to implement a project to create a rocket complex with the first stage being returned to Earth. Previously, such a project was announced by Roscosmos, and its code name LEK-VRB appeared. Information Agency TASS, referring to Izvestia, reports that the development of a missile complex with a returnable first stage was previously estimated at 12,5 billion rubles, and is now rated as “having no economic sense”.


It should be noted that the initial funds in the amount of 250 million rubles have already been allocated for the development of reusable first stages of rockets by Roscosmos. Work on the project was started in the center of Khrunichev. The fate of the spent funds is still unknown ...

Today, Roscosmos announced the time of the first launch from the Vostochny space center.

Roscosmos announced the abandonment of the project to develop missiles with a returnable 1-th stage


The interim head of the Federal Space Agency, Alexander Ivanov, announced that the first launch of the Soyuz-2.1 launch vehicle is scheduled for the second half of April this year. Recall that in the earlier version of the plan, the first launch of the launch vehicle was scheduled for the end of 2015, but it was decided to correct the plans as a result.
Photos used:
http://www.federalspace.ru
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ami du peuple
    Ami du peuple 20 January 2016 12: 30 New
    +6
    .. for the development of reusable first stages of rockets Roscosmos have already allocated initial funds in the amount of 250 million rubles. The fate of the financial resources spent is still unknown.... that the development of a missile system with a returnable first stage was previously estimated at 12,5 billion rubles, and is now rated as "not having economic sense."

    Fate is known - spent nafig. Well, 250 lyamas for recognizing the lack of prospects of the development is a low price, isn't it? (it's that .. sarcasm bully ) Just 2% of the planned amount. Oh, two percent .. Something remembered Mr. Kasyanov M.M. aka "Misha is two percent." Coincidence?
    1. Riv
      Riv 20 January 2016 12: 34 New
      +6
      Well, you can tumble down another 250 lyam. To make sure to the end.
      1. Oznob
        Oznob 20 January 2016 12: 38 New
        22
        Guys, it's 4 times cheaper than repairing Vyucheysky Street in the city of Arkhangelsk. Our former mayor could teach colleagues from the Khrunichev center his kung fu. wassat
      2. evge-malyshev
        evge-malyshev 20 January 2016 15: 08 New
        +2
        The fate of the financial resources spent is still unknown ...

        Well why. And do you think the conclusion about refusing to implement the controversial project is worthless? Moreover, not only Khrunichev was involved in this project.
        1. Poppy
          Poppy 20 January 2016 16: 00 New
          0
          it is considered much cheaper
      3. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 20 January 2016 23: 57 New
        0
        It’s high time to look for fundamentally new technologies for putting payload into space. The current ones are not effective for one simple reason: the energy of the first stage is spent primarily on giving acceleration to itself. The mass of the first stage is about 85% of the total mass of the ship. Instead of using the first stage, you can consider options when the ship gets its initial acceleration on a reusable acceleration track built like electromagnetic guns or something similar. This technology will really allow many times to reduce the cost of output payload.
    2. alone
      alone 20 January 2016 12: 36 New
      +5
      And no one, no one bothers to ask: Where are these 250 million spent?

      And more

      that the development of a missile system with a returnable first stage was previously estimated at 12,5 billion rubles, and is now rated as "not having economic meaning."


      That is, it used to have economic sense, but now it doesn’t. It’s not clear how it was. What couldn’t be guessed before?
      1. GRAY
        GRAY 20 January 2016 12: 51 New
        10
        Quote: lonely
        And no one, no one bothers to ask: Where are these 250 million spent?

        But is it said somewhere that the entire amount spent? So allocated or spent? And then, any development, even at the draft design level, costs money.
        1. alone
          alone 20 January 2016 12: 54 New
          +6
          Quote: GRAY
          But is it said somewhere that the entire amount spent? So allocated or spent? And then, any development, even at the draft design level, costs money.


          In our time, the concept is allocated and spent is one and the same
        2. your1970
          your1970 20 January 2016 18: 14 New
          +3
          If you approach from such a position, then a weapon designed and manufactured - but not accepted in service with the USSR-also grandmother plundered and sawed the budget?
      2. opus
        opus 20 January 2016 14: 07 New
        +2
        Quote: lonely
        That is, it used to have economic sense, but now it doesn’t. It’s not clear how it was. What couldn’t be guessed before?


        Space X: using a reusable rocket will significantly reduce the cost of space programs:
        the return stage costs $ 54 million (- $ 200 thousand)
        This amount reduces the cost of each launch. T
        fuel for launching a rocket into orbit costs only $ 200 thousand

        Corresponding Member of the Russian Tsiolkovsky Academy of Cosmonautics Andrei Ionin claims:
        The use of landing systems reduces the carrying capacity of the Falcon 9 by no less than 30%.
        (lies, less: there are fuel leftovers and Americans have up to 15% start "more profitable" because of latitude)

        Musk convinces that the cost of delivering 1 kilogram of cargo to low Earth orbit may drop to $ 1100, which is much less than what Russian contractors charge for it.

        Zenit-2 / 3SL = $ 2 567 / kg
        "Union" = $ 4 / kg
        Falcon-9 v1.1 (2012) = $ 4 / kg

        So you can argue with a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics.
      3. Sharky
        Sharky 20 January 2016 15: 38 New
        +2
        "It should be noted that the development of reusable first stages of rockets by Roscosmos has already allocated initial funds in the amount of 250 million rubles. Work on the project has been started in the center of Khrunichev. The fate of the funds spent is still unknown."
        1. nizrum
          nizrum 20 January 2016 15: 58 New
          +1
          And you thought the development was free? From the article, I realized that the stage was still developed, but it did not fit the price.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      4. Ezhaak
        Ezhaak 20 January 2016 18: 00 New
        0
        Quote: lonely
        And no one, no one bothers to ask: Where are these 250 million spent?
        There is a specialist economist on the site. Ask her, she can share, tell how and how the money is spent. Just ask for more details.
    3. oldseaman1957
      oldseaman1957 20 January 2016 12: 38 New
      +6
      Quote: Ami du peuple
      ... Just 2% of the planned amount ... low price ...
      - Well, because of such "streams" we are in a complete anus. They are planting, planting, but there is no sense in seeing anything. Maybe you need to hang?
      1. Boos
        Boos 20 January 2016 12: 45 New
        +1
        Who will plant them? "United Horns and Hooves" are beyond jurisdiction!)))
      2. alone
        alone 20 January 2016 12: 46 New
        0
        Quote: oldseaman1957
        So, because of such "streams" we are in a complete anus. They are planting, planting, but there is no sense in seeing anything. Maybe you need to hang?

        Do you think that this will change something? Even in the time of Peter they hanged those who robbed the state treasury. They still steal it)))
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 20 January 2016 13: 07 New
          +1
          Quote: lonely
          Even in the time of Peter they hanged those who robbed the state treasury. They still steal)))

          Remember how His Grace Prince Menshikov answered Peter the Great when he intended to hang on a rope everyone who steals anything at a price higher than the rope? "Sire, you will remain without a single subject"
          1. Boos
            Boos 20 January 2016 14: 18 New
            +3
            He was brave, but stealing.
          2. Ezhaak
            Ezhaak 20 January 2016 18: 28 New
            0
            Quote: Ami du peuple
            hang on a rope everyone who steals something

            But then Israel will be the first to break off relations with Russia and demand that Penguinostan declare war on Russia.
        2. max702
          max702 20 January 2016 13: 18 New
          +8
          Quote: lonely
          Do you think that this will change something? Even in the time of Peter they hanged those who robbed the state treasury. They still steal it)))

          Bullshit .. Remember Comrade Stalin, and once again think what you said .. Everything can be changed, there would be a desire to change something ..
          1. alone
            alone 20 January 2016 13: 48 New
            +1
            Quote: max702
            Remember Comrade Stalin, and again think what you said


            I know what I’m writing and what I’m saying. In China, they also hang in thousands and what? Nobody steals and takes bribes? A banknote crunch stupefies every person and doesn’t think about the consequences when he steals or takes bribes.
            1. Boos
              Boos 20 January 2016 16: 59 New
              +3
              But there is a "natural selection", not thinking less about the consequences. And if you compare the achievements of China and Russia, then everything becomes clear ...
        3. oborzevatel
          oborzevatel 20 January 2016 13: 34 New
          +2
          Quote: lonely
          Quote: oldseaman1957
          So, because of such "streams" we are in a complete anus. They are planting, planting, but there is no sense in seeing anything. Maybe you need to hang?

          Do you think that this will change something? Even in the time of Peter they hanged those who robbed the state treasury. They still steal it)))

          It is necessary to act more thoughtfully.
      3. oborzevatel
        oborzevatel 20 January 2016 13: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: oldseaman1957
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        ... Just 2% of the planned amount ... low price ...
        - Well, because of such "streams" we are in a complete anus. They are planting, planting, but there is no sense in seeing anything. Maybe you need to hang?

        Hang ... hmm, too humane ...
        Bury Alive ...
    4. iouris
      iouris 20 January 2016 12: 43 New
      0
      What is the purpose of such a development? There is an effectively working system, why create a competitor for it for your own money? Let the USA do this for now.
    5. barclay
      barclay 20 January 2016 12: 44 New
      +6
      In order to get a specific result, in any case, financial injections are indispensable. Simply, these injections should be reasonable and controlled.
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 20 January 2016 13: 10 New
        +8
        The efficiency of this stage is low, because it is necessary to leave fuel for landing, and not to spend on the payload. And another question is related to the fact that a rocket engine for repeated launches may not work properly. hi
        So the Americans in vain got involved with this technology. The likelihood of a successful landing is low - there has not been a single one yet.
        1. Ural resident
          Ural resident 20 January 2016 15: 40 New
          +1
          The Americans, as I understand it, are working out technology for landing on Mars. Why don't we do this, because when the time comes, we’ll have to start from scratch ...
    6. Maxom75
      Maxom75 20 January 2016 13: 32 New
      0
      And they wanted to do the first step on methane, they said it was beneficial that the tightness requirement is lower for the raw material and the wagon, and there it was. Well, then nothing will be through amer Mask satellites launch since their head is not on their shoulders.
    7. opus
      opus 20 January 2016 14: 17 New
      +8
      Quote: Ami du peuple
      Well, 250 lyamas for recognizing the lack of prospects of the development is a low price, isn't it? (this is .. sarcasm) Just 2% of the planned amount


      no not like this.

      Development work under the code LEK-VRB
      “A space rocket complex with a light carrier rocket with a reusable return first stage, which provides payloads with a mass of up to 1 ton to be launched into low orbits, is being created taking into account the outline design developed as part of the MRS-1 development project until 2016 "


      The Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute conducted a systematic analysis of design materials for various options of the reusable space-rocket system (MRKS-1). The work was commissioned by Roskosmos and FSUE TsNIImash, TsAGI press service reports.
      MRKS-1 is a partially reusable vertical launch vehicle based on the winged reusable first stage, made according to the airplane scheme and returned to the launch area for horizontal landing on the 1st class airfield, and on the basis of disposable second stages and booster blocks. The first stage winged reusable unit is equipped with reusable marching liquid rocket engines.
      TsAGI specialists appreciated the rational frequency of use of the first stage of the MRKS-1, the options for demonstrators of the returned missile units and the need for their implementation.
      The return first stage of the MRKS-1 will ensure a high level of reliability and safety and abandon the allocation of areas of incidence of detachable parts, which will increase the efficiency of promising commercial programs.

      Specialists of the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute named after Prof. N.E. Zhukovsky (TsAGI) have completed the next stage of research into the model of the reusable space-rocket system (MRKS). Tests of the model were carried out in a subsonic wind tunnel (ADT) T-103 TsAGI. The customer of the work is the State Space Research and Production Center (GKNPTS) named after M.V. Khrunicheva.
      The research program of landing characteristics of the return winged block of the MRKS included more than 40 launches and was aimed at studying its aerodynamic characteristics, controllability, stability and visualization of flow.

      Earlier, in the spring of this 2012 model MRKS were tested for visualization of flow and distribution of heat fluxes. The experiments were carried out in a shock tube UT-1M (with the number M = 6) and in a hypersonic tube T-117 (M = 7,5).

      “At the first stages of the research, we obtained a lot of valuable results. A number of characteristics laid down by the calculations were confirmed. At the same time, new information appeared that requires understanding and repeated studies on more advanced models and in a wider range of experimental parameters”- said the head of the aerothermodynamics department of TsAGI high-speed aircraft Sergey Drozdov.

      1. opus
        opus 20 January 2016 14: 19 New
        +4
        “The high heat fluxes on the wing center wing became a surprise for us and this will undoubtedly entail a change in the design of the device. In addition, it turned out that with the existing layout, the returning missile unit will be unstable along the course. The data obtained will be used for scientific research, to form the appearance of the aircraft and the study of its design, "he added.

        The next stage of aerodynamic testing of the MRKS model, in September and October 2013, will take place in the T-116 hypersonic ADT and T-128 transonic ADT.

        HERE and SPEND 250 million rubles
        1. gunya
          gunya 20 January 2016 20: 57 New
          0
          So many efforts, trials, and where are Buran and Energy?
          Drawings and calculations are probably intact.
          1. opus
            opus 20 January 2016 22: 12 New
            +1
            Quote: gunya
            Drawings and calculations are probably intact.

            no them.
            Quote: gunya
            and where are Buran and Energy?

            under them there is no PN.
            Yes, and the conclusion of 1 kg is very expensive
    8. Alex_Rarog
      Alex_Rarog 20 January 2016 19: 27 New
      0
      How many green lards did mattresses spend on the 22nd? And on the 35th? They refused from 22 in the end ... It seems that the 35th will soon be recognized as not promising ... And 250 lyam of wood is really dust in comparison ... This is a little more than a ruble from each of us ...
    9. clidon
      clidon 20 January 2016 22: 18 New
      0
      On the "not promising development" is affected by one important factor - the sequestration of funds. We have to choose which directions to cut, which to leave.
  2. Const
    Const 20 January 2016 12: 35 New
    0
    Well, at least so, and not billions to swell and smile.
  3. pts-m
    pts-m 20 January 2016 12: 36 New
    -5
    have already spent on “Buran”, so there are enough holes in Russia to “darn”. The experiences of the pendostana are in sight. All right, there’s nothing to “shag grandma”.
  4. Engineer
    Engineer 20 January 2016 12: 37 New
    +1
    There are some prostitutes: we will do heavy RK — we will not do it, fly to the moon — we will not fly, we will build our station — we will not build it. And about this scam, I immediately wrote that I had cut it. Roskosmos has no long-term programs; they simply saw quickly the funds that they are given. And another criminal scandal surrounding the new cosmodrome is an example.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 20 January 2016 12: 46 New
      +1
      Roscosmos - the sunset of our cosmonautics.
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 20 January 2016 14: 01 New
        +3
        In any such statement, there is a shortage of own ideas and developments. Being catching up in science is a dangerous phenomenon. Advanced developments are needed, but for this you need to know that you are moving in the right direction. You don’t always even feel that some leaders are in the same team for the formation of the country.
  5. newcomer
    newcomer 20 January 2016 12: 39 New
    +9
    You need to wait for the exact info. and then it was reported that they were curtailing the lunar program, and Rogozin expressed bewilderment that this information was coming from. and the source itself does not inspire much confidence. “Izvestia” is known for its tendency to write anyhow, just to be louder. Well, how can I turn off a program that has already spent hundreds of mil. dollars will be waiting for additional info.
  6. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 20 January 2016 12: 40 New
    +2
    The fate of the financial resources spent is still unknown ...

    Not everything is alright in the “space kingdom”. Scandal after scandal, which discredits the Russian cosmonautics. Again, the Accounts Chamber will have to work.
  7. avva2012
    avva2012 20 January 2016 12: 44 New
    +5
    “As far as I know,” says Pavel Pushkin, general director of CosmoCurs LLC and a former employee of the GKNPTs im. Khrunicheva, - the topic of the MRKS was sent “to science,” that is, for an additional study of the problem, and obviously will not reach practice in the near future. But nothing is heard about Baikal, because, in fact, nothing came of this venture. The idea of ​​crossing missile and aviation technologies was attractive, but proved to be difficult to implement. Starting with purely engineering problems - the wing did not fit the dimensions of the standard launch pad - and ending with the economy: because of the wings and the chassis, the first step was very difficult and expensive. "
    We learn from the mistakes of others, finally. 250mln., Of course, it is a pity, but still stopped in time. Apparently the criminal cases went to the prosecutor.
  8. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 20 January 2016 12: 50 New
    +2
    Return and reuse of the first stage
    reduces the cost of launching cargo into space by about 25%.
    In the conditions of fierce competition: Russia - the Union, Europe - Arian, two
    US private firms, China (on the way) -
    25% serious discount for the client.
    1. alone
      alone 20 January 2016 12: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Return and reuse of the first stage
      reduces the cost of launching cargo into space by about 25%.
      In the conditions of fierce competition: Russia - the Union, Europe - Arian, two
      US private firms, China (on the way) -
      25% serious discount for the client.

      The judge by decision of the 25% discount will not be
      1. chikenous59
        chikenous59 20 January 2016 13: 07 New
        -3
        Quote: lonely
        The judge by decision of the 25% discount will not be

        This discount can be made, optionally using a reusable step. There is where to "shrink" in addition to the production of a reusable stage.
        And anyway, why are you listening to this Jew? Ask where did he get such information about a 25% cost reduction?
        1. alone
          alone 20 January 2016 13: 19 New
          +4
          Quote: chikenous59
          And anyway, why are you listening to this Jew?


          Why did this Jew not please you? Not a fascist. You are the cutest, by chance?
          1. chikenous59
            chikenous59 20 January 2016 13: 26 New
            +3
            Quote: lonely
            Quote: chikenous59
            And anyway, why are you listening to this Jew?


            Why did this Jew not please you? Not a fascist. You are the cutest, by chance?

            I didn’t please that I’m throwing in unconfirmed information about a 25% cost reduction, and the rest are going on and continue their old song that everything was gone, now we can’t make such a discount, etc., without taking into account that this figure of 25% can be taken from the ceiling.
        2. Falcon
          Falcon 20 January 2016 13: 23 New
          0
          Quote: chikenous59
          This discount can be made, optionally using a reusable step. There is where to "shrink" in addition to the production of a reusable stage.


          And only we can get along, will all the other competitors look and envy?

          Quote: chikenous59
          And anyway, why are you listening to this Jew?


          Somewhere on the site there are requirements for separation by nationality, or is it only given Russian a word? Or maybe only racists?
          1. chikenous59
            chikenous59 20 January 2016 13: 27 New
            +1
            Quote: Falcon
            Somewhere on the site there are requirements for separation by nationality, or is it only given Russian a word?

            No, Israeli citizens are the same distinguished guests of our forum, but I think it is unacceptable to throw in unconfirmed numbers.
            1. alone
              alone 20 January 2016 13: 29 New
              +2
              Quote: chikenous59
              No, Israeli citizens are the same distinguished guests of our forum, but I think it is unacceptable to throw in unconfirmed numbers.

              And therefore it is necessary to focus on his nationality-original.
              1. chikenous59
                chikenous59 20 January 2016 13: 34 New
                0
                Quote: lonely
                Quote: chikenous59
                No, Israeli citizens are the same distinguished guests of our forum, but I think it is unacceptable to throw in unconfirmed numbers.

                And therefore it is necessary to focus on his nationality-original.

                What kind of grumbler are you?)) After all, he got attached to me like a flea.
              2. Ami du peuple
                Ami du peuple 20 January 2016 13: 38 New
                +7
                Quote: lonely
                Why did this Jew not please you? Not a fascist. You are the cutest, by chance?

                Quote: lonely
                And therefore it is necessary to focus on his nationality-original.

                It is original that the mention of nationality (without any negative connotation) is an accusation of fascism. Then accuse it of anti-Semitism.
                1. chikenous59
                  chikenous59 20 January 2016 13: 40 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Ami du peuple
                  It is original that the mention of nationality (without any negative connotation) is an accusation of fascism. Then accuse of anti-Semitism.

                  Lonely apparently really lonely, so something bothering me)))
                2. alone
                  alone 20 January 2016 13: 50 New
                  -2
                  Quote: Ami du peuple
                  It is original that the mention of nationality (without any negative connotation) is an accusation of fascism. Then accuse it of anti-Semitism.


                  This fundamentally does not change anything. Why should I not believe a Jew, and must definitely believe Russian?
                  1. chikenous59
                    chikenous59 20 January 2016 13: 56 New
                    0
                    Quote: lonely
                    Quote: Ami du peuple
                    It is original that the mention of nationality (without any negative connotation) is an accusation of fascism. Then accuse it of anti-Semitism.


                    This fundamentally does not change anything. Why should I not believe a Jew, and must definitely believe Russian?

                    I did not focus on nationality, even if he was a citizen of some banana republic. The emphasis was on unconfirmed data.
    2. Alex_59
      Alex_59 20 January 2016 13: 21 New
      +4
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Return and reuse of the first stage
      reduces the cost of launching cargo into space by about 25%.

      Not sure. Such a stage hides not only fuel for withdrawal, but also for return, which seriously reduces its efficiency. So here it is necessary to consider. Perhaps it will pay off if it is applied once 30. But do they have engines capable of working out 30 cycles without compromising reliability? And even if there is, how much will it become to diagnose such an engine before each new launch? Will insurance companies insure such re-launches at the same rates, or will they increase them before each next start of an already flying engine?
      1. Falcon
        Falcon 20 January 2016 13: 43 New
        -3
        Quote: Alex_59
        Not sure. Such a stage is not only fueling for withdrawal, but also for returning


        The third step has nothing to do with it. This is the first reusable stage.
        1th steps drag on additional fuel, then disconnect with it and return to base. And AFTER they are disconnected, the second and third steps are launched, they have nothing to drag.

        At the same time - LV with liquid propellant rocket remains 5-7% of the fuel components after separation, in all stages.
        It was supposed to be used during landing (if it is according to Falcon)

        In our Baikal - of course you need a lot of fuel, and also a turbo chassis.

        Quote: Alex_59
        So here it is necessary to consider.


        Ilon Max has already calculated everything ...

        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 20 January 2016 14: 06 New
          0
          Quote: Falcon
          The third step has nothing to do with it. This is the first reusable stage.

          Reread my post carefully again. smile Not the "third," but "such." I also wrote about the first step. How pH works, I imagine.
        2. asiat_61
          asiat_61 20 January 2016 19: 31 New
          0
          Bullshit, this pipe was not in normal flight, but this is nonsense.
      2. BIGLESHIY
        BIGLESHIY 20 January 2016 13: 56 New
        0
        Quote: Alex_59

        Not sure. Such a stage hides not only fuel for withdrawal, but also for return, which seriously reduces its efficiency.

        "Buran" sat without engines in glider mode.
        Perhaps it will pay off if it is used 30 times. But do they have such engines that can work out 30 cycles without compromising reliability? And even if there is, how much will it become to diagnose such an engine before each new launch?

        The shuttle flew with engines and no one had such questions. Yes, and booster blocks from it are reused.
        Will insurance companies insure such re-launches at the same rates, or will they increase them before each next start of an already flying engine?

        No, because there is no guarantee that a rocket even made from scratch will fly. Yes, and passengers with cargo flying on airplanes after repair are not insured at higher rates.
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 20 January 2016 14: 12 New
          +1
          Quote: BIGLESHIY
          "Buran" sat without engines in glider mode.

          Are we discussing the Buran or the first stage of the launch vehicle?
          Quote: BIGLESHIY
          No, because there is no guarantee that a rocket even made from scratch will fly.
          There is no guarantee. There's a possibility. And the likelihood that a rocket produced from scratch will fly is higher than the likelihood that a rocket with already used engines and construction will also fly successfully.
          Quote: BIGLESHIY
          Yes, and passengers with cargo flying on airplanes after repair are not insured at higher rates.
          Does our plane experience the same overload? Or the combustion chambers of an airplane’s engines are exposed to the same temperatures as a rocket engine. There is a difference, because the time of the total operation of modern rocket engines (even multiple inclusion) is measured in hundreds of seconds, and the time of operation of the turbojet engine is measured in thousands of hours.
    3. 33 Watcher
      33 Watcher 20 January 2016 13: 22 New
      +1
      What kind of reduction can we talk about, in the absence of working technology?
    4. GRAY
      GRAY 20 January 2016 13: 23 New
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      reduces the cost of launching cargo into space by about 25%.

      It reduces the payload several times and limits the height of the orbit.
      Launch several satellites one or two, with a proportionally increasing probability of an accident or several at once - there is a difference.
    5. AlexTires
      AlexTires 20 January 2016 13: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Return and reuse of the first stage
      reduces the cost of launching cargo into space by about 25%.

      I will look at an insurance company that decides to insure the re-launch of this Falcon. hi
      1. opus
        opus 20 January 2016 14: 36 New
        0
        Quote: AlexTires
        I will look at an insurance company that decides to insure the re-launch of this Falcon

        Mask Insurer: Carpinteria, Calif.-based Starr Aviation, a division of Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. Starr Aviation Executive Vice President Charles Rudd

        see:
        https://www.starrcompanies.com/
    6. LVMI1980
      LVMI1980 20 January 2016 13: 45 New
      -1
      Americans first step on the shuttle also thought so
      as a result, the launch of 1kg into orbit was more expensive
      1. Falcon
        Falcon 20 January 2016 13: 51 New
        0
        Quote: LVMI1980
        Americans first step on the shuttle also thought so
        as a result, the launch of 1kg into orbit was more expensive


        The shuttle used a solid fuel accelerator.

        The design of a solid fuel engine is much simpler than a rocket engine. There is no engine as such. Only the case returns, which is then again filled with fuel.

        Whether it’s the most complicated and expensive LRE with tanks, pipelines, etc.
        1. Lawyer
          Lawyer 20 January 2016 16: 14 New
          0
          Solid fuel engines are not as simple as they seem. It is impossible to regulate their traction. Impossible to stop. Very dangerous in production. Careful control of the fuel cell is necessary, as any crack in a solid fuel mass is an imminent explosion, and much more.
    7. opus
      opus 20 January 2016 14: 31 New
      +1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      reduces the cost of launching cargo into space by about 25%.

      Falcon-9 v1.1 = $ 65
      The cost of the return stage is $ 54 million - $ 200 thousand (fuel)
      Due to fuel (return), the Falcon-9 R brings 4850 kg to LEO (-30% less (fuel) and + 15% more due to latitude (compared to us)
      The cost of restoring the 1st stage and 9 Merlin liquid propellant rocket engines, as well as logistics costs, is about 8-12%.
      So you can calculate how much the "discount"
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 20 January 2016 14: 56 New
        0
        "Falcon-9 v1.1 = $ 65
        The cost of the return stage is $ 54 million. "////

        Well, you yourself answered your own question, in my opinion.
        The cost of the return stage is 83% of the cost
        whole rocket. At all costs, and less payload
        because of fuel - a huge gain. The figure I cited is 25% minimum
        of all that I met in the press. They wrote about 33% ...
        1. opus
          opus 20 January 2016 16: 27 New
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Well, you yourself answered your own question, in my opinion.

          I did not ask a question.
          Just clarified
          $ 1.65 -000% (PN due to fuel)) + 000% (PN due to latitude) = $ 30 (15% loss, that is, "-") That is launch cost up 52%

          $ 2.65 -000 $ (no need to produce a stage) + $ 000 * 54000% = $ 000 COST of launch.
          Start-up cost fell 3,7 times (by 370%), but increased by the same 24% (p. 1)
          3.And so on.

          It's rude and on the knee.
          not in vain:
          Quote: opus
          Musk convinces that the cost of delivering 1 kilogram of cargo to low Earth orbit could drop to $ 1100, which is much less than what Russian contractors charge for it.


          NOT 25%
          Quote: voyaka uh
          reduces the cost of launching cargo into space by about 25%.
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 20 January 2016 20: 24 New
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The figure I have given is 25% minimum
          of all that I met in the press. They wrote about 33% ...

          200% will also write to you. You read, read. Marketing - it’s like that, it caresses the ear.

          But I don’t believe in miracles. If on a rocket in the first stage, ceteris paribus 30% of the fuel weight can be freely spent for other purposes (including its return), then why is this weight reserve still not spent on increasing the payload? As it is, they’ve been flying for 50 years, at the limit of loads, every extra kilogram is cherished, and suddenly it turns out to be 30% of the fuel weight of the 1-th stage you can simply throw away. 100% of their rocket with a return stage does not bring that payload to the same orbit as a similar rocket without a return stage. They are pushing for a discount in 25% silent about the fact that the payload weight they have is about the same 25% less - for sure. I fully believe that the returning first stage can lead to a decrease in launch costs, but I do not believe that this is so easily achieved without impairing other performance characteristics of the entire system.
      2. tolancop
        tolancop 20 January 2016 17: 08 New
        0
        And something nowhere is widely covered by the simple parameter of Falcon: the resource of the returned stage. Or is it taken for the eternal?
        Okay, they returned the stage ... They examined, podshamanil, started again .. And after what launch account is it planned to return the returned stage to the scrap?
        I do not think that the number will be very large.
        But it is still necessary to work in this direction, sooner or later it will be in demand.
        1. opus
          opus 20 January 2016 17: 49 New
          0
          Quote: tolancop
          And something nowhere is widely covered by the simple parameter of Falcon: the resource of the returned stage. Or is it taken for the eternal?

          Steps then what will happen ...


          To:


          after:



          (drained liquids and taken to the landfill)
          unless of course the landing goes wrong:



          This stage will not be restarted, they will cut, study


          LRE (TNA + DU itself is money)

          REUSABLE (up to 40 times the calculated parameters according to the statement of work)
          Merlin 1D with an approximate price of $ 15 / tf (~ $ 000 million)

          The mask is still far from ideal:

        2. clidon
          clidon 20 January 2016 22: 16 New
          0
          The figure is absolutely not hidden by the management of SpaceX. The minimum number of 10 starts, but "will withstand all 40".
    8. Kathernik
      Kathernik 20 January 2016 18: 32 New
      +2
      - there were calculations - it does not reduce the cost, because interoperational service, additional fuel and not more than 5 starts with a return stage seriously offset the profit. Plus, the risk increases with insurance and, accordingly, the price of insurance!
  9. chikenous59
    chikenous59 20 January 2016 12: 52 New
    +9
    I apologize, but how do you imagine the situation when Roscosmos should, without spending a dime, report that reusable steps are not practical?
    Do you generally understand that the aviation and space industries are the most labor-intensive and knowledge-intensive?
    Accordingly, the costs are enormous.
    So in vain to raise cries that the money was cut and came to this conclusion.
    It would be better if this money were saved, theoretical calculations were made on a piece of paper, they would find out that reusable steps are expedient, put them into production, and then in practice they would choke that all the calculations are wrong and it would be inappropriate and even unsafe to use such steps ? M? Who thinks?
    Or give you just a reason to shout about cutting money?
    1. alone
      alone 20 January 2016 12: 58 New
      -6
      Quote: chikenous59
      So in vain to raise cries that the money was cut and came to this conclusion.

      It's not that the money is allocated for it. The fact is that what the money was spent on. This is just not a word.
      1. chikenous59
        chikenous59 20 January 2016 13: 02 New
        +5
        Quote: lonely
        Quote: chikenous59
        So in vain to raise cries that the money was cut and came to this conclusion.

        It's not that the money is allocated for it. The fact is that what the money was spent on. This is just not a word.

        Then why howl again? In general, how do you imagine the disclosure of expense items?
        Do you want the newspaper to give you the whole estimate? What kind of kindergarten?
        A lot of money has always been allocated to space and will be allocated, because it costs it.
        Of course, part is stolen, but without this in any way in the modern world, everything rests on the rollbacks, but no one said a word that out of 250, they stole.
        1. alone
          alone 20 January 2016 13: 09 New
          -3
          Quote: chikenous59
          Then why howl again? In general, how do you imagine the disclosure of expense items?
          Do you want the newspaper to give you the whole estimate? What kind of kindergarten?
          A lot of money has always been allocated to space and will be allocated, because it costs it.
          Of course, part is stolen, but without this in any way in the modern world, everything rests on the rollbacks, but no one said a word that out of 250, they stole.

          First, in your discussions, choose an expression.
          For verification, there is an organization under the Ministry of Finance and e-switchgear called. The Control and Revision Office. This is about state money. You also do not exclude the possibility that some are stolen.
          Having said this and at the same time protecting them, you also become on a par with those who steal this money. hi
          1. chikenous59
            chikenous59 20 January 2016 13: 14 New
            +5
            Quote: lonely
            Having said that while protecting them, you too stand in line with those who steal this money

            No, I do not, because I do not steal.
            I also do not defend, and thus call for objectivity. There is evidence that 250 million wasted irrationally? There is no such data. And many "experts" have already begun to say that they have cut it again, that Roskosmos is the sunset of the Russian cosmonautics, etc.
            1. alone
              alone 20 January 2016 13: 20 New
              -3
              Quote: chikenous59
              No, I do not, because I do not steal.

              protecting thieves is worse than stealing.

              Of course they steal a part,


              You wrote this, not I. That is, you are sure that theft still takes place, but you are talking about some kind of objectivity.
              1. chikenous59
                chikenous59 20 January 2016 13: 23 New
                +3
                Quote: lonely
                Quote: chikenous59
                No, I do not, because I do not steal.

                protecting thieves is worse than stealing.

                Of course they steal a part,


                You wrote this, not I. That is, you are sure that theft still takes place, but you are talking about some kind of objectivity.

                I repeat to you again, Comrade Marshal. I’m not protecting anyone, I am stating a fact. These are completely different things. You persistently do not want to understand this and insist on your own. I think the dispute is settled.
        2. GRAY
          GRAY 20 January 2016 13: 35 New
          +3
          Quote: chikenous59
          ? What kind of kindergarten?

          This is not a kindergarten, this is the firmware in the brain such as that of sectarians.
    2. LVMI1980
      LVMI1980 20 January 2016 13: 46 New
      +2
      Only an aerodrome launch is advisable (but not today)
  10. Yugan Oleg
    Yugan Oleg 20 January 2016 13: 01 New
    +7
    And all together began to troll the announced amount of 250 million :) Laughter.
    It reminded me of the story with the stealth, this is a Soviet development. Which was considered unpromising and also spent a certain amount of money, and then slipped some of the calculations to the Americans, who in turn invested hundreds of billions into the development of Stells technologies, F-117. B-2, And now the news we have invested in 250 first mulen in the first-stage landing system, but how much did the Americans spend, you know? And most importantly, what is their result?
  11. pofigisst74
    pofigisst74 20 January 2016 13: 05 New
    0
    We decided to wait until Musk did something viable, and then stupidly copy it. IMHO.
  12. engineer74
    engineer74 20 January 2016 13: 17 New
    0
    ... that the first launch of the Soyuz-2.1a launch vehicle is scheduled for the second half of April this year.

    Why not April 12 ??? Just 55 years old! It would be symbolic: a new spaceport, the first launch - to the anniversary of the first flight ...
  13. gladysheff2010
    gladysheff2010 20 January 2016 13: 19 New
    -2
    Quote: lonely
    In our time, the concept is allocated and spent is one and the same

    Not true! The story of the incompetence of the Crimean government proves the opposite! But with regards to the return unit of the 1st stage, it is quite obvious that in the current economic situation, Roscosmos should hardly try to compete with Ilon Mask, the inspirer and creator of Space X and Falcon 9. At this stage, this development will not be able to significantly reduce the cost of launching a launch vehicle, but rather, vice versa.
  14. fa2998
    fa2998 20 January 2016 13: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: PTS-m
    have already spent on “Buran”, so there are enough holes in Russia to “darn”. The experiences of the pendostana are in sight. All right, there’s nothing to “shag grandma”.

    And what are you minusing? It may still be recalled that those "Energia" could carry not only "Buran", "Spiral", N-1 and much more. And the money is public, state. "Has no prospects" - you first think, but Then you do it. Well, of course, this is a whole industry, jobs, labor dynasties, kindergartens and other infrastructure. But I think we need a common strategy in space research. And then we stopped with the "royal" seven, and manned flights to orbit. hi
  15. AlexTires
    AlexTires 20 January 2016 13: 27 New
    0
    After wild dynamic, aerodynamic and thermal loads, what is the return stage really? Yes, and with existing technologies, the return stage limits the mass thrown into orbit. As a result, the low cost of launches turns into a zilch.
  16. tyler2
    tyler2 20 January 2016 13: 52 New
    -3
    “the development of a missile system with a returnable first stage was previously estimated at 12,5 billion rubles, and now is estimated as“ not having economic sense ”” - this is the same as saying that it is inappropriate to use reusable engines on an airplane, after such statements you need to be imprisoned .
  17. Nix1986
    Nix1986 20 January 2016 14: 26 New
    0
    As a result, so far only Elon Musk has advanced well in this direction. So far, of course, not everything is going smoothly, but there has already been one successful and one partially successful touchdown. If the whole venture eventually burns out, then Musk will get the system with the lowest price of putting the cargo into orbit. Of course, it’s its final venture - sending a mission to Mars with this system is still hard to believe (there are still a lot of problems to solve), but for sure it will be the most profitable one.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 20 January 2016 18: 15 New
      0
      Quote: Nix1986
      As a result, so far only Elon Musk has advanced well in this direction. So far, of course, not everything is going smoothly, but there has already been one successful and one partially successful touchdown. If the whole venture eventually burns out, then Musk will get the system with the lowest price of putting the cargo into orbit. Of course, it’s its final venture - sending a mission to Mars with this system is still hard to believe (there are still a lot of problems to solve), but for sure it will be the most profitable one.

      laughing After the first unsuccessful restart, all the savings will go nowhere and freeze the project until the problem is studied, etc. With those overloads that rocket engines experience - repeated use is associated with huge risks.
      Perhaps the creation of an orbital elevator (scientists and science fiction writers - they wrote about this option) or a launcher booster installation like a Gaussian gun (or on other principles) will be much more efficient.
  18. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 20 January 2016 14: 48 New
    0
    The fate of the financial resources spent is still unknown ...


    It is necessary to rummage through the pockets of effective managers; maybe there are. laughing

    Musk posted large detailed shots of the returned Falcon-9 stage. We have to admit that, in general, the stage is in good condition, although it requires inter-flight maintenance. In particular, soot removal. The bottom fairing, which reflects heat fluxes from running engines, should not be left in this state. How laborious the cleaning process will be is still unknown. It is also unclear what is happening with the engines. They also need to be cleaned, or maybe sorted out (vibration during startup). However, Musk said that the engines have already been tested for 10 times the resource. Technically, the stage is recyclable.

    Questions remain:

    1. Economic, associated with a decrease in payload in the option with a return stage and the need for inter-flight service, as well as how much the cost of insurance will increase.

    2. Reliability - whether NASA (the main customer of the Mask services) will go for reuse, especially with planned manned launches. Private traders reach for NASA.

    Bye Musk conditionally proved that there are no technical obstacles in this matter (conditionally - because not a single step has yet flown repeatedly).
  19. berdnik
    berdnik 20 January 2016 15: 13 New
    +2
    I agree with the comment
    Quote: chikenous59
    I apologize, but how do you imagine the situation when Roscosmos should, without spending a dime, report that reusable steps are not practical?
    Do you generally understand that the aviation and space industries are the most labor-intensive and knowledge-intensive?
    Accordingly, the costs are enormous.
    So in vain to raise cries that the money was cut and came to this conclusion.
    It would be better if this money were saved, theoretical calculations were made on a piece of paper, they would find out that reusable steps are expedient, put them into production, and then in practice they would choke that all the calculations are wrong and it would be inappropriate and even unsafe to use such steps ? M? Who thinks?
    Or give you just a reason to shout about cutting money?
  20. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 20 January 2016 16: 18 New
    0
    launch of the Soyuz-2.1a launch vehicle

    Strange, they promised to launch the Angara, or did they also recognize it as "having no economic sense"?
  21. Svidetel 45
    Svidetel 45 20 January 2016 22: 07 New
    0
    Quote: Boos
    Who will plant them? "United Horns and Hooves" are beyond jurisdiction!)))

    Quote: voyaka uh
    Return and reuse of the first stage
    reduces the cost of launching cargo into space by about 25%.
    In the conditions of fierce competition: Russia - the Union, Europe - Arian, two
    US private firms, China (on the way) -
    25% serious discount for the client.

    Quote: oldseaman1957
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    ... Just 2% of the planned amount ... low price ...
    - Well, because of such "streams" we are in a complete anus. They are planting, planting, but there is no sense in seeing anything. Maybe you need to hang?

    Maybe it’s necessary, but who will hang, our current government is so white and fluffy, and very kind to the thieves of state property, for God forbid in the West Aunt Merkel or Uncle Obama will call her, the government, bloody and dictatorial and declare a non-handshake , and this is much worse for her than undermining the country's economic foundations.
  22. Svidetel 45
    Svidetel 45 20 January 2016 22: 22 New
    0
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    Quote: lonely
    Even in the time of Peter they hanged those who robbed the state treasury. They still steal)))

    Remember how His Grace Prince Menshikov answered Peter the Great when he intended to hang on a rope everyone who steals anything at a price higher than the rope? "Sire, you will remain without a single subject"


    This is complete nonsense, invented by the thieves in power in order to protect themselves from punishment, it is necessary as under Stalin, if not to hang up, then shoot more, and then of course they stole, there are incorrigibles that only the grave will correct, but only the scale of theft was incomparably smaller thanks to which the country in a few years, 10-15 years, has turned into an industrial power despite incredibly difficult conditions. But in our time, when they’re not “hanged up”, but fined or given suspended sentences, the country, as it was 15 years ago in the anus, remained in it, the only thing they did was to strengthen the army a bit, and that’s only thanks to the gold the rain of petrodollars in the zero years, and no more achievements, but they bred billionaires and bankers like cockroaches in the dirty kitchen, thanks to theft.
  23. Old26
    Old26 21 January 2016 09: 57 New
    0
    Quote: iouris
    What is the purpose of such a development? There is an effectively working system, why create a competitor for it for your own money? Let the USA do it for now

    It is always necessary to engage in promising developments. Yes, there is an effectively working system - the same “Union”, but how long can it be exploited? Moreover, now it is already gradually losing its position in terms of cargo (passenger) lifting. Yet, development has been over 50 years old.

    Quote: Alex_Rarog
    How many green lards did mattresses spend on the 22nd? And on the 35th? They refused from 22 in the end ... It seems that the 35th will soon be recognized as not promising ... And 250 lyam of wood is really dust in comparison ... This is a little more than a ruble from each of us ...

    Abandoned? Or maybe they limited the purchase? These are still 2 big differences. Refusal of operation and restriction of procurement.

    Quote: rotmistr60
    The fate of the financial resources spent is still unknown ...

    Not everything is alright in the “space kingdom”. Scandal after scandal, which discredits the Russian cosmonautics. Again, the Accounts Chamber will have to work.

    Does it discredit? On it, sorry, has long been discredited itself. Roscosmos does not have a clear position on what to have. Shy starts. A new chapter arrives and starts cutting programs that his predecessor “pushed”. We cannot say anything about the scientific aspects of astronautics. There is nothing corny to brag about. So we boast that “without us ...”, that “they are without our engines ...” And so on.

    Quote: Jurist
    Solid fuel engines are not as simple as they seem. It is impossible to regulate their traction. Impossible to stop. Very dangerous in production. Careful control of the fuel cell is necessary, as any crack in a solid fuel mass is an imminent explosion, and much more.

    The thrust can be adjusted, but of course throttling is not in such a wide range as on a rocket engine
    You can stop, just "cut through" the window and the traction is reset. But in the variant with the liquid propellant rocket engine, and in the variant with the solid propellant rocket engine, the rocket itself goes into scrap
    Control is of course needed, but not every crack in the charge will necessarily cause an explosion
  24. Old26
    Old26 21 January 2016 09: 59 New
    0
    Quote: Corsair
    After the first unsuccessful restart, all the savings will go nowhere and freeze the project until the problem is studied, etc. With those overloads experienced by rocket engines - repeated use is associated with enormous risks. It is possible to create an orbital elevator (scientists and science fiction writers wrote about this option) or a launcher accelerating installation like a Gaussian gun (or on other principles) - will be much more efficient.

    But as the Russian proverb says, “Fear of the wolves, don't go to the forest.” Of course, there may be such options, but it is better to do something by stuffing bumps than not to do at all.
    The possibility of creating an orbital elevator is alas, but so far this is not possible, there are no appropriate technologies. Or they are in such an embryonic state that there is no need to talk about implementation in a specific project.
    Acceleration launcher ("overpass") - on the one hand, it might be in demand, but here the question arises about its size and acceleration. If the cargo ship does not make much difference, then the person ...