Military Review

Countdown

48
Russia can only dream of the overwhelming technological superiority of the USSR in space


17 March The government of the Russian Federation approved the Federal Space Program (PCF) for 2016 – 2025 years, which, as is known, has been returned for revision several times. The amount of budget financing of the PCF is determined in 1,4 trillion rubles. What has changed in it after numerous amendments and sequesters? Will its implementation be able to improve the image of Roscosmos, seriously undermined by a series of unsuccessful launches in 2010 – 2015?

Due to the economic crisis, a number of programs fell under reduction. The first manned mission to the moon is delayed for five years. You can forget about the development of the returning first stage. We part with the hope of a quick solution to the problem of dealing with asteroids. In addition to these truncations, there are others. But is the crisis only to blame?

Along the "Angara"

The first manned flight from the Vostochny cosmodrome to the moon is shifted to 2030 – 2035 years. The fate of the super-heavy carrier on which such flights would be carried out is not completely clear. In the new project of the FKP, the backlog for the expedition to the Earth satellite will be created only after ... 2035. This is reminiscent of the building of communism, which was also moving away all the time. But it was impossible to fool the population endlessly. So with the plans of Roscosmos. After 20, there will be no one to ask for failure.

“Georgiy Grechko: Angara is a non-existent rocket. It was invented under Yeltsin, it is morally obsolete. ””
Most worried about the fate of the super-heavy carrier, without which Russia is difficult to implement the program of military space exploration and defense of the country (“Towards the morning dawn - on the“ Angara ”). It may be objected: not from a good life refuse such projects. With this you can not argue. But one can not ignore the fact that in world rocket science the emphasis is on increasing the carrying capacity of carriers. And we do not go in step. I repeat: super heavy is needed not only for long-distance expeditions, but also to ensure national security. Perhaps that is why it under various pretexts and pushes. One of the experts of the "MIC" does not exclude that the decision of the Scientific and Technical Council of Roskosmos to abandon the super-heavy carrier at one time was influenced by the Americans, who are now themselves seriously working on its creation. Remove competitor - holy work.

Recall: 12 in March 2015 of the year NTS Roskosmos was held, which made a “fateful” decision to forget for a while about the development of a super heavy RN and proposed the development version of the Angara-5 PH at Angaru-A5B with an oxygen-hydrogen third stage. Such recommendations, the implementation of which will be a lot of money, should in theory be implemented on a competitive basis with the provision of opportunities for all parties to prove their position. However, for some time now, Roscosmos has become the rule to hold contests without competitions. Interestingly, the former head, Oleg Ostapenko, declared the hangars of the Angara. Then no member of the NTS objected to him. But after a year and a half, the same council recognized the future for Angar. Although the NTS recommended version of the heavy launch vehicle Angara-A5В with a carrying capacity of 35 tons does not meet Russia's long-term needs (“narrow departmental traction”). In order to participate equally in space exploration, including distant space, in the next five years we need to have an extra-heavy carrier with a load capacity of 75 tons.

Countdown


In 1987 – 1988, the USSR was able to become the sole owner of the orbits. The unique RN "Energy" with a carrying capacity of 100 – 105 tons is a real feat of Soviet scientists and specialists. At the same time, there was a lightweight modification of the “Energy-M” with a lifting capacity of 25 – 40 tons. This is exactly what Roscosmos (Angara-A5В) promises for the 2025 year. The existence of "Energy" has become a headache for overseas "colleagues". Their missiles of that period and even modern ones are inferior to the Soviet three times!

Energia managed to fly twice: with a mock combat platform weighing 80 tons (diameter - 4,1 meters, length - 37 meters) and with the reusable spacecraft "Buran", which made an amazing landing in automatic mode.

However, in 1994, the program was quietly closed, a huge reserve was destroyed. The Pentagon breathed a sigh of relief and, having received a breathing space for more than 20 years, began creating super-heavy SLS with a carrying capacity of 70 – 130 tons. Know-how was used to reduce the cost: powerful solid-fuel accelerators of start (TTU) were used at the first stage.

Readiness PH SLS - 2018 year. With its appearance, aggression against Russian satellites is inevitable. We need to return to the global path of development, create our own super-heavy twenty-first century, that is, with TTU at the first stage. But how, if a new PCF has already been approved at the government level?

Cleaner does not mean better

Forgive me pundits in Roskosmos, but authoritative experts and colleagues call the transition from Proton to Angara, as well as the creation of Roscosmos corporation, an imitation of hectic activity. Pilot-cosmonaut, twice Hero of the Soviet Union Georgy Grechko was perplexed: “Why did you transfer such a complex system - Roskosmos into the hands of effective managers? Do you not know that effective managers are effective only for themselves? The Angara is a non-existent rocket. She came up with more under Yeltsin, she is already morally obsolete. "

We remember how 13 April 2015, the president, tried, to put it mildly, to mislead (the plot was shown on TV). Then the head of Roscosmos, Igor Komarov, presented the 35-ton “Angara-A5В” as a super heavy-class PH. However, the head of state didn’t buy it: “It was already foreseen, and it should be a super-heavy rocket. This need to think.

We think? Roscosmos explains its refusal to be extremely heavy with the fact that there is no payload for it. It is ignored that such a PH is needed not so much for deep space as, we repeat, for the defense and defense of one's place in orbit.

The game with the enrollment of "Angara-A5В" then in heavy, then in super-heavy carriers makes you think that the mission of the head of state is unlikely to be fulfilled.

Presenting the new FKP, Igor Komarov noted that the production of super-heavy RN with a load capacity of 70 and more tons is postponed for an indefinite period. The head of the NTS, Yuri Koptev, supported: “The fate of the super-heavy missiles — our H1-L3 and the Saturn of the United States showed the hopelessness of their development.”

Is this true?

The Н1-Л3 project was closed after four consecutive severe accidents at the first stage, where the 30 LND NK-15 developed by KB N. Kuznetsov and having a relatively small thrust - 154 ton-force stood. Valentin Glushko, the general designer of the reusable complex “Energy” - “Buran”, warned that such a number of simultaneously operating rocket engines would not provide the required reliability.

In contrast, the Saturn was equipped with VG Braun's giant F-1 rocket engines with a ton-force 680, five pieces in the first stage. Operation of the "Saturn" rocket stopped only after the brilliant execution of the lunar program. Americans were convinced of the effectiveness of super-heavy carrier, but to reduce the cost and a sharp increase in carrying capacity, they developed super-powerful solid propellant rocket motors with 1000 – 1600 ton-force and equipped them with the first stage of the newest SLS and Ares.

So who is right: the Americans, who continue to create super heavy rocket launchers, or Roskosmos, who blessed the destruction of the Energia and Energiya-M rocket last century, and who today convinced the country's leadership to include Angar in the FKP-25.

She flew to us from the last century. Her closest relative is the famous Proton, who in July 2015 was 50 years old.

The only useful difference is the “clean” components. The rest of the "Angara" loses. For example, it is heavier on 55 tons, and traction on 22 is a ton-force less. The “Angara” birth defect is a weak first stage and a low weight category (760 t), which will lose relevance to the 2018 – 2020 years. In Angara, 91 has a percentage of Angara, 84 percent of Proton-M, 60 percent of Solid Shuttle accelerators. The remaining 9, 16, 40 percent, respectively, ensure the rise of higher stages. We see that "Angara" barely raises itself and in 4,5 times loses TTU in efficiency.

Insufficient thrust-to-weight ratio is a chronic deficiency of all LRE. When creating superheavy missiles, this became a critical inhibiting factor and required a fundamentally new approach.

В aviation the replacement of jet-type motors with jet engines ensured an abrupt increase in speeds. So in our case: the use of TTU in the first stage provided a jump in the carrying capacity of the American superheavy LV SLS and Ares. The hassle is that these TTUs need to be created, but Roscosmos, as experts put it, does not see solid fuel issues at point blank range, unprovenly referring to its high cost. Although the United States, India, Japan, Europe consider TTU as an effective means of reducing the cost of putting goods into orbit.

In the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, solid propellant rockets with solid propellant rocket motors almost completely supplanted LREs in all weapons and military equipment — from grenade launchers to ICBMs, and everywhere is maintained parity with the best foreign models.

The only one who has not been touched by this process is Roscosmos. Here we are four to five times behind the power of foreign launchers.

Public against


The flaws of the "Angara" project are noted in a wide range and presented with a serious technical argument. Let us briefly describe the essence of these responses, claims to the plans of Roskosmos.

In the methodical part:

- initially wrong choice of target, which led to a critical lag behind the world level in the field of space launch vehicles;
- suppression of the overriding role of super-heavy RN as a guarantor of our presence in orbits and the creation of parity primarily in the defense field and only then in deep-space research;
-negating the fact that knocking sanctions from space will fall on Russia at the very beginning of 2020-s with the commissioning of the American space system SLS / Orion, from this point on, the whole worthlessness of the Angara program with its multi-launch expedition to the Moon in 2030- x years;
fake confidence that the US will not dare to use the SLS missile for military purposes.

Negative aspects of the technical side:

-the help of both the Angara-5 and the Angara-5В in front of the American SLS missile in the fight for the information space;
-weakness of the first stage “Angara-5”, as a result of the unreality of increasing the mass of the payload to 38 tons, promised by Roskosmos;
-the uselessness and uselessness of the implementation of the Angara-5В, even if an 38-ton PH is created, it will not affect the balance of forces;
-the small scale of the final tasks, their vague wording, prudently removed to a safe distance for the authors from the time of execution (as a result, there is no responsibility for the result).

Any item listed is sufficient to question the feasibility of the project. In general, based on the results of the public discussion, the “Angara” project cannot be recommended as the basis of the PCF-2025. It is probably acceptable for Roscosmos and the Pentagon, but contrary to the interests of Russia.

Vakhtang Vachnadze, who headed NPO Energia in 1977 – 1991, recalls: “We also developed a lightweight version of Energia, it was called Energia-M.” This is a wonderful carrier - there was nothing new to do there ... it turned out a rocket from 25 to 40 tons of useful output load. The niche of the currently used UR-500 (“Proton”) to 20 tons and everything above can be closed with our reduced “Energy”. So if the project “Energy-M” was saved, now it would be very profitable. And now even hydrogen in the required amounts cannot be obtained, everything has been eliminated ”(“ Energy of the Soviet past ”). This is the opinion of a person who has worked in the industry all his life, for years 15 was headed by Energia. Apparently, it is not for nothing that they say that there is no prophet in his homeland ...

The new Military Doctrine, approved by the President in December 2014 of the year, states that with the modern development of nuclear missile shield technology to protect the state is not enough. There were threats from space that could deprive Russia of the information space. This means that the country needs a rocket-space shield, the creation of which is possible only if there is a super-heavy rocket launcher built on the know-how of the 21st century. Sooner or later we will come to understand this. That's just the time to solve such a serious problem may not be enough.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/29956
48 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vadim237
    Vadim237 April 2 2016 00: 40 New
    +4
    The US can use SLS for military purposes only as a carrier of several X 37 spacecraft, the worst thing is that they begin to bypass us in the space sector, this year the largest air launch plane should fly up to the USA.
    1. Enot-poloskun
      Enot-poloskun April 2 2016 07: 55 New
      +5
      So I don’t understand one thing: they say (and rightly) that Russia needs an extra-heavy rocket.

      Why can't you get the design documentation for Energia from the archives, modernize and build?
      1. smel
        smel April 2 2016 08: 12 New
        19
        And why can’t you get it off the shelf
        It is impossible .. For there will be nothing to cut managers effective. Let me remind you that Mr. Komarov is a protege of Medvedev. Remember that he, Medvedev, made useful for all his years of power ?, - (useful - this is about us, Russian people, and about the country as a whole). In addition to the unsuccessful transfer of the clock hands and renaming the police to the police, nothing more.
        I had the misfortune of listening to the report of this PCF at a Government meeting on television. This bleating Komarov caused a sea of ​​indignation among everyone who was present when watching. If at a meeting of even the most seedy Military Council, someone would have allowed himself such a report, he would have been immediately expelled from the rostrum. And then from the post. Our Government is useless ... Useless .. Is it possible to cut taxes and excise taxes
        1. the villain
          the villain April 2 2016 18: 28 New
          +2
          Quote: smel
          For there is nothing to cut managers will be effective.

          It's all sad, because, IMHO, "fictitious managers" if they have to cut something, it's a forest with a number on their robe ...
        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 April 2 2016 19: 55 New
          +1
          Quote: smel
          Let me remind you that Mr. Komarov is a protege of Medvedev.

          At VAZ, they still remember him! laughing
      2. NordUral
        NordUral April 2 2016 12: 29 New
        +1
        Much more can be obtained and modernized, there has been a reserve for decades ahead. But there is no desire.
      3. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona April 2 2016 12: 58 New
        -4
        For the same reason, why the US does SLS instead of getting documentation for Saturn 5, it’s easier to build a new and better one than trying to recreate the old
        1. kori
          kori April 2 2016 14: 38 New
          +3
          And what prevents using the best practices of the old, taking from them the best and eliminating errors / flaws to make the best, and not to scratch anything from scratch anyway?
        2. owl
          owl April 2 2016 15: 41 New
          +3
          Quote: BlackMokona
          than trying to recreate the old

          It’s your brains that are old and the Americans in the same SLS plan in the first stage to use solid fuel boosters and hydrogen-oxygen engines from shuttles and on the second modification of the rocket engine developed in the 60s of the last century.
          And attention is a surprise for cranks!, Work is underway to create a rocket engine on the backlogs of F-1.
      4. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 April 2 2016 14: 23 New
        +6
        Sooooo much work needs to be done. It will be necessary to restore almost all production. Starting with little things like bearings, for example. And how vital will be good (not even high-class, but just good) engineers! .. In addition, because of this, there is a risk of being covered with a copper basin, a bias towards stamping economists and "managers" (read, "qualified consumer") ... And this is what the current government is afraid of. Greatly afraid. Yes, Putin said that engineers are in great need now. Only now it is necessary to work in this direction, and not to arrange boltology.
      5. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs April 2 2016 16: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Enot-poloskun
        Why can't you get the design documentation for Energia from the archives, modernize and build?

        At the second stage were the world's most powerful hydrogen engines. When the Energy was covered up, in the worst years the worst thing happened with the plant producing these engines. Experts say that today we have completely lost our competence in the creation of hydrogen engines, even a heavy hydrogen booster was an impossible task.
        1. AUL
          AUL April 2 2016 18: 51 New
          0
          Quote: kori
          And what prevents using the best practices of the old, taking from them the best and eliminating errors / flaws to make the best, and not to scratch anything from scratch anyway?

          Twenty five again, money for fish!
          Well, when is this holy childish naivete already over? Well, just take the old drawing and do it - which is easier? Yes, and upgrade in passing ...
          The problem is not to come up with and release the blueprints. The problem is to produce quality, in an acceptable time, at an affordable cost and in the right quantity. But to produce with us, roughly speaking, there is nowhere, there is nothing and no one to do. I'm not talking about modernization in passing - this process involves the availability of qualified personnel, a pilot production base, test sites and very serious funding.
          And to remove the old drawing from the shelf and blow dust off it is not a question!
  2. Armored optimist
    Armored optimist April 2 2016 04: 17 New
    0
    Still dreaming about some kind of breakthrough. As in the song: - "We have such devices!", Which the public does not know about, but which one fine day will start.
    1. Tektor
      Tektor April 2 2016 18: 47 New
      +2
      Falichev exaggerates too much and thickens his colors ... He is unlikely to know that the Angara was developed as a carrier for manned ships, which require a smooth start with acceleration in the region of 2g with maximum reliability of the structure ... And hence all the shortcomings listed by him. ..
      But! this is only part of the truth, because an important feature of the launch vehicles with LRE is hushed up: all parameters depend on the composition of the fuel. What will flood - such a result will turn out. If you fill in kerosene and oxygen, we get the carrier that is perfect for manned launches. Pour in methane and oxygen - get an increase in the payload of 20 percent. Well, if you pour in acetylene and ammonia, you will get an increase of 35% and a 35 ton rocket will become 50 ton. And this is already on the verge of transition to a superheavy class. The same medium can be prepared for purely different missions, and this is a huge savings ...
  3. Shiva83483
    Shiva83483 April 2 2016 06: 28 New
    -2
    And all the same, no matter how hard it was now, we taught the adversary how to radish from which end it is necessary to crack ... trifle, but it’s nice to be stupid ...
  4. Koshak
    Koshak April 2 2016 06: 30 New
    +8
    In the 50s - 70s counted on a computer the size of a house, plotted on Kuhlmann, but

    "The USSR was able to become the sole master of the orbits." good What's stopping you now? "Effective menagers"? am
    1. Darkness
      Darkness April 2 2016 07: 09 New
      +4
      The era of consumption.
  5. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 2 2016 06: 35 New
    +1
    The space industry developed primarily for military needs.
    The discharge has done its job. Many projects were closed.
    Manned flights to the moon and Mars are for the prestige of the country, they will not give much to humanity. And the costs are very large. It is better to leave it to automatic stations and science fiction.
    But it is necessary to develop this industry, otherwise we will lose school, personnel ...
    First you need to determine a promising target, and under it is already a class of launch vehicle.
    And then we will build a heavy rocket and we will be cab drivers for the west ...
    1. Darkness
      Darkness April 2 2016 07: 09 New
      +6
      It is not known what utility will be found on Mars. And then, all of a sudden, flights will also begin to bring profits.
      Mastering the solar system - this is what the "ideology" of humanity should be, and not the seventh, damn it, iPhone.
    2. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs April 2 2016 07: 40 New
      +1
      Being a cab driver is not bad either. It’s like being a watchman at the gate to the space pass. The use of the RD-180 engine suggests that they have virtually lost their competence in creating a powerful kerosene engine. This is partly due to their enthusiasm for TTU.
      1. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 April 2 2016 14: 25 New
        +3
        No, it’s dangerous to be just a cabman. And then you’ll lose all the places in the stroller (read, in orbit).
    3. the villain
      the villain April 2 2016 18: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Pvi1206
      Manned flights to the moon and Mars are for the prestige of the country, they will not give much to humanity. And the costs are very large.

      Let me disagree with you, because this will give a sane development of technologies and know-how, many of which can then be successfully applied in the civilian sphere. Remember, the same Internet was originally made for the military, and the microwave, which is now in almost every house ... there, a man generally originally designed a radar for an airplane. So, that is not so clear hi
  6. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn April 2 2016 06: 41 New
    +1
    The article, as an introduction to a doctoral dissertation, is not bad. There are more questions than they can be posed. But the main question - what is it, the accusation of Roscosmos and Moscow Region in incompetence, or sabotage? Unanswered. Sorry author minus.
  7. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs April 2 2016 07: 34 New
    +6
    Is our fate like that? First we confuse, we are wise, and then we look at what the United States did and urgently begin to copy. Here is Falichev from such. What article is already written that we need to drop everything and urgently do TTU (solid fuel boosters). Well, in the first, it’s not even necessary to prove that LREs have more energy. Secondly, the appearance of TTU in the USA is caused rather by technological and economic problems. At one time, they made the transition to a new type of ICBM, to solid fuel Minutmen. For this, factories were built. When the program was completed they turned up TTU for the Shuttle. Now these TTUs are being upgraded for SLS. As they say, it’s cheap and there is no need to close the plants. True, they almost lost their competence in creating powerful kerosene rocket engines, but this is their problem. Of course, it is necessary to criticize the PCF, the main thing is that it is not visible in it, that technological grain, developing which we can make a quick spurt. Funding for a methane rocket and a nuclear engine for residual evidence. All projects are tied to the use of the technological reserve of the RD-170 engine family. These engines were created in a different era and played a role in the creation of Energy. But we ourselves failed this direction, and now we are trying to build a pakemon from the wreckage of the Great Project. America is getting ready to take the next step, putting economy at the forefront. Musk and Bezos decided to create cheap, technologically simplified to the limit engines for disposable rockets, and are trying to make methane engines for reusable first stages. We do not compete, we silently watch what they do. And then, as usual, begin to catch up. The fact that methane can serve as the basis for the creation of reliable reusable engines has been known for a long time. But for some reason no one sees that methane also opens the way for single-stage missiles. Take the two-stage Union-2.1V. At the first stage NK-33 with a thrust of 200 tons (together with a steering wheel), at the second stage 30 tons. The run time of both stages according to the sequence diagram is 420 seconds. We look: NK-33 according to the passport works 363 seconds, it gave out 710 seconds in the burn tests. Throttle the engine from 50%, which gives 90 tons. The later made RD-180 engine gives throttling of 20%. What you need to do: teach the NK-33 to throttle from 20%, which will give 30 tons of traction, and work stably up to 500 seconds. And methane can help a lot with this. Then we throw out the engine of the second stage, slightly extend the first stage and get a cheap single-stage rocket with a higher payload than Soyuz-1.2V. An engine that has worked for 500 seconds is no longer capable of anything and regretting the loss of it is not necessary to reuse it. The conclusion is not to follow Musk and Bezos along the path of engine simplification, but rather create new technologies and increase engine performance. This is how the figures of Roscosmos and Tsniimash should think something like this, and not look from their high offices over the hill. Reusability is dangerous because it translates the serial production of missiles into small-scale ones.
    1. ARS56
      ARS56 April 2 2016 16: 30 New
      +1
      The United States is quite successfully dealing with the loss of Russia's technological competencies with the help of our internal enemies. Until Russia does away with "effective managers" and the oligarchy, which by definition exclude the interests of the state and work only for its own pocket, we will not wait for serious changes for the better. We will only wonder why the presidential decrees are completely ignored by the economic bloc of the government headed by the prime minister.
  8. Million
    Million April 2 2016 08: 09 New
    +8
    Cosmonaut, twice Hero of the Soviet Union Georgy Grechko was perplexed: “Why did they transfer such a complex system - Roscosmos into the hands of effective managers? Don't you know that effective managers are only effective for themselves?

    It is said more than right. Under wild feudal capitalism, nothing good will be done for the country
  9. Pencil
    Pencil April 2 2016 08: 25 New
    +7
    Forgive me, pundits in Roscosmos will forgive me, but reputable experts and colleagues call the transition from Proton to Angara, as well as the creation of Roscosmos, an imitation of violent activity.
    Exactly! And it is encouraged, oddly enough ... Trillions are encouraged.
  10. Blaster
    Blaster April 2 2016 08: 33 New
    +3
    All the same, a business executive must govern the country. With all due respect, this is not Putin’s hobby
    1. CT-55_11-9009
      CT-55_11-9009 April 2 2016 14: 30 New
      +2
      The country should be run by a TEAM, where there are competent politicians, competent business executives, competent military, and competent economists (and this I have forgotten many). And while with competent politicians and the military upstairs, we are still good, then business executives are absent as a class, and economists are more likely saboteurs.
  11. onix757
    onix757 April 2 2016 08: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: Jurkovs
    This is how the figures of Roscosmos and Tsniimash should think something like this, and not look from their high offices over the hill.

    Roscosmos acts exactly as much (and most likely does not), as far as the state poses large-scale tasks. If the tasks are small, then no result.
    1. Jurkovs
      Jurkovs April 2 2016 09: 27 New
      +1
      You didn’t see the memorable broadcast. Komarov shows Putin the model of the Angara-5 and calls it a super-heavy carrier, and Putin corrects him as a heavy carrier, and no one takes you off to create a super-heavy carrier. That is, the state sets a global task, and developers go to the President’s direct deception by rubbing his glasses.
      1. onix757
        onix757 April 2 2016 09: 40 New
        +1
        Quote: Jurkovs
        That is, the state sets a global task, and developers go to the President’s direct deception by rubbing his glasses.

        We know, we know, the king is good, the boyars of the slug.
        1. Jurkovs
          Jurkovs April 2 2016 16: 11 New
          0
          So go into the course of creating the Angara and you will see a grand cut and failure to fulfill TK and fraud, and much more. The appearance of the Angara in the form in which it appeared drove our cosmonautics into such a hole that the FKP was created for a whole year, postponed a hundred times and only in March accepted, without having solved a single problem facing our cosmonautics. In fact, we are faced with the problem of closing the Angara project and carrying out work from the very beginning as it was not expensive and not timely.
  12. 1536
    1536 April 2 2016 09: 06 New
    +4
    There is no political will at all in making decisions on Space. Indeed, why would an oligarch or a person with an iPhone, who dreams of dividing Russia into parts with the allocation of his own share, also divide the Cosmos. The scale of Russia does not allow us to embrace its territory with an "effective mind" and understand how to manage it and what to do, and even the Cosmos is even less so somewhere beyond comprehension. Still, but this is my opinion, and it is not confirmed by anything, the Americans simply bought in the bud control over our space industry, primarily over research institutes and design bureaus. And if they bought something, then it will either be destroyed or it will work for them. It works. Out of nowhere, the States had private cargo spaceships, secret reusable vehicles, etc. The Americans certainly could not have come up with it themselves. In different years, even under the USSR, all information about such developments came from Soviet scientific and technical literature. And now she's embodied in metal in Houston.
    Of course, we can say that any step of the Americans in space exploration is a step of all mankind. But for some reason, to say so, the language does not turn. Because our people in this case are robbed.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 2 2016 10: 55 New
      +2
      Our cosmonautics is being hindered by the lack of clear planning for space exploration, cost minimization, the absence of private developers in the space industry, and corruption in Roscosmos.
      1. onix757
        onix757 April 2 2016 11: 16 New
        +4
        Quote: Vadim237
        Our space explode:

        -Our engineering slows down ...
        - our aircraft industry is slowing down ...
        - our shipbuilding slows down ...
        and further down the list.
        ___________
        Threat what for the country brakes?
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 2 2016 17: 22 New
          -1
          With aviation and mechanical engineering, the situation has stabilized.
  13. skeptic
    skeptic April 2 2016 10: 51 New
    10
    There are no engineers in the government of Ayfonych.
    There are crooks and lawyers.
    No Projects, there are activity reports.
    There is not a single breakthrough Idea that can give an impetus to the country's economy.
    The difficulties of "sanctions" are inflated,
    although the Great USSR was actually in complete technological blockade and
    continuously created what cannot be.
    By creating the Atomic and Missile Shields of the Homeland.
    Yes, wrecking in Moscow was in those years.
    But the powerful Stalinist ministries worked, headed by the Engineers.
    Soviet school.
    Design bureaus worked, and in a competitive environment.
    It is sad to look at the mooing of the wretched manturo ... smoked ... mosquito.
    Solid propellant rocket engines and rocket engines have always coexisted, complementing each other depending on the tasks.
    In the first we always lagged behind.
    In liquid - ahead.
    Surprisingly, mysteriously, stubborn reluctance of certain persons in Moscow
    eliminate lag in solid fuel boosters.
    For all specialists, it is obvious that this has long been resolvable.
    Not for space money.
    Leapfrog of managers, irresponsibility, embezzlement.
    I will stop.
    Suppose that no one understands who needs to at least not notice.
    But the whole society sees the impotence of "management", telling tales for decades
    about future achievements, pushing products that lose in energy - mass perfection and reliability
    any product of the "era of stagnation".
    And what will you remember about the "era of iPhones"?
    After all, it is already longer than "stagnation!"
    Protonfall?
    Or will it be called "the era of managerial degradation"?
  14. Kostya Andreev
    Kostya Andreev April 2 2016 11: 41 New
    -4
    what most commentators are smart and knowledgeable people know how to build rockets. how to distribute the budget, how to explore space, how and who is sawing !!!
  15. NordUral
    NordUral April 2 2016 12: 26 New
    -1
    We part with the hope of a quick solution to the problem of combating asteroids.
    When you read this, you involuntarily recall the film "Ivan Vasilyevich Changes His Profession".
  16. magician
    magician April 2 2016 13: 20 New
    +2
    Rocket building is such an area of ​​engineering activity, where our young engineers are sorry, and managers do not dance. Look at the specialties of the Tula State University, the faculty named after Gryazev, we have lost more than half of the specialties in defense. And these are not Bauman’s theorists who taught, there the elite taught! The same thing in rocket science, there are achievements but for many years, there is no one to implement. Not everything is so good with us, but I still want to hope for the best.
  17. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter April 2 2016 15: 30 New
    +2
    IMHO, such a complex area as space rocketry is not a topic for discussion on our forum. To put it mildly, there is not enough information. On the one hand, we seem to lag behind in superheavy carriers. On the other hand, satellites are getting smaller and lighter, medium-size rockets are already firing whole clusters of satellites in one launch. Again, the absence of a nuclear power plant in a manned spacecraft for deep space makes an expedition even to Mars a suicidal enterprise, really a one-way ticket. Until the ships get a "power reserve" for accelerated flights, all this space exploration resembles experiments on living people - how many people can live in zero gravity before turning into a boneless amoeba? As it turned out, not for long. Two - three weeks to fly to Mars - that's the goal. In the meantime, plasma engines and nuclear power plants of a megawatt class are being developed, a 35-ton unit will suffice.
    I wanted to clarify what Kiriyenko was talking about when he spoke about the space nuclear power plant of the megawatt class, but my friends in Rosatom got water into their mouths.
  18. 16112014nk
    16112014nk April 2 2016 17: 38 New
    +4
    Quote: smel
    Let me remind you that Mr. Komarov is a protege of Medvedev. Remember that he, Medvedev, made useful for all his years of power ?, - (useful - this is about us, Russian people, and about the country as a whole).

    As Shurik's partner, someone named Fedya, said, "You need to look shirsh on questions!" And whose protege is Medvedev? And what useful has Putin himself done over the years in power (1990-2016)? As the head of the committee for external relations in St. Petersburg, he ordered to send to the West rare earth metals (including osmium) for hundreds of millions of rubles in exchange for food. As a result of the exchange, the people of St. Petersburg did not see either money or food. But he himself has a billion-dollar fortune, just like his St. Petersburg friends.
    As one journalist wrote: ... “Putin is far from the only, and maybe not even the most important, who controls the billions that circulate in Russia.
    Putin, Miller, Chubais, Sechin and others dispose of all this.
    Therefore, do not ask why all Putin's years the economy is ruled by a supposedly bad and supposedly liberal team that drowns any industrial progress. She then guards, like a chain dog, billions of Putin. And he, of course, will never change it. "
    And this is not "stuffing foreign media", as Peskov would say. This is "publicist.ru"
  19. Michael.
    Michael. April 2 2016 21: 42 New
    0
    Russia cannot even create Energy. Hundreds of industries have been destroyed.
  20. iouris
    iouris April 2 2016 21: 57 New
    0
    The reverse is not just for space. But space is not just a special case, but the leading technological branch of the USSR economy. The loss of positions in space indicates the deepest disinterest in the development of "this country" of the "elite", which is only an agent who owns property in the FSU on behalf of the real owners. This is the basis. On the one hand, the superstructure only fulfills the order, and on the other hand, it is engaged in self-preservation of itself. Most likely, after the next elections, "perestroika" will begin with acceleration.
  21. Erg
    Erg April 2 2016 23: 07 New
    0
    "In contrast to this, the Saturn was equipped with giant F-1 von Braun rocket engines with a thrust of 680 ton-force, five of them in the first stage. The operation of the Saturn LV ceased only after the brilliant fulfillment of the lunar program. fool Complete nonsense. There was no such engine. That's what Americans are buying engines from us ... F-1 drawings in the studio wassat Amusing, sir. Thanks for the evening. lol
  22. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz April 3 2016 07: 23 New
    0
    Firstly, why aren't such great F-1s put on SLS?

    Secondly, the Angara is a modular rocket and, accordingly, has its own costs, but nevertheless, when compared with Falcon, Zenith or Atlas, then it’s quite at the level. Yes, Proton is a good rocket, but accidents have shown that clearing the area of ​​fuel components is another task.

    Thirdly, the story of the Challenger ended, everyone remembers. If we compare the missiles of one purpose, then immediately comes to mind Sineva (Liner).

    -the help of both the Angara-5 and the Angara-5В in front of the American SLS missile in the fight for the information space;

    Missiles of different classes, for starters. Now there is not so much money in order to cut monsters of class N-1 and Energy. By the way, the story of the N-1 once again proves the need for bench tests and problems for equipment with a high degree of novelty. Like for example, N-1 was a fully automated launch vehicle, for example.

    -weakness of the first stage “Angara-5”, as a result of the unreality of increasing the mass of the payload to 38 tons, promised by Roskosmos;

    The "first stage" is a package of several modules, up to the version of the Angara A7

    -the uselessness and uselessness of the implementation of the Angara-5В, even if an 38-ton PH is created, it will not affect the balance of forces;

    Enough for satellites to launch heavy satellites, modules of the orbital station, a two-launch scheme for a manned flight to the moon and interplanetary automatic stations.

    -the small scale of the final tasks, their vague wording, prudently removed to a safe distance for the authors from the time of execution (as a result, there is no responsibility for the result).

    With proper control and financing, everything is normal, especially since the A5 Angara has already managed to fly off. I would advise the author to ask about the cost of solid fuel boosters, the engine (closed circuit by the way) RS-25 and why a similar project did not take off in the late 80s.

  23. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 26 June 2016 13: 04 New
    0
    About Angara Grechko is right. But in addition to the problems mentioned in the article (in her class of conditionally heavy missiles), she has two more problems - high cost (apparently, it wasn’t without plunder) + an absolute lack of ability for advanced modernization (engine weakness, incorrectly selected overall parameters, and so on) .

    The fate of N-1 was significantly influenced by the personality of the Korolev-Glushko conflict. Glushko had RD-270 in his asset, not much less powerful than F-1 (640 tons of traction). Problem - I used poisonous fuel, which the Queen categorically did not like. Although, looking back, you can find that Amersky solid propellant solid propellants are no less toxic, because they emit hundreds of tons of nitrogen oxides that destroy the ozone layer + aluminum oxides, which do not contribute to the purification of the atmosphere. The tragic death of the Queen and the voluntarist mediocrity of Mishin were superimposed on the conflict. The fifth N-1 rocket with reusable Kuznetsov engines, with a very high probability, would fly successfully, since the modernized engines worked without removal from the stand for 10000-14000 seconds (for a flight 140). And now the great one (in fact, Glushko, who apparently had a heavy character), killed the N-1 in 1974, and not just killed, but physically dismembered the almost finished fifth instance and several subsequent ones, to varying degrees of readiness.

    As for the prospects of solid propellant rocket engines, there is a twofold attitude. On the one hand, high power in general; By the year 65, the AJ-260-2 engine was tested in the United States (more than 1600 tons of traction at half length, and 3400 tons at full). But solid propellant rocket motors have significant fatal flaws; not the fact that their use is better:
    1. Significantly lower efficiency / specific impulse. The situation is somewhat corrected by the use of beryllium (specific impulse up to 380 units). But beryllium is the most important fuel; it is more toxic than fluorine, oxygen fluorides, chlorine oxyfluoride and all boranes.
    2. The inability to adjust traction; once launched - it will burn out to the end.
    3. solid fuel - in fact - explosives, which is perfectly shown by the Challenger. The hydrogen from the fuel tank simply benefited - until the solid propellant rocket turned on the upper mount and also pierced the liquid oxygen tank. This is how 7 corpses were formed.

    Returning to the Hangar or to the mythical Phoenix - is it not weak to replace the RD-191 with the RD-180? Then it’s not a problem to master 50 tons (if, of course), change the upper stage; lengthen and expand the tanks and generally strengthen the design.

    On the existing hangar we will not fly away; it is a fact.