Military Review

In the USA, it was recognized that the use of Russian rocket engines RD-180 is economically advantageous.

83
In the United States, the discussion continued on the future use of Russian RD-180 rocket engines. The topic of "American import substitution" in the rocket industry is most actively discussed today in the Senate. So, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Frank Kendall, speaking to US senators, in response to a question about when the US would stop using Russian-made engines, said literally the following (translation RIA News):

We want to get rid of the RD-180 as soon as possible, we do not want this dependence on the Russian source of supply for our launch vehicles. We would like to advance in this - through a public-private partnership in launch services, and we think this is the best way from a business point of view.


In the USA, it was recognized that the use of Russian rocket engines RD-180 is economically advantageous.


Kendall noted that competitive advantages over Russian rocket engines are needed, making it clear that purchasing the RD-180 for the United States is simply economically beneficial. According to the Pentagon’s deputy head, there is a competition option offered by SpaceX.

Kendall:
This will significantly reduce prices. So competition is very important in order to control these prices.


It is noteworthy that the US Congress lifted the ban that had been in force for several months, which was previously introduced on the initiative of Senator John McCain. The ban concerned the purchase of rocket engines from Russia and the intensification of American developments. Washington is planning to create its own production of rocket engines, which was scheduled for 2017 year. However, it turned out that the price of such an engine would be many times higher than the price of the RD-180, and the manufacturers of the 2017 would not have time to create a full-fledged and reliable engine. Plans had to be adjusted in the direction of offset dates.

In this regard, today it is strange to speak of the United States as a full-fledged space power, if only because the United States does not have its own rocket engines or a spacecraft for delivering astronauts to the ISS.
Photos used:
www.americaspace.com
83 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Teberii
    Teberii April 21 2016 06: 25
    +11
    Clearly, Americans will not invent a bicycle when it is already there.
    1. Very old
      Very old April 21 2016 06: 27
      +8
      And no sanctions against RD-180 @NASA -I listen, the State Department answered hi
      1. Lukich
        Lukich April 21 2016 07: 30
        +7
        Quote: Very old
        And no sanctions against RD-180 @NASA -I listen, the State Department answered

        what is allowed to the owner is unacceptable vassals. you were ordered to withdraw sanctions, and keep yourself at a loss. but it’s profitable for us, so we spat on them. forward geyropa, running to the democracy train at the head of the fascist regional committee. Merkel with the olands are not yet led there
        1. cniza
          cniza April 21 2016 08: 48
          +4
          These partners are sitting firmly on our space hook and will not be able to jump off it in the near future so let them scream in a rag.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 21 2016 10: 12
            +1
            They are sitting on our engines - and even then for two types of missiles, and the rest of their engines, including for super-heavy missiles.
            1. Foofighter
              Foofighter April 21 2016 13: 35
              0
              In this silly "compilation" of the remains of the shuttles, the main thrust is created not by engines, but by solid fuel boosters.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. yushch
          yushch April 21 2016 08: 52
          +4
          Quote: Lukich
          Quote: Very old
          And no sanctions against RD-180 @NASA -I listen, the State Department answered

          what is allowed to the owner is unacceptable vassals. you were ordered to withdraw sanctions, and keep yourself at a loss. but it’s profitable for us, so we spat on them. forward geyropa, running to the democracy train at the head of the fascist regional committee. Merkel with the olands are not yet led there


          I think everything is simpler, the Americans are far from being stupid and are well aware that forcing work on creating their own engines will cost a lot of money. Therefore, they will slowly finish their own, and fly on ours. Does anyone seriously think that American corporations will refuse to cut the dough allocated for development? They just calm their authorities and show how "thrifty" they are.
          1. Lukich
            Lukich April 21 2016 11: 19
            +4
            even easier. they spit on all sanctions. it geyropu onet hold by the throat. they don’t let anyone blather. the clearest example of the netherlands. people voted against the outskirts, but whose parliament elected this people ignored the opinion of the people. that’s all the phasington democracy
        4. Amurets
          Amurets April 21 2016 09: 02
          +4
          Quote: Lukich

          what is allowed to the owner is unacceptable vassals. You were ordered to withdraw sanctions, and keep it at a loss. and it is profitable for us

          This applies not only to the RD-180. Not a single product that is strategically important has been sanctioned. The Americans are not stupid, they forced the EU to impose sanctions against the Russian Federation and immediately replaced their European products. For the sake of curiosity, see who is interested in what picture will open.
          1. Lukich
            Lukich April 21 2016 11: 22
            0
            Quote: Amurets
            .Americans are not fools, they forced the EU to impose sanctions against the Russian Federation and immediately replaced European goods with their own.

            Yes, that's all. and everyone knows that. but green papers shut their mouths to politicians
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 April 21 2016 09: 09
        0
        The United States recognized that the use of Russian rocket engines RD-180 cost effective

        Yes, here at least recognize, at least do not recognize the fact, a stubborn thing. Well, we assume that otmazatsya.
        USA-leading space power! lol
    2. Alex_Rarog
      Alex_Rarog April 21 2016 06: 34
      0
      Yes, you want them if you want, you need to buy them ... We jumped ...
      1. Voha_krim
        Voha_krim April 21 2016 06: 43
        +4
        Quote: Alex_Rarog
        Yes, you want them if you want, you need to buy them ... We jumped ...

        And in case of failure ...
        1. DIMA45R
          DIMA45R April 21 2016 07: 12
          +7
          In connection with your sanctions, the price of RD-180 rises twiceuntil the cancellation thereof.!
          You have nowhere to go to hell, so threefold.
          From Russia with Love
          1. Zoldat_A
            Zoldat_A April 21 2016 07: 41
            +9
            Quote: DIMA45R
            In connection with your sanctions, the price of RD-180 rises twiceuntil the cancellation thereof.!
            You have nowhere to go to hell, so threefold.
            From Russia with Love

            I'm sure, there would be a reverse situation - America would not hesitate to raise the price for a second! A nation of hucksters - and you can talk to them only in the language of prices, and to hit the most sick - in the wallet.
    3. Zoldat_A
      Zoldat_A April 21 2016 06: 39
      +8
      Quote: Teberii
      Clearly, Americans will not invent a bicycle when it is already there.

      And these are the people who "launched" people to the moon? Don't tell my sneakers! Where did everything go - missiles, engines, technologies, specialists ?? Did they even exist?

      I understand - Ancient Egypt has rolled for three thousand years to ensure that from the empire of the pharaohs and pyramids, the highest civilization for its time, to become what it is now. Ancient Greece - 2,5 thousand years followed this path of degradation, Ancient Rome - 1,5 thousand ... And America after the Moon for 40 years forgot how to make engines? Or is there no one else to steal from, so you have to buy from the "evil empire"? And our capitalist ministers are happy as children. They gave us a piece of paper green - and they are happy. I do not believe that trade in engines is so economically advantageous that you can spit on the moral and political side of the issue ...

      Although .... What did old Marx say about 100% profit? ....
      1. Who
        Who April 21 2016 07: 18
        +1
        I agree!
      2. Starover_Z
        Starover_Z April 21 2016 08: 30
        +4
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        And these are the people who "launched" people to the moon? Don't tell my sneakers! Where did everything go - rockets, engines, technologies, specialists ?? Were they at all?

        Yes, they have rockets for launching cargo into space (Atlas IIIB, Atlas-5, Delta IV (en.wikipedia.org)), but ...
        Missiles with Russian engines are cheaper and therefore more profitable. They know how to count their money, so they buy our engines. And they will buy until it is profitable!
        1. Stas157
          Stas157 April 21 2016 09: 19
          +1
          Quote: Starover_Z
          Missiles with Russian engines are cheaper and therefore more profitable.

          Missiles with Russian engines are, first of all, more effective! Nobody in the world has so far been able to make rocket engines with such efficiency! I believe that rocket engines did not need to be sold at all initially, then our missiles would have a guaranteed advantage. But, since they started selling, you need to sell, but at a good price. But, no production licenses! And somewhere it slipped that the Americans were agreeing on a license.
          1. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 21 2016 13: 33
            0
            State Department servants minus ...
          2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Vadim237
        Vadim237 April 21 2016 10: 24
        +2
        What are they engines do not know how to do - they can do everything, but you should not compare the F1 engine with RD180 - different engines - RD 180 is better to compare with RS 68 and RS 25, with engine building everything is just fine, as an example in aircraft manufacturing - the USA experienced The world's largest turbofan engine, the GE9X, with a thrust of 45,4 tons.
        1. Stas157
          Stas157 April 21 2016 10: 41
          +2
          Quote: Vadim237
          as an example in the aircraft industry - the United States tested the world's largest turbofan engine, the GE9X, with a thrust of 45,4 tons.

          LRE and turbojet engines fundamentally different they can not be compared.
          Quote: Vadim237
          with engine they are just fine

          Yes, except for the rocket engine.
          1. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 21 2016 13: 31
            0
            WFD NK-32 is still the most powerful.

            the fact that in the picture it’s not turbofan but turbofan (in the middle between the turbopropeller / turbofan and turbofan engines) that it is invisible that they are placed on supersonic planes, and especially on shuttles laughing
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 21 2016 13: 34
            +1
            In engine building, both in space and in aviation, they have complete order, and they have RS 25, RS 27 and RS 68 for liquid propellant engines and they are all mass-produced and it’s good that they buy engines from us.
            1. Foofighter
              Foofighter April 21 2016 13: 38
              0
              Try more for the ginkard for the prosperity of the USA ... RS and RD cravings can be compared by anyone and everyone wassat
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 21 2016 14: 06
                0
                more precisely - more accurately ...
              2. The comment was deleted.
        2. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz April 21 2016 20: 31
          0
          They do not mass-produce kakbe RS-68, and are going to use RS-25 on SLS. Yes, and the problem was the 68th among them, as I understand it, so we decided to fly on the old 25th. Yes, and the 68th primitive open circuit, in contrast to the closed 25th, has 10% less specific impulse. wassat
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 April 22 2016 01: 02
            0
            And here are the fantastic rocket engines - http://dicelords.narod.ru/rockets/rocket3c2.html but in the future some of them will become a reality.
    4. GSH-18
      GSH-18 April 21 2016 09: 17
      0
      In this regard, today it is strange to speak of the United States as a full-fledged space power, if only because the United States does not have its own rocket engines or a spacecraft for delivering astronauts to the ISS.

      Have they abandoned their shuttles? In the days of the USSR, they flaunted that they had such a cool space plane ... Until our "Buran" was made tongue And now what, snows and shuttles babos not enough to lose? bully
      1. Stas157
        Stas157 April 21 2016 09: 22
        +2
        Quote: GSH-18
        Have they abandoned their shuttles? In the days of the USSR, they flaunted that they had such a cool space plane ... Until the moment when our "Buran" made tongue And now what, too, and the shuttles of babos are not enough to fire up?

        Expensive and dangerous! Economics and common sense, in this case, defeated the political decision.
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 April 21 2016 09: 27
          0
          Quote: Stas157
          Expensive and dangerous! Economics and common sense, in this case, defeated the political decision.

          Yeah. Well then, and the nefik trindet-sanctions, sanctions. Himself probably already funny.
    5. SibRUS
      SibRUS April 21 2016 09: 18
      -1
      They still have not guessed that flying on our Mig-29s is more profitable than on their F-35s. laughing
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 April 21 2016 09: 24
        0
        Quote: SibRUS
        They still have not guessed that flying on our Mig-29s is more profitable than on their F-35s. laughing

        Only who will sell them to them except friendly Ukraine. But skaklov buy-not buzz. Boiled guano, verified by Iraq and Croatia lol
        1. Pavel Tsybai
          Pavel Tsybai April 21 2016 12: 00
          0
          In this regard, today it is strange to speak of the United States as a full-fledged space power, if only because the United States does not have its own rocket engines or a spacecraft for delivering astronauts to the ISS.

          Something this reminds me of Ukraine, everything was there too.
    6. sgazeev
      sgazeev April 21 2016 13: 07
      +1
      Quote: Teberii
      Washington plans to create its own production of rocket engines, which was scheduled for 2017. However, it turned out that the price of such an engine would be several times higher than the price of the RD-180, and manufacturers by 2017 did not have time to create a full-fledged and reliable engine. Plans had to be adjusted in the direction of shifting the timing.

      Washington plans to create its own production of rocket engines, which was scheduled for 2017. However, it turned out that the price of such an engine would be several times higher than the price of the RD-180, and manufacturers by 2017 did not have time to create a full-fledged and reliable engine. Plans had to be adjusted in the direction of shifting the timing.

      And what are we sitting for? We need to adjust the prices upward, it will still be less than what they sawrecourse
  2. Bath
    Bath April 21 2016 06: 25
    +3
    It is important to understand whether it is advisable to sell such strategic goods to a potential adversary or money doesn’t smell
    1. Aleksander
      Aleksander April 21 2016 06: 35
      +2
      Quote: Bath
      It is important to understand whether it is advisable to sell such strategic goods to a potential adversary or money doesn’t smell


      Wildly this- MILITARY satellites are being displayed on these engines, and who they will direct the missiles at is clear. The Americans DO NOT sell to Russia what can be used against the West, the same Germans blocked the supply of engines for naval ships.
      1. Tusv
        Tusv April 21 2016 07: 28
        +1
        Quote: Aleksander
        Wildly this - on these engines the military satellites are displayed

        Ischo one wildness happened relatively recently. recourse At the NATO exercises, Poland used the Russian military communications satellite. The Yankees are furious, and the clearing answered quite logically, they say it’s cheaper and the connection is better.
        What is better the launch of a military satellite taken from the database of the American ICBM with our engine under close surveillance or the launch of 4 military satellites Delta, but quietly?
    2. Yak28
      Yak28 April 21 2016 06: 39
      +1
      So over 25 years of devastation, all secrets have long been sold. 90% of our military equipment has been thoroughly studied by the Americans. Almost all the samples of military aircraft, armored vehicles, multiple rocket launchers that remained in the Warsaw Pact countries, and today in NATO countries have long been studied by Amers. Also, our new equipment is bought through third countries. Under capitalism, money does not smell, everything is sold and bought
      1. rotmistr60
        rotmistr60 April 21 2016 06: 54
        +2
        So for 25 years of devastation, all secrets have long been sold. 90% of our military equipment has been carefully studied by the Americans.

        It’s possible that some secrets (including on the taxiway) also went to them, but they themselves can’t do anything worthwhile. And talk about economic feasibility is just an excuse.
      2. Who
        Who April 21 2016 07: 24
        +4
        That is how it is, only even the Chinese have not managed to reproduce the engines for the Su-27, and they are buying them from Russia. And the Americans had complete technological documentation for the RD-180 back in the 90s, but they could not recreate it. In documents, a semicolon is always omitted here and there.
        1. Stas157
          Stas157 April 21 2016 09: 32
          +2
          Quote: vem
          And the Americans had complete technological documentation for the RD-180 back in the 90s, but they were never able to recreate it. In documents, a semicolon is always omitted here and there.

          Yes, but it would be better not to show at all. Nobody will sell or show such products to us, let alone "give the full technical documentation"! Yes, this is just a gift for the United States, and not expensive! The Americans, I heard, made copies of our engines several times, nevertheless, the efficiency was still lower! But, nevertheless, having given the engine and documentation to the USA, we somehow brought them closer to the fact that they themselves could one day do something like that.
          1. Who
            Who April 21 2016 17: 21
            0
            They exploded two rockets on copies of the RD-180 of their own production, one in the air, the other right at the start. After that, they calmed down and made another order with Russia.

            Similarly, they order "uranium pellets" from enriched uranium-235 for the fuel elements of their nuclear power plants in Russia, because its production is technologically very backward and extremely inefficient. And Europe, besides France, sits on "tablets" from Russia, and Sweden even orders whole fuel elements (complete "assembly") from Russia, having its own plant for their production. In this regard, Russia, if desired, can "turn off" 30% of the Western world.
    3. GSH-18
      GSH-18 April 21 2016 09: 21
      +1
      Quote: Bath
      It is important to understand whether it is advisable to sell such strategic goods to a potential adversary or money doesn’t smell

      This loot, with all the disadvantages of the situation, allows our missile industry to develop.
  3. avvg
    avvg April 21 2016 06: 26
    +3
    In my opinion, we must give the Americans their due that they have always been arrogant, but pragmatists who know how to find their own advantage in everything.
    1. Alexander 3
      Alexander 3 April 21 2016 06: 35
      +1
      That is, impudently arrange sanctions, it is possible and it is impossible, but at the same time I need this.
      1. Throw
        Throw April 21 2016 06: 40
        0
        Yeah! And we, loshars, are selling, read above about military satellites ...
  4. loginovich
    loginovich April 21 2016 06: 35
    0
    Only business, no politics. And Minsk and Crimea on the drum.
    1. subbtin.725
      subbtin.725 April 21 2016 09: 05
      0
      The United States has neither its own rocket engines, nor a spacecraft to deliver astronauts to the ISS.

      Rogozin knows the recipe - only a trampoline will save. lol
      1. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 21 2016 13: 42
        0
        The USA has an alternative to it - Harry Potter's broom, in order to achieve competitive advantages over a trampoline, their marketers will cope ...

        laughing "uryakalki" (joke) and then they did not guess ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
  5. Revolver
    Revolver April 21 2016 06: 36
    +1
    From the point of view of common sense is beneficial. And from the point of view of B. Hussein Obama - politically incorrect. I dare to assure you, if he is replaced by Clintonsha, the point of view, if he moves, is for the worse.

    Hillary for Prison 2016 !!!
    1. Teberii
      Teberii April 21 2016 06: 39
      -1
      The worst Americans will be left without engines.
  6. V.ic
    V.ic April 21 2016 06: 37
    -1
    On what "engines" did the mattress guys fly to the moon?
    1. Revolver
      Revolver April 21 2016 06: 47
      +3
      For those for which no materials or components have been produced for a long time. And those factories are no longer there. And those who did it already at retirement, or even observe how the grass grows ... from the side of the roots.
      1. Who
        Who April 21 2016 07: 26
        0
        Do not la la.
        1. sa-ag
          sa-ag April 21 2016 07: 46
          +2
          Quote: vem
          Do not la la.

          Nagan’s colleague says everything correctly, people from the lunar project were transferred to the space shuttle project, they worked there, there were other designs, an engine and everything else, the equipment from Saturn has sunk into oblivion
          1. Stas157
            Stas157 April 21 2016 09: 42
            0
            Quote: sa-ag
            people from the lunar project were transferred to the space shuttle project, and there they worked, there were already other designs, the engine and everything else, the equipment from Saturn has sunk into oblivion

            So what? And for other rockets, engines were not needed? And the documentation also lost competencies? And on the Shuttles, were there fundamentally different engines with lower efficiency than Saturn? If they were able to make good engines for Saturn, then why couldn't they repeat this success in other engines? Continuity does not work?
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona April 21 2016 12: 35
              0
              Shuttles have better engines than Saturn, and they will be used in their new super-heavy SLS LV, and Falcon-9 with Marilyn engines (USA) will be carried to the ISS on the Dragon-2 astronauts and will already carry loads to the Dragon.
              1. Stas157
                Stas157 April 21 2016 13: 16
                +1
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Shuttles have better engines than Saturn

                Most likely, but not better than ours. I just doubt the wonderful qualities of Saturn's engines.
                1. Foofighter
                  Foofighter April 21 2016 13: 45
                  0
                  no, well, what are you - they won’t put guano in the museum, but they themselves will start buying a half from the Soviet ... laughing
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona April 21 2016 14: 34
                    0
                    For such a price, in their place, even with warp engines, I would buy ours.
                    http://ria.ru/economy/20110511/373020049.html
                    MOSCOW, May 11 - RIA Novosti. OJSC NPO Energomash sold Russian RD-180 rocket engines for American Atlas-5 launch vehicles for half the cost of their production costs, according to the Russian Audit Chamber.
                    1. Foofighter
                      Foofighter April 21 2016 20: 51
                      0
                      Especially if there are none of them? laughing
                2. Bayonet
                  Bayonet April 21 2016 15: 03
                  0
                  Quote: Stas157
                  I just doubt the wonderful qualities of Saturn's engines.

                  F-1 - for their time, excellent engines, by the way, are still not surpassed in power among single-chamber.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Foofighter
                    Foofighter April 21 2016 20: 59
                    0
                    And why did it have to be made single-chamber?
                3. Stas157
                  Stas157 April 21 2016 18: 39
                  +2
                  Well, who set the minus! Who thinks American engines are better than ours? You shock me, you really need to know our achievements. And not bad at all, even proud of it!
      2. V.ic
        V.ic April 21 2016 14: 01
        0
        Quote: Nagan
        For those for which no materials or components have been produced for a long time. And those factories are no longer there. And those who did already retired, or even

        So they would have given the documentation to the PRC, printed a couple of tons of "greens" with a portrait of Benjamin Franklin for this case, / for a loan to restore production / and flew into orbit in 4-5 years. The yellow-faced for such a thing would stamp about 100 engines with payment of the first batch of 50% of the face value.
      3. V.ic
        V.ic April 21 2016 18: 51
        0
        Quote: Nagan
        For those for which no materials or components have been produced for a long time. And those factories are no longer there. And those who did already retired,

        You painted a sad picture of regression ... belay Just a tear / stingy man squeezed me out too / crying A typical illustration to the tales of "decaying capitalism" and "the inevitable death of imperialism" good In a mature reflection: do you yourself believe in such nonsense?
  7. McLuha-MacLeod
    McLuha-MacLeod April 21 2016 06: 38
    +1
    Let them buy an outdated engine. Our designers make more perfect with their money.
  8. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich April 21 2016 06: 39
    -3
    And someone proves to us that the Americans flew to the moon ??? what request
    I DO NOT BELIEVE! lol hi
    1. sa-ag
      sa-ag April 21 2016 07: 02
      +4
      Quote: Rurikovich
      I DO NOT BELIEVE!

      "... and there is no Rio de Janeiro, and in general the waves of the Atlantic Ocean break on the shore of Shepetovka" (C) "Golden Calf" :-)
  9. Yak28
    Yak28 April 21 2016 06: 42
    +1
    The United States prints paper that is exchanged for rocket engines, as it may not be profitable
  10. Ruswolf
    Ruswolf April 21 2016 06: 48
    +2
    On the one hand - there is no chapel to indignation!
    And if on the other .... Then it’s better to buy from us than to develop our own. Although there are some pressure points on the USA.
    As Ragozin said (in response to the sanctions), even if they get to the ISS using a trampoline. Look Ukraine is training - everything is jumping laughing
  11. igorka357
    igorka357 April 21 2016 07: 35
    -1
    For whom did they recognize that for themselves? We have already known this for a long time!
  12. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn April 21 2016 07: 51
    0
    WASHINGTON, 20 Apr - RIA Novosti, Alexey Bogdanovsky. The Pentagon plans to abandon Russian RD-180 rocket engines as soon as possible, said Deputy Secretary of Defense Frank Kendall at a hearing of the US Senate Appropriations Committee
    “We want to get rid of the RD-180 as soon as possible, we do not want this dependence on the Russian source of supply for our launch vehicles. We would like to move forward in this - through a public-private partnership in launch services, and we think that this is the best way to go from a business standpoint, "Kendall said.
    According to him, the emergence of a potential competitor to the RD-180 in the person of SpaceX "significantly reduces prices." "So competition is very important in order to control prices," the US Deputy Secretary of Defense concluded.
    On the initiative of Senator John McCain in 2014, Congress decided to abandon Russian engines and accelerate the development of American counterparts, but this ban was lifted in the budget law, which entered into force in December and is valid until October 2016. The Pentagon assures that it is still ready to abandon Russian engines, but this may require more time than planned.
    Allegedly a bare business and nothing more ...
    In the meantime? © RIA Novosti. Mikhail Voskresensky
    Russia is working on a new generation of space engines
    1. sa-ag
      sa-ag April 21 2016 07: 53
      0
      Quote: avg-mgn
      Russia is working on a new generation of space engines

      will they really master hydrogen? Only this is not a new generation, but a well-forgotten old
      1. Stas157
        Stas157 April 21 2016 09: 49
        +2
        Quote: sa-ag
        will they really master hydrogen? Only this is not a new generation, but a well-forgotten old

        Hydrogen is expensive. Natural gas, methane, environmentally friendly and cheap!
        1. Bayonet
          Bayonet April 21 2016 12: 36
          0
          Quote: Stas157

          Hydrogen is expensive. Natural gas, methane, environmentally friendly and cheap!

          Hydrogen oxygen - much more environmentally friendly, as a result, water is obtained smile
          1. Foofighter
            Foofighter April 21 2016 13: 26
            0
            Much more toxic than kerosene due to the participation in the reaction of the materials of the walls of the nozzle and atmospheric nitrogen in fact. And in the first steps they give far worse traction.
            1. Bayonet
              Bayonet April 21 2016 15: 29
              0
              Quote: FooFighter
              on the first steps give much worse traction.

              Perhaps that is why the first stage of Energia was equipped with oxygen-hydrogen LPRE RD-0120? smile The highest specific impulse in the class of chemical rocket engines (over 4 m / s for oxygen-hydrogen pairs, for kerosene-oxygen - 500 m / s).
              1. Foofighter
                Foofighter April 21 2016 20: 56
                +1
                That is why the first stage of Saturn-5 was kerosene and not hydrogen bully as well as the first stages of "Energy".
          2. The comment was deleted.
  13. Ru_N
    Ru_N April 21 2016 07: 53
    +1
    Amers steers a golden calf. And if it is more profitable to buy engines from us, then it will be so until they learn how to do better and cheaper, which is doubtful. Conclusion: they will talk and calm down, the topic will be taboo and they will calmly buy our engines further. The phenomenon is called American pragmatism.
  14. YarGa
    YarGa April 21 2016 08: 19
    +1
    High so far without engines fly. Partners. laughing
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet April 21 2016 12: 39
      0
      Quote: YarGa
      High so far without engines flying. Partners

      Recently, an American truck delivered cargo to the ISS, can you tell me how it managed without engines? smile
      1. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 21 2016 13: 52
        0
        And how can "Soyuz" fly there without the RD-180? And not just cargo "Progress"?

        By the way, why the Roskosmos does not use the very best engine in the world at all, and for a penny (supposedly to create competitive advantages) it is supplied to the USA - it looks more like a tribute left from the Yeltsinoids ...
  15. Engineer
    Engineer April 21 2016 08: 34
    0
    Of course it’s profitable! Lockheed does not spend money on the development and testing of his engine, but buys it ready and at times cheaper. The question is different: now we really can take the American astronautics by the throat, make it so that they have to go to us for a slaughter to use their niche launchers in their interests (while their commercial crafts fly over) which is much more expensive than selling engines to them cheaply. But, enduring all the sanctions that have been introduced and maintained only because of US pressure, we supply them with rocket engines, including for military purposes. K-r-and-t-and-n-and-z-m!
  16. Berber
    Berber April 21 2016 08: 49
    0
    For the United States, the situation is stalemate. His, if done, will be expensive. Refuse our status does not allow. And all because why don’t touch it - the business, first of all, doesn’t like working for cents. And a whole bunch of hangers-on (the so-called lobby) who also need something. In short, for no reason and American patriotism do not care. If we had such a situation, they would break a lot of money, but they would.
  17. Ros 56
    Ros 56 April 21 2016 08: 54
    +1
    Americans, put the silly McCain in a rocket and send to the side of Mars.
    1. Foofighter
      Foofighter April 21 2016 14: 00
      0
      it’s impossible - this clown will miss him, get to the portal in the orbit of Saturn (Interstellar), from there to the blackhole, from there to the locker in the Oval Office and from there he will make orders to the next US president laughing
  18. AVV
    AVV April 21 2016 09: 47
    -1
    Quote: Teberii
    Clearly, Americans will not invent a bicycle when it is already there.

    While America will decide to ban the purchase of the RD-180, Russia will create an even more advanced engine, which it will be even more difficult to refuse, both technically and economically !!!
  19. Jackking
    Jackking April 21 2016 09: 52
    -1
    Interesting. and where did the documents on the engines go. which were used in the lunar program? The mice ate :)
    1. Jackking
      Jackking April 26 2016 22: 07
      0
      For minusers, or those who do not know, the lunar program that brought a person to the moon (if this is not a lie) was American. And on a heavy carrier (Apollo 11) there were no engines. So there was a question about them - if Apollo is not a fiction, then where are the engines ??? Who poper documents ???
  20. x.andvlad
    x.andvlad April 21 2016 10: 33
    0
    Or maybe the economic benefit is worth calculating from our side, if we imagine a situation when we stop selling these engines to America. Then we can assume that, firstly, they will disrupt their space programs for a while, and secondly, over time, they will begin to use their expensive engines, as a result of which the load on the American budget will increase and they will no longer have enough money for new weapons and "export" American democracy.
    I think that THEY, in OUR place, would have calculated all this "debit with credit" and would certainly have practically used it. And we are kind and will not do that. But for some reason we are considered evil.
  21. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 April 21 2016 10: 46
    -1
    [quote] In this regard, it is strange today to speak of the United States as a full-fledged space power, if only because the United States has neither its own rocket engines, nor a spacecraft for delivering astronauts to the ISS. [
    quote]

    But the American "torn ass with acne" in 1967 proudly fluttered in the wind on the surface of the moon.
  22. volodya
    volodya April 21 2016 11: 30
    +1
    Quote: Voha_krim
    And in case of failure ...

    Put on a barrel of gunpowder, let them fly!
  23. rus-5819
    rus-5819 April 21 2016 12: 03
    0
    we think this is the best way from a business perspective.

    What the Americans think is understandable.
    But what does Russia think about this, and is it time for the "hegemons" to poke their noses into the sanctions or, at worst, to raise the prices for the RD?
    Or do we always sacredly "observe the agreements in relation to our partners"?
    Something like a one-goal game.
  24. rus-5819
    rus-5819 April 21 2016 12: 11
    0
    Quote: Ros 56
    Americans, put the silly McCain in a rocket and send to the side of Mars.

    It will not reach, it will descend on Jupiter (and it doesn’t matter that it is on the other side, American exceptionalism and an unbending American spirit are important !!!
  25. v.yegorov
    v.yegorov April 21 2016 12: 48
    +1
    In this regard, today it is strange to speak of the United States as a full-fledged space power, if only because the United States does not have its own rocket engines or a spacecraft for delivering astronauts to the ISS.

    And we do not have our own electronic industry, on 70% we depend on
    imports picked up from nowhere. And the fact that there is, as a rule,
    lags behind the world level in parameters. And as a result, it is not observed
    particular success in space exploration. So maybe it's time
    demand from the USA, if you want engines - allow the sale of microelectronics?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 21 2016 13: 43
      +2
      We lagged behind the USA specifically in space exploration - over the past 15 years, they have designed and built 5 types of manned spacecraft, we have not a single one.
      1. Foofighter
        Foofighter April 21 2016 14: 04
        0
        laughing Yes, in general it is hopeless ... True, something is not visible that they have been flying piloted for the last 5 years on anything other than Soviet Soyuz.
      2. Corsair5912
        Corsair5912 April 21 2016 19: 59
        -2
        Quote: Vadim237
        We lagged behind the USA specifically in space exploration - over the past 15 years, they have designed and built 5 types of manned spacecraft, we have not a single one.


        And what are the 5 tarantulas without a horse? They did not build any engines, and not only for missiles, but also for airplanes, and their planes are not good.

        Due to a heap of compromises included in the design, mainly for the Marine Corps, the F-35 is an inferior fighter, seriously inferior even to old Russian and Chinese aircraft, which can fly faster, further and have better maneuverability.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 April 21 2016 20: 13
          +1
          For rockets, they have their own engines and rocket carriers for each of these ships also have them and they fly, and we only buy engines for the Atlas 5 rocket - the rest of the rockets fly on their engines.
    2. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 April 21 2016 19: 35
      0
      Quote: v.yegorov

      And we do not have our own electronic industry, on 70% we depend on
      imports picked up from nowhere. And the fact that there is, as a rule,
      lags behind the world level in parameters. And as a result, it is not observed
      particular success in space exploration. So maybe it's time
      demand from the USA, if you want engines - allow the sale of microelectronics?


      Nonsense of the profane.
      All our military and industrial needs are met by the Russian electronics industry, which is far ahead of Japan, the USA, Korea, and China.
      We do not have our own production domestic electronics, it was ditched in the 90s, but we can easily do without the "shooters" of porn and chernukha consumed by most users of imported electronics.
  26. Foofighter
    Foofighter April 21 2016 13: 21
    0

    Kendall noted that competitive advantages over Russian rocket engines are needed, making it clear that purchasing the RD-180 for the United States is simply economically beneficial. According to the Pentagon’s deputy head, there is a competition option offered by SpaceX.


    The article is written only to present the case so? In fact, the circumstances are such that the United States simply does not have an analogue of such an engine, which is only half of the RD-171, still the most powerful in the world, made in the USSR.
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. rfv0304
    rfv0304 April 21 2016 15: 07
    +1
    Of course they are profitable. He printed how much money is needed and pay. Paper can stand it.