Military Review

Because of the rejection of the RD-180, the financial side of NASA projects may suffer.

61
The refusal of the Russian engines RD-180 may affect the viability of NASA projects, reports RIA News message of the Wall Street Journal.


Because of the rejection of the RD-180, the financial side of NASA projects may suffer.


“Disputes between congressmen over the use of RD-180 in military projects have already negatively affected the corporations of the United Launch Alliance, Boeing, Lockheed Martin. Now, as the interlocutors say, the restrictions may affect NASA, ”the newspaper writes.

According to sources, "because of the limitations, the number of Atlas V missile launches could be drastically reduced, which would increase the cost of NASA missions."

According to the interlocutors, "the cost of launches in the coming years could grow by hundreds of millions of dollars."

According to them, the company Sierra Nevada, engaged in the delivery of goods to the space station "has already entered into negotiations on the possible use of Russian and European missiles instead of the US."

The publication reminds that the Russian RD-180 "are used on the Atlas V rocket, which is used for launching aircraft of the US Air Force, as well as NASA scientific and research missions." Earlier, the Pentagon, at the insistence of the Senate, declared that it would abandon the Russian engines, "as soon as this becomes possible and worthy analogs will appear."
Photos used:
RIA News. Yuri Strelets
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dr. Bormental
    Dr. Bormental 19 May 2016 17: 15
    +10
    Yeah ... they are such fools to abandon our engines .. They make noise for a look and still buy it. Well, if they don’t want to, let them buy from Ukraine, there are a lot of rocket engines))))
    1. HERMES
      HERMES 19 May 2016 17: 17
      +4
      Quote: Dr. Bormental
      Yeah ... they are such fools to abandon our engines ..

      No ... they are not fools.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 19 May 2016 17: 40
      +5
      Quote: Dr. Bormental
      Yeah ... they are such fools to abandon our engines .. They make noise for a look and still buy it. Well, if they don’t want to, let them buy from Ukraine, there are a lot of rocket engines))))

      Don't push by the arm, principles are more expensive. "Not a dollar for a corrupt, despotic, authoritarian and something else out there in Russia." We will supply China, they will soon need to fly in such volumes ...
      1. Hon
        Hon 20 May 2016 16: 29
        0
        And they asked China, does he intend to take it?
    3. iouris
      iouris 19 May 2016 17: 40
      -12%
      You do not know the Americans: if they bought something, then they will surely force you to buy from them. Based on this, it can be assumed that the Russian government, in turn, undertook to purchase rocket engines or other components in the United States.
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 19 May 2016 20: 53
        +3
        Quote: iouris
        On this basis, it can be assumed that the Russian government, in turn, undertook to purchase rocket engines or other components in the United States

        - exactly. "I don't know the subject, but I have an opinion."
        - iouris, You woodpecker lovely ..

        fool
      2. Altona
        Altona 19 May 2016 23: 56
        +1
        Quote: iouris
        Based on this, it can be assumed that the Russian government, in turn, undertook to purchase rocket engines or other components in the United States.

        ----------------------
        You turned such a dashing passage, my friend. Did you understand what they were saying in the comments? Simple masterpiece. Sell ​​your rocket motors in the USA and then buy their rocket engines from the USA. In addition to the "paradox about the rotation of engines in trade" in your passage there is another paradox. The fact is that rocket engines and components for them, and in general, everything related to space technologies are objects prohibited for sale. If the United States starts selling something like that to us, it means that we have reached the highest level of trust, or even become "51 states". laughing
    4. Abbra
      Abbra 19 May 2016 19: 22
      +5
      There is a lot of good in Ukraine ... Take it - I don’t want it!
      1. Dr. Bormental
        Dr. Bormental 19 May 2016 19: 38
        +2
        And what's that? Bread machine? New tank? request
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 21 May 2016 00: 48
          0
          Quote: Dr. Bormental
          And what's that? Bread machine? New tank? request

          Yes, just that! You take some different-sized garbage cans ...! lol
      2. Disorder
        Disorder 19 May 2016 21: 26
        +1
        Did they steal the Austin armored car from the museum?
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 21 May 2016 00: 47
          0
          Quote: Trouble
          Did they steal the Austin armored car from the museum?

          And repainted with green lol
      3. VL33
        VL33 20 May 2016 08: 04
        0
        This is a birdhouse with cookies)))) natural dill product
      4. GSH-18
        GSH-18 21 May 2016 00: 46
        0
        Quote: Abbra
        There is a lot of good in Ukraine ... Take it - I don’t want it!

        Haha The country of self-made shushpanzer lol
    5. Altona
      Altona 20 May 2016 00: 00
      0
      Quote: Dr. Bormental
      Yeah ... they are such fools to abandon our engines ..

      ----------------------
      Falcon-9 is flying. And even learned to return to earth, 1 time out of 3. A little more, a little more, and reusable rocket trampolines are about to work. laughing
    6. Hon
      Hon 20 May 2016 16: 29
      0
      So they have their own engines
  2. Putinets
    Putinets 19 May 2016 17: 16
    +7
    A trampoline to them or a broomstick from Lysa Gora. Advanced Economy, DB
  3. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 19 May 2016 17: 16
    +4
    But what about their famous pasta, "Falcon-9"? Which is cooler than "boiled eggs"!
    1. Dr. Bormental
      Dr. Bormental 19 May 2016 17: 20
      +6
      It turned out to be one-time. Like a prez.
      1. Armored optimist
        Armored optimist 19 May 2016 17: 42
        +8
        And in the end, the launches turned out to be more expensive than ours, since even with a successful landing, the costs of delivery and repair-preparation are quite large.
        1. Dr. Bormental
          Dr. Bormental 19 May 2016 17: 50
          +3
          So there are 9 (!) Low-power engines from the American lunar module. There is almost no payload ... some sort of rocket modeling lovers
          1. sa-ag
            sa-ag 19 May 2016 18: 06
            +3
            Quote: Dr. Bormental
            So there are 9 (!) Low-power engines from the American lunar module. There is almost no payload ... some sort of rocket modeling lovers


            "...
            Payload mass
            - on LEO FT: 22 800 kg
            v1.1: 13 kg
            v1.0: 9000 kg
            - on GPO FT: 8300 kg (5500 kg)
            v1.1: 4850 kg
            v1.0: 3400 kg "https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

            nothing so "rocket modeling circle"
            1. Dr. Bormental
              Dr. Bormental 19 May 2016 18: 22
              +2
              I can also write a lot of things on Wikipedia
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 19 May 2016 22: 42
          0
          And in the end, the launches turned out to be more expensive than ours, since even with a successful landing, the costs of delivery and repair-preparation are quite large.
          That is, to make an assessment in advance about this was not fate ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Asadullah
      Asadullah 19 May 2016 18: 58
      0
      But what about their famous pasta, "Falcon-9"


      I understand your line of thought. Only an example is not successful. Behind Falcon is the personality of Elon Mask. Who does not walk in Courchevel, does not drink the entire collection of rare shampoo in the evening, does not buy billions of yachts. He invested all his money in the dream of space. Let's pay tribute and wish him good luck.

      I would reformulate the question so, where is the most successful and safest, and the most lifting rocket Saturn-5? This is just the question that NASA should cause an attack of vomiting, and those who ask are homeric laughter.
      1. Dr. Bormental
        Dr. Bormental 19 May 2016 19: 48
        +1
        Quote: Asadullah
        He invested all his money in the dream of space

        The dream of space is Tsiolkovsky and Korolev. And Musk is a boy who has read Bradbury and Asimov and has an unlimited financial reserve.
        1. Asadullah
          Asadullah 19 May 2016 21: 31
          +3
          The dream of space is Tsiolkovsky and Korolev. And Musk is a boy who has read Bradbury and Asimov and has an unlimited financial reserve.


          smile Yes, no, dear, his supply is limited, he, like Branson, also collected private money from outside for shares. That is, equity capital. Yes, many stocks were bought by banks and funds, not without the help of the government, but believe me, this is also a titanic work. One fact, in case of failure, they will be left with nothing. Bradbury and Asimov? I am glad that they did not read Pelevin. Believe me, I read not only Asimov, and not only Bradbury, but had the same capabilities, I would have done the same. The question is, why did Prokhorov, having assembled a prototype of a not-so-modern car in the garage, blackmail the state for ten years, knocking out money for production?

          I hate political America with all the cells of my being, but besides politics, there are simple people who dream and put their will into fulfilling their dreams. Why do the dreams of Russian oligarchs end with precious toys, but somewhere do people dream of stars and turn their fortune into stardust? That is what deeply respects me. The bourgeois, choking on hazel grouse in pineapples on a golden dish, is disgusted, be it from the Russians or the Kyrgyz, or the American.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 20 May 2016 06: 27
      0
      Something like this! The tanks grimaced suspiciously. wassat

  4. Persistent
    Persistent 19 May 2016 17: 16
    +3
    NASATam and pricks and wants and the State Department does not order .... laughing
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 19 May 2016 17: 34
      +7
      Quote: Persistent
      NASATam and pricks and wants and the State Department does not order .... laughing

      Because they do not have an engine of this level and will not have it for 15 years. And they do not want to buy mattresses from the "worst enemy", but they take the need for a Faberge, because otherwise, many NASA programs (including defense ones) will be covered with copper pelvis.
  5. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 19 May 2016 17: 19
    +5
    Well ... let them abandon the engine ... for our production this is unpleasant BUT it is not fatal ... especially since we are restoring civilian and military space and there are orders for launches ... But the USA ... for which they fought ( sanctions ... it is necessary to limit the Russian presence and other hell) ... along the way, and ran into it ... if they start to limit their launches ... There is simply no company for developing rocket engines yet (I have no doubt that America is capable of create your own ... but this time and money ... and in general it is not even tomorrow and not earlier than 2025 - an optimistic forecast).
  6. Sergerius
    Sergerius 19 May 2016 17: 21
    +7
    they do not want to buy the RD-180, sell them the RD-180a, but at the European price, and in general what kind of buyer went for, I will not, this is not an eastern market repeat
    1. Dr. Bormental
      Dr. Bormental 19 May 2016 17: 27
      +2
      Quote: Sergerius
      there is no east market

      And they walk, ask the price .. there are a lot of sellers of engines wassat
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. NEXUS
      NEXUS 19 May 2016 18: 26
      +2
      Quote: Sergerius
      they do not want to buy the RD-180, sell them the RD-180a, but at the European price, and in general what kind of buyer went for, I will not, this is not an eastern market

      Let them buy it, and the Ukrainians will modernize it, as it was not so long ago ... the result was a masterpiece. laughing
  7. -СтрР° РЅРЅРёРє-
    +4
    use of RD-180 in military projects

    This is the main line !!! Agree - even selling to a potential (???) enemy what will work against us later is somehow not comme il faut ... am hi
    1. adept666
      adept666 19 May 2016 17: 46
      +1
      This is the main line !!! Agree - even selling to a potential (???) enemy what will work against us later is somehow not comme il faut ...
      What will work against us and will fly where our enemy needs it, there are carriers in the United States capable of putting everything they need into orbit. Another thing is the cost / efficiency with our engines is better and reliability / safety (albeit a closed cycle, but the scheme is worked out). Yes, and private business in the United States is still resisting dictatorship (RD-180 is so purely legally a joint project of NPO Energomash and Pratt & Whitney and we are not selling RD-180, but RD AMROSS). And the fact that the USA had access to our engines greatly impeded the creation of analogues of the same Rocketdyne, since the gray cardinals from Lockheed-Martins played on the side of Amross, and they also had a lobby. Well, and so a little to the side ... so that you understand: our entire defense industry today works on American / German / Japanese high-precision machines (there are few of ours and it also has foreign components in one way or another), and we somehow We also do military equipment (and without them it would be hard for us now) hi
  8. vglazunov
    vglazunov 19 May 2016 17: 45
    -1
    Using RD-180 in military projects against Russia?
  9. ARES623
    ARES623 19 May 2016 17: 49
    +7
    Considering how the United States crap on us at every corner, there is every reason to break the contract with them on the RD-180, and conclude a contract for the supply of them to China, laying a blocking system. Send all NASA astronauts from Zvezdny and leave the ISS, undocking their modules. And in parallel, hold elections in Donbass (before the US presidential elections), declare the sovereignty of the LPR, recognize them and conclude an agreement on military-strategic partnership. Better a horrible end than endless horror. All the same, the sanctions were, and will remain. And where it is possible for us to shit, the United States will definitely shit. There is not the slightest sign of the possibility of a correct partnership with the United States, so is it worth it to stand on ceremony with them? And so we are constantly in the role of catching up and responding. May be enough? And let China create a rocket on our engine with delivery to the Pentagon "on its own". Let them scratch ... It is not necessary to do everything in real life. But by creating an atmosphere of intense training, you can get what you want inexpensively. It won't get any worse.
    1. skarl
      skarl 19 May 2016 18: 23
      0
      Your words to God in the ears! Or rather, in the ears of V.V.P ...
  10. Arkan
    Arkan 19 May 2016 17: 55
    +1
    Yes, you can't fly anywhere without an engine. If they still do not have their own engine, how did they "fly" to the moon?
    1. zennon
      zennon 19 May 2016 18: 28
      +8
      Quote: Arkan
      Yes, you can't fly anywhere without an engine. If they still do not have their own engine, how did they "fly" to the moon?

      They have everything. I have beaten my tongue proving the simplest things. Understand the end. Matrasia has her own line of carriers. In addition, there is also Arian’s frogman, which, in the maximum configuration, displays up to 16 tons in orbit. The Chinese still have. All of them perfectly can to output without us, as they did before 1995. Our engines are more reliable, easier. They have an excellent ratio of specific impulse to thrust to mass. Moreover, they also cost them less. And now read:
      According to the interlocutors, "the cost of launches in the coming years could grow by hundreds of millions of dollars."

      In short, it is simply expensive for them to use other carriers instead of Atlas-5. In the era of budget deficits, Congress will cut funds for NASA scientific programs. It is scientific satellites that they will cut. They will launch military satellites with their Deltas. They simply cannot fulfill their scientific program. Not for technical, but for economic reasons. But this cooperation is beneficial for us. We receive funds for R&D. We have work for our enterprises, we have something to pay salaries to people. Do we have many high-tech products that we can sell over the hill? I say things. Only the stubborn ..... do not understand this.
      1. Asadullah
        Asadullah 19 May 2016 19: 15
        -1
        In short, it is simply expensive for them to use other media instead of Atlas-5.


        You repeat the thoughts of interested people. In fact, NASA is not a private shop, and the budget is a little different. Without going into details, I’ll inform you that the price of media does not matter to them at all. There are lobbying companies that will knock out any amount from Congress based on a law that does not allow the purchase of foreign equipment of this category if analogues are made in the USA. And the price has nothing to do with it, because it will consist of a request, to make it within the framework of competition. But these firms are engaged in exactly the opposite, they prove to Congress that there is no replacement and in a short time there can be no analogues. Then if you are not stubborn, prove the opposite that the Americans themselves do not? Is this your personal opinion? Once again, RDs are not cheap carriers. Far from cheap. Because they have no analogues. Not yet.
        1. zennon
          zennon 19 May 2016 20: 34
          +1
          Quote: Asadullah
          You repeat the thoughts of interested people.

          I don’t repeat anything. I have a habit of expressing my own opinion.
          Quote: Asadullah
          They prove to Congress that there is no replacement and in a short time there are no analogues.

          Yes, it is. If the delivery of the RD-180 is canceled, the Atlas will die.
          Quote: Asadullah
          When, if you are not so stubborn, do you prove the opposite that the Americans themselves do not?

          Why don’t they do this stuff yourself? There is no technology or engineering staff to do this. Can they build it up, unconditionally? They even bought a license. But how they calculated how much it would cost to deploy on their sites, it shed a tear! It’s much cheaper to buy.
          Quote: Asadullah
          Once again, RDs are not cheap carriers. Far from cheap.

          The cost of RD-180 under a contract with ULA is about $ 10 million.
          Given the report of the Audit Chamber, in order for the engine to at least pay for its production, the price for it should be $ 20-30 million.
          Take the average one - $ 25 million, and add a profit of 10% (minimum).
          Total: the normal price is $ 27,5 million.
          But bad luck, the American cryogenic RS-68A costs about the same money, though for him the infrastructure is many times more expensive than for the RD-180.

          And more:
          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.
          "In this regard, only in 2008-2009, the loss from their sales amounted to about 880 million rubles, or almost 68% of all Energomash losses," the materials say.
          РИА Новости http://ria.ru/economy/20110511/373020049.html#ixzz497l8C43J

          A curtain.
          1. Asadullah
            Asadullah 19 May 2016 21: 14
            0
            The cost of RD-180 under a contract with ULA is about $ 10 million.


            Nothing of the kind, you cannot know about the contract, because it is divided into several parts, and each part is performed by a separate company, some of which are not engaged in any production at all, but consist of two personnel. This is just in response to your curtain, after which a lot has changed. If the product were supplied assembled by a state-owned enterprise, it would have been possible to avoid some "Russian specifics". But even today, many industries are so bogged down by commercial contracts for the right to sell that we will be fighting for more than one year.

            Despite the "high cost" of the Delta, it flies perfectly in all variants, and today the launches are planned until the age of 22. By the way, we will not develop this topic in general terms, because it is very extensive and there are many translated materials. The only thing is, since you are voicing your own opinion, the statement that Americans save is wrong. With all due respect.
            1. zennon
              zennon 19 May 2016 22: 28
              +1
              Quote: Asadullah
              The cost of RD-180 under a contract with ULA is about $ 10 million.

              Nothing like this

              Let's take a look at the "Wiki":
              The price of one engine as of 2010 was $ 9 million [1].

              Now to the Roscosmos website:
              Igor Komarov, head of Roskosmos: “There is one understandable reason for this (buying US engines): because they are currently the best of all existing in the world in terms of price / quality ratio”.

              And in the same place:
              The current contract with the United States worth about $ 1 billion provides for the supply of 60 engines. In the summer of 2015, the Energia rocket and space corporation sent two modernized RD-181 rocket engines to the United States.

              We divide 1 MLD $ by 60 and we get about 16,5 million dead presidents. Assignment, but everything falls into place when we consider that the current contract was concluded 6 years ago and these engines are modernized. And before that, 15 years they were sold for 9 million $.
              So, my rosy critic ...
      2. ARES623
        ARES623 20 May 2016 07: 03
        -2
        Quote: zennon
        This cooperation is beneficial for us. We get funds for research and development. There is work for our enterprises, there is something to pay salaries for people. Do we have many high-tech products that we can sell over the hill? I say the simplest things. Only stubborn ..... this do not understand.

        Here and take us to the loot. As well as Europe itself. Cabbage, like sheep, will be shown - and then conversations about sovereignty and dignity end. I saw girls with such a life position. We need money - to cut the apparatus and deputies of the State Duma. Each RFP has half a lemon. Set up the work of government agencies: customs are a bunch of brakes, they do not work anywhere more slowly. The reserves of the sea, it is only necessary to eliminate the fifth column in the government. And do not cry about R&D; in their financing, the proceeds from the American ballast in our manned launches are a drop in the bucket. And China will buy engines in unlimited quantities. But no, so redirect from RD to rocketry, for which the turn for years to come. We somehow get strange, some factories are overflowing with external orders, others go bankrupt for unknown reasons. Omsk, Kurgan are examples of this. We must not moan, but establish a revolutionary order. And then a financial group with muddy owners with offshore roots is trying to bankrupt UVZ, this is real work for Uncle Sam.
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 20 May 2016 07: 18
          0
          Your aplomb (multiplied by complete ignorance of the subject) simply touches love

          Quote: ARES623
          Here they take us to the loot

          - But the fact that it is customary to fulfill the contract, actually - it does not bother you, I understand ..

          Quote: ARES623
          And China will buy engines in unlimited quantities

          - RD-180 is "sharpened" specifically for the American Atlas. Neither in the Russian Federation nor anywhere else are there missiles on which it could be used

          Quote: ARES623
          redirect from RD to missile technology, for which the turn for years to come

          - yes .. like that it’s easy and simple - they took it and redirected it .. once you hold your finger, yeah ..

          Quote: ARES623
          We must not moan, but establish a revolutionary order

          - I will give you parabellum (s) Ostap Bender

          Quote: ARES623
          And then a financial group with muddy owners with offshore roots is trying to bankrupt UVZ

          - which side is this? And then - Alfa is not the first time trying to "bite" UVZ, somehow everything does not work out only .. and this time it breaks off - do not go to the fortuneteller ..
          1. ARES623
            ARES623 20 May 2016 13: 02
            0
            Quote: Cat Man Null
            Your aplomb (multiplied by complete ignorance of the subject) simply touches

            I do not want to offend you, but you are not very far in these matters. Now essentially:
            1. "it is accepted to fulfill the contract." I fully understand this ancient Roman aphorism that has become the rule. But after the introduction of illegal sanctions, including economic ones, we now have the right to EVERYTHING (maybe except for a preventive nuclear strike) against the United States and its satellites.
            2. RD-180, this is nothing more than RD-170, created for Energia and worked under the customer, which was GD. The same 170 to earn some money for another customer, designate RD - ***, and let's go.
            3. In order not to be "difficult", each design bureau and joint-stock company deals with several directions, from a telescope to a can opener. This is considered normal in the world. Today KRET is working on finding products that are in demand for the development of the concern after the end of the federal program. Otherwise, management needs to be changed.
            4. Regarding putting things in order, I don't think you are against it. If Serdyukov was not imprisoned, but only removed with wording about waste and embezzlement, then it would be necessary to explain to the people what such connivance is connected with. And either rehabilitate him, or put a "roof" in the next cell. And I already had "parabellum", I had to use it (thank God, not often).
            5. About the financing system - this is to the thesis about the order. The more liberals (marketers) in the financial and economic bloc in the government, the less state interests in the state’s economy. Patriotism and successful entrepreneurship are incompatible things. And maybe Alpha and today could not bite on the state. pie, but it can become a brake. Any fresh idea without timely funding can go bad.
            In conclusion, I would remind you that not all programs need to be executed. Sometimes bluffing and public relations give more than real action. After all, all life is what we think of it.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 May 2016 19: 11
      +2
      That they are attached to the Atlas 5 rocket, they also have other Delta IV rockets with RS 68A engines
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 May 2016 19: 15
      +1
      Rocket Minotaur 4, engine SR 118
    4. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 May 2016 19: 18
      0
      Rocket Taurus, engine TTRD
    5. Asadullah
      Asadullah 19 May 2016 19: 23
      -3
      If they still do not have their own engine, how did they "fly" to the moon?


      laughing Dear, you obviously haven't read "Alice in Wonderland". In addition to engines, the Americans do not know at close range what is happening in orbits over 5 thousand km, they do not know how to reduce the penetrating radiation with materials with a density below 11, they have no idea, either mathematical or physical, about the "sliding" entry into the atmosphere, and much more another.
    6. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 May 2016 19: 23
      +1
      Athena 2 light carrier rocket, engine ТТРД
    7. Vadim237
      Vadim237 19 May 2016 19: 29
      -1
      The Titan IVB rocket is a TTRD engine, but in view of the high cost of launching such missiles, they were abandoned.
  11. atamankko
    atamankko 19 May 2016 18: 04
    0
    What kind of bidding, there is a contract - follow it, it's simple.
    1. vglazunov
      vglazunov 19 May 2016 18: 17
      0
      So they can sell their homeland, wild capitalism ...
      1. iouris
        iouris 19 May 2016 23: 49
        -1
        And what cars are bought?
  12. demiurg
    demiurg 19 May 2016 18: 52
    0
    Quote: sa-ag


    "...
    Payload mass
    - on LEO FT: 22 800 kg
    v1.1: 13 kg
    v1.0: 9000 kg
    - on GPO FT: 8300 kg (5500 kg)
    v1.1: 4850 kg
    v1.0: 3400 kg "https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

    nothing so "rocket modeling circle"

    Yes, even though the Union or Proton could be made reusable, the landing paws could be screwed on, even Botswana can do electronics for such equipment. But why? The bulk of the return to the ground, it is a cheap building and landing legs + fuel for their landing. Does anyone have numbers, how much does the drive weigh, and how much is the 1st stage housing itself, with landing equipment?
    In the USSR, far from being fools, they were sitting in research institutes, and in the USA during the cold-hot war. That's when the mass of fuel will take up 2-3% of the take-off mass (actually more, but it’s for beauty) then we can think of a really reusable rocket.
    By the way, can it be cheaper to return only the engines themselves, by parachute?
  13. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 19 May 2016 19: 07
    +1
    Maybe I missed what, but for the third month in a month we’ve touched a topic that is not worth a damn. Deliveries for 2016 year confirmed
    http://topwar.ru/88063-amerikanskiy-kongress-odobrit-zakupku-rossiyskih-rd-180-v
    -2016-g.html
  14. genn.isaew2015
    genn.isaew2015 19 May 2016 19: 17
    0
    Quote: ARES623
    Considering how the United States crap on us at every corner, there is every reason to break the contract with them on the RD-180, and conclude a contract for the supply of them to China, laying a blocking system. Send all NASA astronauts from Zvezdny and leave the ISS, undocking their modules. And in parallel, hold elections in Donbass (before the US presidential elections), declare the sovereignty of the LPR, recognize them and conclude an agreement on military-strategic partnership. Better a horrible end than endless horror. All the same, the sanctions were, and will remain. And where it is possible for us to shit, the United States will definitely shit. There is not the slightest sign of the possibility of a correct partnership with the United States, so is it worth it to stand on ceremony with them? And so we are constantly in the role of catching up and responding. May be enough? And let China create a rocket on our engine with delivery to the Pentagon "on its own". Let them scratch ... It is not necessary to do everything in real life. But by creating an atmosphere of intense training, you can get what you want inexpensively. It won't get any worse.
  15. Enoch
    Enoch 20 May 2016 08: 37
    -1
    The fact of sales of our US engines, which are increasingly clinging to our borders, is simply surprising. Why did not Stalin sell the Germans say engines with the T-34. Just the 5th lawlessness.