Military Review

Myasishchev satellites: unusual aerospace projects that are still relevant

92

In the photo: an aerospace plane developed as part of the M-19 project.

Almost all domestic aviation design bureaus tried themselves in the space and rocket field. It’s enough to recall the Spiral aerospace system developed in the mid-1960s at Artem Mikoyan Design Bureau-155 or the Sukhoi Design Bureau in the mid-2000s in the project to create a winged version of the Clipper manned space shuttle. However, the first projects of vehicles using aviation principles for solving space problems appeared in the second half of the 1950s. One of the first such developments began OKB-23 under the leadership of Vladimir Myasishchev.

In March, 1953, Sergey Korolev began work on his famous intercontinental rocket R ‑ 7, which in October, 1957, launched the First Earth Satellite. A year later, in May 1954 of the year, a Resolution of the USSR Council of Ministers on the development of intercontinental cruise missiles (CRMD) was issued to attack targets in the United States. The decree provided for the presentation of complexes for joint testing in the first quarter of 1957.

The first "Buran"

As a result, two aviation design bureaus were involved in work on this subject:

• OKB ‑ 301 Semyon Lavochkin for the development of the Storm Р KPMD (“350 product”, ‑ 350, La ‑ 350) with a nuclear warhead of 2,1 tons (later the weight was increased to 2,35 tons)

• and Vladimir Myasishchev OKB ‑ 23 for the development of the Buran CRMD (“40 product”) designed for a thermonuclear warhead with an initial mass of 3,4 tons.

The development of medium-range cruise missiles was conducted by OKB ‑ 240 by Sergey Ilyushin (products P-20С and P ‑ 22), OKB ‑ 49 by Georgiy Beriev (P-100), OKB ‑ 156 by Andrey Tupolev (products “121” and “XNXX”) . The commission for the development of cruise missiles to aviation enterprises was logical: the second stages and the Buri and Burana were an unmanned aerial cruise aircraft with a supersonic ramjet engine. The use of aviation principles was not limited to the use of the wing to ensure flight. This applied to all onboard systems.

The Buran CRMD consisted of a winged marching stage, designated the “41 product”, and four launch accelerators (the “42 product”) with liquid rocket engines (LRE). The separation of the starting accelerators occurred at Mach 3. In 1956, the Council of Ministers issued a resolution on increasing the power of the Buran warhead, which increased its mass to 5 tons. In this regard, a new conceptual design of the “40A product” was developed. In 1957, pilot production of OKB-23 built the first cruise missile, designed for a new warhead, and its bench tests began. However, in the same year, the Queen of the R-7 rocket reached the intercontinental range. Cruise missiles were only developed and tested. In addition, they had more flight time to the target, were more vulnerable than ballistic missiles due to the lower altitude. Therefore, before the flight tests "products 40A" it did not come.

By decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR from February 5 of 1960, the development of the Buran CRMD was stopped.

From space on the wings



Soviet aircraft designers, who in the second half of the 1950s under pressure from the political leadership of the country were gradually forced to move away from the main aircraft-building subjects in favor of rocket and space, the idea of ​​an aerospace vehicle seemed quite logical and correct. The rapid growth of the speeds and heights of post-war aviation seemed to predict an inevitable transition from supersonic to hypersonic speeds and space flights.

“By the time of launch of the first satellite, jet aircraft had actually approached the boundary of space, more precisely, to the upper boundary of the atmosphere, but only from below,” says Vadim Lukashevich, Ph.D., historian of aerospace systems, author of the site “Buran.Ru”. - Sputnik opened new perspectives for aviators, having accelerated for decades already the desire for new frontiers. Another motive for the advancement of the aviators into space was the desire to protect themselves from the persecution of aviation, which was undertaken by the country's political leadership in the person of Nikita Khrushchev at the end of the 1950s. Most of the aviation design bureaus were either forcibly transferred to the missile theme, or were forced to “voluntarily” engage in it for the sake of survival. ”

Myasishchev was one of the first chief designers who initiated space projects. Almost in parallel with the work on the “40 product”, in 1956, its OKB-23 took up work on a hypersonic orbital rocket plane with a planned descent and aircraft landing. Vladimir Mikhailovich called such a device "satelliteloid."

Before 1957, in the OKB-23, together with NII-1 and NII-4, research and design surveys were conducted to study the effectiveness of various types of long-range aircraft. The conclusion made in these works determined the main direction of research: “The most promising and practically feasible in the near future will be inertial-aerodynamic (cruise-ballistic) missiles with near-circular and circular flight speeds, called satellite-like products.” Among such devices, the most interesting are rockets, the last stage of which can be a small-sized inertial-circular plane of reusable action - satellite (or intercontinental rocket-plane) ... "

Among the reasons for the desirability of continuing work on the manned "satellites" Myasishchev pointed out:

“... - the pilot is a necessary element of the control system, if circumstances that arise during the flight cannot be taken into account with the help of a computer;

- the pilot [himself] is the lightest and most versatile computer necessary for control;

- manned aircraft can fly itself to the right place, which simplifies the problem of transportation and combat supplies;

- the rocket plane has a clear tactical advantage over all other airborne rocket launchers, since it ensures that the maximum possible speeds, altitudes and flight ranges are reached. "

These flight-technical capabilities of the winged satellite, unattainable for other aircraft and spacecraft, with multiple actions, opened up broad prospects for using it as an effective means of reconnaissance of the enemy’s territory.

"Rocketplan could also be used for scientific purposes to probe the upper layers of the atmosphere (inaccessible to either satellites or aircraft), to communicate with the Earth’s inhabited satellites (manned stations) and to transport orbital cargoes (fuel, equipment, building materials, etc.) ", - wrote Myasishchev.

The first work experience of OKB ‑ 23 on a space theme was the project of a hypersonic orbital rocket-plane “46 product” with a planned descent, horizontal landing and practically unlimited circular (orbital) flight range. As a carrier for the launching of the rocket plane, Myasishchev suggested using either the upgraded K-Queen R-7 rocket or a carrier of its own design based on the development of rocket boosters for Buran.
The main problems were the development of hypersonic flight speeds. Myasishchev proposed a phased plan for the development of hypersonic flight speeds, according to which the development of an unmanned satellite reconnaissance aircraft was supposed to be carried out in the 1963 year.

48 family

Myasishchev satellites: unusual aerospace projects that are still relevant

In the photo: 1. Draft 46 rocket planner with a planning descent.

2. Installation scheme of a manned reusable aerospace aircraft “product 48-IV” on a launch vehicle “product 47” (own development of OKB-23).

The first stage of development involved the creation of an experimental apparatus with a crew of one person for the development of a planning descent, including landing, on-board equipment and research of human activity in space flight conditions. Four variants of the device were considered:

• "48-I" winged scheme with low angles of attack at the entrance and braking hypersonic shields;
• "48-II" winged scheme with large angles of attack at the entrance and planning a landing;
• "48-III" wingless scheme "reverse cone" with a rotary descent;
• “48-IV” cone with hypersonic wings and brake covers (parachute version).

According to the stories of Evgeny Kulagi, Doctor of Technical Sciences (veteran of OKB ‑ 23, later - Chief Designer of the State Space Research and Production Center (GKNPT) named after MV Khrunichev), “Manned Reusable Aerospace Aircraft (HQS) [“ 48 product -IV ". - Ed.] Was a small arrow-shaped aircraft with a flat bottom. In terms of the apparatus had the shape of an almost regular equilateral triangle. In fact, it was a flying wing of small elongation.

According to Kulagi's memoirs, the 48 rocket glider was created in collaboration with the OKB-1 (S. P. Korolev) and the NII-1 (M. V. Keldysh). Korolev was very respectful of Myasishchev. They met back in 1939 in the “Tupolev sharashka” - TsKB ‑ 29 of the NKVD, to which both fell as “enemies of the people”. Since then, Myasishchev and Korolev have maintained personal contacts.

Work on the topic "48" reached the heat test design samples with thermal protection in a jet engine jet. However, the campaign against military aircraft did its job: in October 1960 of the year, OKB-23 was transferred as a branch number 1 to the OKB-52, led by Vladimir Chelomey, dealing with missile themes. Myasishchev was appointed head of TsAGI.

In space from the "Cold"

In 1967, Vladimir Myasishchev became the general designer of the Experimental Machine-Building Plant (EMP). It was formed in 1966 year on the basis of the branch of the Machine-Building Plant named. MV Khrunichev in the city of Zhukovsky and Design Bureau № 90. Myasishchev had to re-assemble the design team, create new laboratories, test benches.

Being engaged in aviation-related topics at the EMP, Myasishchev continued to work “for space”. As part of the “Cold-2” theme, designed to study the specific features of the use of liquid hydrogen in aviation, the design of the M-19 aerospace plane was developed at the Electromechanical Bureau.

Myasishchev turned the work on the project into a large-scale study of the problems of the development of hypersonic aircraft with associated solution of the problems of space exploration. Within the framework of the M-19 project, work was carried out in four areas:

• 19 – 1 - the creation of a flying laboratory with a power plant on liquid hydrogen in order to work out the issues of the use of cryogenic fuel;
• 19 – 2 - design work to determine the appearance of a hypersonic aircraft;
• 19 – 3 - design work to determine the possible appearance of various types of aerospace planes on chemical fuels;
• 19 – 4 - design work to determine the appearance of a single-stage aerospace plane using nuclear energy.

About the topic of M-19, Myasishchev once remarked: “This work will apparently become a swan song for me. Of course, I will not find her ending. But it is very important to go in the right direction ... "

Second "Buran"

In February, the Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Council of Ministers “On the creation of a reusable space system” was issued on 1976. It was based not on the M-19 project, but on the Energy system — Buran, developed by Energia and largely copying the American Space Shuttle system. To create a glider for the Buran orbital ship, the Minister of Aviation Industry Peter Dementiev was forced to create the NPO Molniya. It includes EMZ, CB "Lightning" and CB "Petrel". So the firm Myasishchev was involved in the creation of the second "Buran".

The team of EMZ developed and manufactured a pressurized cabin for the Buran crew. Based on the 3M bomber, the 3M-T aircraft transporter was created at the factory (the open name is VM-T Atlant). Two bomber were converted for flights. They carried out more than 150 flights to the Baikonur cosmodrome and to Kuibyshev, transported all the large-sized elements of the Energia-Buran space system, including tanks of launch vehicles and several orbital spacecraft.

The talent of Vladimir Mikhailovich was that in each of his projects he was ahead of his time, relying on the latest achievements of science and technology, used non-standard technical solutions, transferring the principles of creating aviation technology to the space industry. Today teams EMZ them. V.Myasishcheva and GKNPTs them. MV Khrunichev, who grew up from OKB ‑ 23, continues to work on projects of promising aerospace vehicles for various purposes.

“Myasishchev did not make secrets from the accumulated experience, which was widely used in other aircraft building companies, including without reference to authorship,” said Gennady Dermichev, veteran of OKB-23, head of the design department of Salyut Design Bureau. - Strikes the breadth of his creative range. On the initiative and under the leadership of Vladimir Mikhailovich, the projects of aircraft with nuclear engines were developed; a re-entry headlamp type spacecraft with a rocket-powered helicopter propeller providing maneuvers and accurate landing; booster and more. His design school lives, developing and enriching himself both in Fili and in the OKB of his name in Zhukovsky. ”
Originator:
http://uacrussia.livejournal.com/50790.html
92 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. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 30 July 2016 05: 48
    +14
    Cases of bygone days. But the impression is that civilian astronautics took the path of duplication of the military, and could choose another path.
    1. The stranger
      The stranger 1 August 2016 01: 00
      +2
      She will choose ... In more reasonable times.
  2. yuriy55
    yuriy55 30 July 2016 06: 18
    +32
    Sound thoughts, reasonable ideas come to mind when she does not think only about filling her own pocket. It is hard to expect a masterpiece from the hands of a station portraitist ... The talent of Vladimir Mikhailovich is an example.
    1. PKK
      PKK 30 July 2016 11: 09
      +1
      To avenge Myasishchev is our duty, the Yankees should wash themselves and not with tears.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 30 July 2016 12: 27
        +15
        Quote: PKK
        Our duty is to avenge Myasishchev, the Yankees should wash themselves and not with tears

        He was unreasonably repressed in 1938-40. was in custody, while working in the Central Clinical Hospital-29 NKVD.
        In February 1946, the Myasishchev Design Bureau was disbanded. Myasishchev himself is fired from industry and sent for teaching at the Moscow Aviation Institute.
        In the fall of 1960, the SKB was disbanded. Myasishchev himself was appointed director of TsAGI, for no reason at all, removing his former director in order to somehow give Myasishchev compensation for the rout of the rout, in the prime of his creative success.
        Is this all the Yankees did?
        1. Lyubopyatov
          Lyubopyatov 30 July 2016 21: 43
          +10
          This was done by the Trotskyists, whom Stalin did not uproot. The system of denunciations and repressions was created by a chain of enemies from Trotsky-Zinoviev to Yagoda and beyond, and they uprooted the Russian people to compete with the uprooted Trotskyists Stalin. Moreover, the leader lagged far behind the repressive meat grinder of the enemies, since he had on his shoulders a whole state with all the tasks of survival and development. Enemies have only slander and a meat grinder.
          1. The stranger
            The stranger 1 August 2016 01: 05
            +1
            Yes doe, it is at all times, and among all nations. When sound forces prevail over common sense.
  3. Sarmat149
    Sarmat149 30 July 2016 07: 27
    +8
    Quote: Jurkovs
    Cases of bygone days. But the impression is that civilian astronautics took the path of duplication of the military, and could choose another path.

    Quote: Jurkovs
    Cases of bygone days. But the impression is that civilian astronautics took the path of duplication of the military, and could choose another path.


    In essence, the entire cosmonautics is primarily "military".
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 30 July 2016 08: 17
      +8
      Quote: Sarmat149
      Quote: Jurkovs
      Cases of bygone days. But the impression is that civilian astronautics took the path of duplication of the military, and could choose another path.

      Quote: Jurkovs
      Cases of bygone days. But the impression is that civilian astronautics took the path of duplication of the military, and could choose another path.


      In essence, the entire cosmonautics is primarily "military".

      There was a film about these cruise missiles. I also read in books about Myasishchev about these cruise missiles. I would not share the work of Myasishchev and Lavochkin on the Storm and Buran at that time, since they were carried out on a single task. At that time, Khrushchev needed a carrier There were many problems with the R-7, and only when the R-7 rocket began to fly confidently, work on cruise missiles was stopped, as N.S. Khrushchev: “The economy of the USSR will not pull all the programs.” Therefore, the priority program was chosen for the R-7 missiles. It was the first time I read that Myasishchev participated in hypersonic programs.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 20: 01
        +2
        They were stopped before, just hunchback did what Khrushchev did not finish
    2. The stranger
      The stranger 1 August 2016 01: 09
      0
      Everything is primarily "military". Because society is quite agreeable to spend purely on safety, and already having thought - on other things.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 30 July 2016 07: 50
    +3
    Of course, space would never have been mastered without military programs. A purely scientific interest, space tourism and so on would never have given that giant impetus in scientific research and the development of the space industry, if not for the interests of the military and the colossal money that they invested in space. Even civilian programs have been and remain a military application.
    1. Zulu_S
      Zulu_S 31 July 2016 02: 37
      0
      Almost all technological solutions in any industry are based on military developments. The defense industry is the main engine of progress for all of humanity.
      1. The stranger
        The stranger 1 August 2016 01: 15
        0
        And a dump.
        There are two places where no society can deceive, in principle. The defense industry and landfill. This is where the shelter from the nose - but let’s give, and where it does not care. By the way - almost equally resource-intensive.
  6. Barakuda
    Barakuda 30 July 2016 07: 53
    +18
    I would put a monument to him, how many ideas are ahead of time, and energy in a person
    1. Aviator_
      Aviator_ 30 July 2016 22: 07
      +6
      "Sotka", which you presented here, is not V.M. Myasishchev, it is P.O.Sukhoi. Tupolev first crushed Myasishchev's M-50 in 1960, and in 1974 the Tupolev Design Bureau also killed Sukhoi's T-4. All for the sake of its unsuccessful Tu-22, which was brought up from 1961 to the early 80s.
      1. Barakuda
        Barakuda 30 July 2016 22: 15
        +4
        I agree. The undercover wars were. I’m writing for the idea. Sukhoi is also an aviation monster, I do not argue.
        1. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 30 July 2016 22: 46
          +4
          And Tupolev - an envious person, removed competitors by any means. Even before the war, he achieved the RD-25 series (on which Chkalov’s crew flew through the pole to the Americans) as a long-range reconnaissance aircraft (at a speed of 150 km / h!). Naturally, the whole series went to landfill, Tupolev - to the sharaga, and Ilyushin, proposing another solution (a wing of small elongation, flying at a low angle of attack at a high speed for that time -350 km / h), successfully launched his TsKB-30 ( IL-4), who fought the whole war.
      2. zennon
        zennon 31 July 2016 00: 00
        +5
        Quote: Aviator_
        "Sotka", which you presented here, is not V. M. Myasishchev, this is P. O. Sukhoi. Tupolev first crushed M-50 Myasishchev in 1960

        That's right. The M 50 stands next to Monino.
      3. Zulu_S
        Zulu_S 31 July 2016 02: 41
        +1
        And nowadays the opportunity to crush everyone and milk the state budget was given to "crackers".
  7. UVB
    UVB 30 July 2016 08: 22
    +15
    Energy - Buran system, developed by NPO Energia and largely replicated the American Space Shuttle system.
    The similarity is only external. The shuttle was attached to a huge fuel tank and during takeoff used its own engines, plus two solid-fuel boosters, and there were no other options, and Energia was a super-heavy launch vehicle, which, in addition to Buran, could be used to launch various cargoes.
  8. pimen
    pimen 30 July 2016 08: 41
    +2
    aerospace plane, rocket plane - there is a meager choice between "hard" planning, or energy-consuming and, structurally more complicated, braking with "ineffective" engines
  9. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 30 July 2016 08: 48
    +3
    Why it was abandoned a completely flying Storm is incomprehensible. Rather, it is clear - voluntarism.

    History has shown that ICBMs do not replace cruise missiles.
    1. Zulu_S
      Zulu_S 31 July 2016 02: 44
      +1
      Rather, CDs complement ICBMs.
  10. gg.na
    gg.na 30 July 2016 09: 10
    +2
    There were wonderful developments in those days which today and even tomorrow will be relevant. It would not be bad to revive with a little fine-tuning and taking into account today's technologies, there will be wonderful, just excellent results. good !!!
  11. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 30 July 2016 09: 19
    +17
    No less striking is the design of Robert Bartini A-57. In the aerodynamic scheme there is a root influx, and an integrated layout, and engines in a package. It was 1955. belay
    1. dumkopff
      dumkopff 30 July 2016 10: 25
      +8
      I got the impression that Myasishchev and Bartini are the two main dreamers (in a good way) of the Soviet aircraft industry. They went through the most peculiar, the most non-utilitarian projects (although the "two hundred" dry is also very unusual). Although maybe I just don't know much.
    2. Simple
      Simple 30 July 2016 23: 19
      +1
      Quote: kugelblitz
      There is also a root influx in the aerodynamic design

      and where is the "Root influx of the wing"?
      This (variable sweep along the leading edge) = scheme of an airplane with a self-balancing wing (balancing was achieved by a steep sweep) with a minimum total wave and inductive impedance, variable edge sweepThere was a supercritical convex down profile in the center, and a convex up at the ends.
      Knk is clearly:

      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 31 July 2016 10: 38
        +1
        This can be understood in two ways, both as a variable sweep and as a root influx, all the more so as the A-57 clearly stands out the fuselage.
        1. Simple
          Simple 31 July 2016 13: 18
          0
          Quote: kugelblitz
          all the more so, the A-57 clearly stands out the fuselage.

          Well, as if the A-57 had the actual fuselage practically was absent. That is why it was called "integral".
          but KNP and SK are still different things: "the wing includes an edge and a wing edge device fixed in the edge area .."
  12. Verdun
    Verdun 30 July 2016 09: 50
    +6
    How many different developments were carried out at the same time, and if not for the decision to terminate (justified and not justified) could be brought to the end! And today we can’t bother Angara, but Clipper and others like him, apparently, have remained at the level of populist statements and layouts. Sad ...
    1. aba
      aba 30 July 2016 19: 21
      +1
      And today we can’t bother Angara, but Clipper and others like him, apparently, have remained at the level of populist statements and layouts. Sad ...

      But tell me, is it because they cannot because the country already lives by other laws, by other values ​​?! After all, those workers, designers and academics fought for the survival of their country. And what are the current ones fighting for?
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 30 July 2016 21: 27
        +3
        Quote: aba
        After all, those workers, designers and academics fought for the survival of their country. And what are the current ones fighting for?

        Current workers, designers, and academics — at least most of them — would do the same. But the trouble is that effective managers interfere. After all, they - in their opinion - know, unlike the same academics, how this life works.
  13. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 30 July 2016 09: 57
    +3
    I hope with hope that the existing developments will continue to the greatness of Russia !!!
  14. Old26
    Old26 30 July 2016 10: 32
    +4
    Quote: UVB
    The similarity is only superficial. The shuttle was attached to a huge fuel tank and during takeoff used its own engines, plus two solid-fuel boosters, and there were no other options, and Energia was a super-heavy launch vehicle, which, in addition to Buran, could be used to launch various cargo

    In one of the variants, the Buran was also attached to a fuel tank, which had no engines. And only then the project took on the form that we know

    The collage is certainly interesting, but unrealistic. "Mixed" fragments of "Spiral" and MG-19

    Quote: Gormengast
    Why it was abandoned a completely flying Storm is incomprehensible. Rather, it is clear - voluntarism.

    History has shown that ICBMs do not replace cruise missiles.

    The official reason for the closure was that the Tempest could not reach the specified range on any flight.

    Quote: gg.na
    There were wonderful developments in those days which today and even tomorrow will be relevant. It would not be bad to revive with a little fine-tuning and taking into account today's technologies, there will be wonderful, just excellent results. good !!!

    There were developments, but they could not always be implemented then, and not always now. The same MG-19, which is on the screen saver. He had to start on an airplane, had a starting weight of about 600+ tons, dimensions 70 x 50 meters. The payload was 40 tons. In principle, good performance, but ...
    This is where the problems begin. According to the project, he had to have direct-flow hypersonic taxiways with a thrust of 25 tons (10 engines). Are there such direct-flow engines? With such traction? And a central nuclear engine with a thrust of nearly 330 tons. The maximum that we received on the experimental (unsuccessful, exploded) RD-0410 engine is 3,6 tons of thrust. The thrust would have to be increased 100 times. And there is no such engine either.
    so not all projects can be taken and modernized now under our technologies. Maybe in the distant future .....
    1. Verdun
      Verdun 30 July 2016 11: 25
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      In one of the variants, the Buran was also attached to a fuel tank, which had no engines. And only then the project took on the form that we know

      I must say that such a decision has to be considered justified. Most of the problems that arose on American shuttles - precisely in the fuel tank channel - are engines.
      There were developments, but they could not always be implemented then, and not always now.
      Yes, but then a constantly developing industry was successfully created under them, and today only fragments remain of this industry. And already on the Energy, which we safely profuka, stood RD-170 marching engines with a thrust of 740-806 tf. and RD 0120 with a thrust of 591-760 tf.
      1. Simple
        Simple 30 July 2016 23: 41
        +1
        Quote: Verdun
        I must say that such a decision has to be considered justified.

        Not justified, but forced.
        three marching oxygen-hydrogen engines (11D122 developed by CBEM traction by 250 t. s. and specific impulse 353 sec on the ground and 455 sec in vacuum) just did not fit into the fuselage (fuselage width 5,6 m, height 6,2 m) and did not provide the required onboard performance SSME orbital spacecraft engines and side solid fuel boosters + launch latitude compensation (the required 4000 t.c. instead of the American total thrust when separated from the starting table in 3130 t.c.)


        Engines created in the Voronezh Chemical Engineering Bureau turned out to be compared with the American analogue of SSME(570 t.):

        heavier (3450 vs 3117 kg),
        -a bit larger in size (diameter and height: 2420 and 4550 vs 1630 and 4240 mm),
        - a slightly lower thrust (at sea level: 156 versus 181 t.s.), although the specific impulse slightly exceeded it.
        -reusable "pumped up"


        and we did not have "sides" with a crazy traction of 1263,00tf at sea level and no


        as a result, not OS-120 with reusable expensive 11D122, but OK-92 with dying expensive RD-170
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 31 July 2016 08: 56
          +1
          RD-170 which easily interferes with gives much more traction than three SSMEs, and there is nothing simpler than solid-fuel accelerators. fool
          1. Simple
            Simple 31 July 2016 13: 31
            +1
            Quote: Simpsonian
            RD-170 which easily intermeddle gives

            fool
            1. Think Before You Write:

            Weight: 9750 kg

            Quote: Just
            three marching oxygen-hydrogen engines (11Д122
            did not fit
            2.RD-170: Sea level: 740 tf, 3X11D122 = 3X250f = 750f
            11D122 = 750fc + 4 × RD-0120 = 4 * 760fc = total: 3790 tf for 100 ton “OK-92”, and if the OS-120 option is 120 tn for THREE 11 again + more 5-10 t
            It's written
            Quote: Just
            (the required 4000 t.c. instead of the American total thrust when separated from the starting table in 3130 t.c.)


            Where to get another 210-300ts?
            ==========================================


            it’s easy to fuck someone ... it's hard to think
            Quote: Simpsonian
            a simpler solid-fuel accelerators there is nothing.

            yes, tell it to MIT, Bulava and Poplar, and Roscosmos: who has been looking for sidewalls with solid propellants of the required thrust for 15 years already, and so "in passing" break the record of 1263,00 ts for SRB
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 31 July 2016 20: 12
              -2
              Here is the RD-170 compare with RS-25 SSME and not something else and not being busy with defecation, then perhaps the ability to think will come. Although navryatli once about the "complexity" of solid propellant rocket motors and beating something again carry unworthy even "special schoolboy" nonsense.
        2. kugelblitz
          kugelblitz 31 July 2016 10: 57
          +1
          The RS-25 did not have real reusability, because often after each flight it was necessary to change one of the three engines, and there are no less questions regarding the cheapness of solid fuel sides.
          And I agree, Energy came out too expensive and complicated, although RD-0120 was at a level that was even greater, had a large degree of expansion of the nozzle, 86 versus 77. However, similar parameters in everything.

          As for the sidewalls, well, their nafik, solid fuel once showed its character with Challenger, and possibly for the second time in the case of Colombia. It is painfully weak to believe that a piece of thermal insulation could cause such damage to the shuttle's protection.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 31 July 2016 11: 24
            0
            They were removed after each flight for a complete bulkhead, in recent years only a turbopump has been moving, but this is most of the work.
          2. Simple
            Simple 31 July 2016 13: 34
            0
            Quote: kugelblitz
            There was no real reusability in RS-25, p

            Well, I don’t know ... all of them 15-17 pieces are ready for further use and will go to SLS

            And so the internal combustion engine must be serviced: oil filter, spark plug and d
            =====================
            RDTT is approximately 40% cheaper
            1. kugelblitz
              kugelblitz 31 July 2016 18: 11
              0
              Quote: Just
              RDTT is approximately 40% cheaper

              Well, its nafik, for satellites and trucks wherever it goes, but not for a manned one. All the same, liquid is more predictable.
              And so for SLS, these engines are too expensive, as I recall 50 lyam apiece. Let them go their own way, in theory we’ll have a completely liquid Phoenix as an analogue, with a Zenith and RD-171 URM.
              In addition, Angara tanks at the Omsk plant learned to assemble by friction welding, there are alloys B-1461 and B-1469, and Phoenix also does not interfere cheaply reduce them. Its advantage is that the gap is stronger than the sheet itself. Therefore, we will also see who is who. wassat
              1. Simple
                Simple 31 July 2016 19: 27
                0
                Quote: kugelblitz
                Well, its nafik, for satellites and trucks wherever it goes, but not for a manned one.

                All true.
                But for a heavy, superheavy launch vehicle, no matter how without them.
                1. kugelblitz
                  kugelblitz 31 July 2016 22: 08
                  0
                  Quote: Just
                  But for a heavy, superheavy launch vehicle, no matter how without them.

                  For this, at one time, N-1 was proposed with its ability to scale, both in the direction of decreasing N-11 and N-111, and hypothetical versions of hyperheavy missiles with a payload of hundreds (N-2, N-3, N-4) , and in the long run and thousands of tons. Yes, it is a multi-engine scheme with the regulation of the thrust of each engine to control it, with spherical tanks collected not far from the launch pad and the supporting shell untied from them.
                  With its help, cities could be built in orbit, and not miserable stations for several people. Including production of unique materials, solar power plants, interplanetary spacecraft. Nothing prevented her from being planted following the example of Vial-9, although at that time it was planned to plant her using parachutes.
                  1. Simple
                    Simple 1 August 2016 00: 51
                    0
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    With its help, cities could be built in orbit, and not miserable stations for several people.

                    Why didn’t they build it? and sales to the moon did not reach.
                    You just don’t know what problems caused
                    Quote: kugelblitz
                    it is a multi-engine scheme with traction control
                    , on a roll ... already terrible.
                    Only in the last RB, the last launch of Proton, thanks to the number and the new software, they decided and saved the PN.
                    And the H-1 hanging tanks are generally an anachronism of Werner Brown, 1940's
  15. Simpsonian
    Simpsonian 30 July 2016 10: 37
    +1
    The 2nd "Buran" is more rational than the Shuttle, and with this approach we can say that the Shuttle was copied from the "Tempest" by Lavochkin
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po2BPfbfKCc
  16. pimen
    pimen 30 July 2016 11: 44
    +1
    Quote: Verdun
    I must say that such a decision has to be considered justified. Most of the problems that arose on American shuttles - precisely in the fuel tank channel - are engines.

    as far as I understood from OPUSa's comments, no. A missile with a packet load (Energy) is far inferior in effectiveness to a traditional one. Technically and economically, their solution is more competent
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 30 July 2016 20: 08
      0
      technically and economically, the American solution is very bad, the shuttle drove mostly itself
      It was possible to launch Buran with energy, it was possible not Buran, and Buran did not carry engines
      In subsequent launches, only the tank would be lost from the second stage (the engines did separately returned).
    2. Verdun
      Verdun 30 July 2016 21: 35
      0
      Quote: pimen
      as far as I understood from OPUSa's comments, no. Packet-load rocket (Energy) is inferior in efficiency to traditional

      And that is why in the initial version Energy pulled 105 tons into orbit, and in the subsequent versions it was supposed to launch up to 200 tons? In this case, as it writes correctly
      Simpsonian
      , the bulk of the media components should have been returnable.
      1. pimen
        pimen 30 July 2016 22: 02
        0
        Quote: Simpsonian
        It was possible to launch Buran with energy, it was possible not Buran, and Buran did not carry engines

        not going to belittle our work. In the end, the USSR was the only one that answered this challenge, while others could not even think about it. As they can not now; both present-day Russia and modern USA, including ...
        Yielding to the amers in the concept, ours, nevertheless, kept up appearances (large payload and automatic landing). But even if we could shoot the engines and splash down along with the sidewalls (where?),
        then the design features of the batch load rocket required (according to OPUSa), about 30 tons of the minimum load; so that the widespread exploitation (specifically Energy), all the same was in doubt
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 31 July 2016 09: 01
          -1
          "Backward in concept" airborne tanks splash down somewhere? In general, there are no features, and this minimum is 1,5 times the maximum of the Proton.
          1. pimen
            pimen 31 July 2016 09: 46
            0
            I hope you understand that launching any, even knowingly less payload, than 30 tons (and this is the majority of launches) will come out on Energy equally expensive and more expensive than on a traditionally designed rocket?
            How do you imagine the soft landing of the sides on the "unequipped site"? Something similar and today barely mastered. As far as the engine block is concerned, yes, the task seems more real.
            However, in any situation, Buran was much more expensive than the Shuttle and with the same dubious value.
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 31 July 2016 11: 29
              +1
              I hope you understand that heavy rockets larger than dirty Proton are still needed?
              Absolutely different from how it looks like the Americans "mastered" lol
              Why did Buran turn out to be more expensive than the Shuttle?
              1. pimen
                pimen 31 July 2016 12: 07
                0
                Quote: Simpsonian
                I hope you understand that heavy rockets larger than dirty Proton are still needed?

                I understand that we need a universal rocket such as the Angara. Energy did not fit this role at all, it had the right to be only for very heavy loads

                Quote: Simpsonian
                Why did Buran turn out to be more expensive than the Shuttle?

                but because on all points, starting from the location of the cosmodrome, and the inability of the available technologies to provide the necessary characteristics, respectively, by processing the project (Energy, is it more expensive than their tank?); until the unsolved problem with the returning parts and the nebula of the further prospects of the Energy itself, we kept going in the red
                1. Simpsonian
                  Simpsonian 31 July 2016 20: 45
                  +3
                  Anyone understands that only an "agent of influence" can write something bad about Energy, and even put it below the Angara,
                  this is against the background of when they fight for every kilogram, not even a ton, of payload

                  What specific characteristics of Buran were suddenly unsecured?

                  Energy-Buran in operation is cheaper, even without taking into account the planned reusability of the first stages and return engines from the second. The rocket consists of engines and a tank. Since the Americans had engines in the Shuttle, the tank could not fly without the Shuttle, which meant the complete insanity of its use to bring the payload to the orbit, which was the vast majority of its flights.
                  So just in case - because the Shuttle itself weighed many times more than the payload that was placed in its internal compartment.
                  In the case when the shuttle was specifically needed for working in orbit or for launching cargo from it, Energy flew with Buran, and its second-stage engines were not put into orbit, which means that the payload in Buran was greater than that of the Shuttle.
                  All knowledgeable people say that Juran was significantly better than the Shuttle.

                  Those who don’t understand such simple things about the payload then clapped their hands when an American rocket landed on a platform in the ocean with the thrust of its engines instead of just parachuting into the water.
  17. Tambov Wolf
    Tambov Wolf 30 July 2016 12: 14
    +4
    They ate Myasishchev, like many during Khrushchev. And what was the Designer-Divine Grace. Always only the latest technology, best practices, selection of personnel. Now it would be so.
    1. X Y Z
      X Y Z 30 July 2016 13: 42
      +2
      As for the designer - I completely agree with you. One misfortune - the technical level of its latest designs was so high, it was so ahead of time that the industry simply could not translate it all into metal. It is very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to bring and put into series a car with such a percentage of new products and technologies.
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 20: 19
        +4
        Could and let in a series. For example, the 3M and Tu-160 bombers are his planes.
  18. Ololo
    Ololo 30 July 2016 14: 29
    .
    leaking millions to unnecessary projects is a hallmark of a wretched scoop. And then they wonder why it was people who ruined the alliance for televisions and jeans?
    1. pafegosoff
      pafegosoff 30 July 2016 15: 05
      -1
      And you are right. That's why Stalin reproached Tukhachevsky for this. And not just for the alleged putsch. It is for wasting government funds on science fiction.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 30 July 2016 16: 56
      +8
      Do you even understand what you wrote, trickster? Jeans and the Union were shown to people, what do you choose? And everyone chose jeans? As was OLOLO and die, rest in peace be the earth.
  19. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 30 July 2016 15: 02
    +3
    [quote = Bayonet] [quote = PKK]
    In the fall of 1960, the SKB was disbanded. Myasishchev himself was appointed director of TsAGI, for no reason at all, removing his former director in order to somehow give Myasishchev compensation for the rout of the rout, in the prime of his creative success.
    Is this all the Yankees did? [/ Quote]
    Firstly, glory to Khrushchev and Trotsky (we now know that Nikita was Trotskyist). And who was Trotsky? Red-table or Zaporozhye?
    Well, no matter, screwed up and screwed up. But they will not restore it! And rightly so!
    This is the essence of anti-progress.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 30 July 2016 21: 55
      +3
      This character constantly fits into the Yankees, probably standing in line for naturalization by green card.

      Trotsky from the USA came to make a revolution

      And Stalin, such a bad Stalin ... he is certainly a tyrant, but someone wrote 4 million denunciations lol

      According to the picture in the title of the article, in fact, this project is more vital and simpler.
  20. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 30 July 2016 15: 12
    -3
    How do you like the prospect of being the best, launching billiards into space and standing in line with food stamps? That's it! Let’s cool down.
    The state in which our country is now can be called: happiness.
    We don’t feel him, otherwise: everyone calls us names!
    Do you want the unfortunate to love the happy? Haha
    So, do not worry! We will also have our own spaceship! Right now, take a rest ...
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 30 July 2016 17: 15
      +7
      Quote: pafegosoff
      How do you like the prospect of being the best, launching billiards into space and standing in line with food stamps? That's it! Let’s cool down.
      The state in which our country is now can be called: happiness.
      We don’t feel him, otherwise: everyone calls us names!
      Do you want the unfortunate to love the happy? Haha
      So, do not worry! We will also have our own spaceship! Right now, take a rest ...

      That's what the poor fellow didn’t understand. I stood in lines with coupons, but I don’t accept Gorbachev-Yeltsin’s libel. By the way, the cutest coupons they are from GORBI.
      Stalin canceled coupons in 47g., And in England tolons were canceled in the 50s.
      Smelly nose sticks do not need to poke. To you to Gorby.
  21. Old26
    Old26 30 July 2016 20: 22
    0
    Quote: Simpsonian
    In subsequent launches, only the tank would be lost from the second stage (the engines did the return).

    Do not come up with. Only sidewalls should have been returned in the future. The second stage was not saved, especially the engines (I wonder how)
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 30 July 2016 21: 26
      +1
      You should not pretend that you
      Quote: Old26
      I wonder how

      time
      Quote: Old26
      Do not invent
    2. Verdun
      Verdun 30 July 2016 21: 46
      0
      Quote: Old26
      . The second stage was not saved, especially the engines (I wonder how)

      The fact that in the first flight the return system was not implemented is a fact. And the fact that it was developed is also a fact.
      The return was supposed to be carried out with the help of parachutes and, immediately before landing, soft landing engines. During the design work, it turned out that the proposed scheme is excessively complex, insufficient reliable and fraught with a number of unresolved technical problems. By the time the flight tests began, the block return system was not implemented. At the same time, on flight specimens of the rocket there were containers for parachutes and landing racks; during testing they were measuring equipment
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 30 July 2016 21: 59
        0
        yes it is nonsense that it was not implemented and complicated, it was simply not put in these containers because "the sun was already going down"
  22. Old26
    Old26 31 July 2016 10: 59
    -1
    Quote: Simpsonian
    You should not pretend that you
    Quote: Old26
    I wonder how

    time
    Quote: Old26
    Do not invent

    As I understand it, there will be no answer how they were going to save the engines. Just do not intend to save the engines from the central unit.

    I repeat the question: I wonder how they could do this? "Cut off" by an explosion from the stage itself? By breaking all communications? So really, you shouldn't invent (or argue, you can use your own words). Work to rescue the sidewalls was underway and the Energia program did not close at the 4th or 5th launch, they were already planning the descent and rescue of the sidewalls by parachute (in the horizontal, as opposed to the vertical American version) position. But even there, not everything was clear. There was no 100% guarantee that even with a parachute rescue (parachute attachments at two points on the sides) the engines would not be damaged. But the answer to this question could only be given by a natural experiment, which has not been reached.
    1. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 31 July 2016 11: 54
      +1
      You - no, it won’t. What for? About this, by the way, they have already written here.

      All guarantees were, since the tanks were planted as well.

      All "communications" are undocked in the same way as when the stages are separated, the rocket gets to the start without fueled either.
    2. pimen
      pimen 31 July 2016 15: 31
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Work to rescue the sidewalls was carried out and the program "Energy" did not close at the 4th or 5th launch, they were already planning the descent and rescue of the sidewalls by parachute (in a horizontal, as opposed to the vertical American version) position. But even there, not everything was clear. There was no 100% guarantee that even with a parachute rescue (parachute attachments at two points on the sides) the engines would not be damaged. But the answer to this question could only be given by a natural experiment, which has not been reached.

      dubious idea, even to a first approximation. Suppose we could provide parachuting in a steppe (rather than forest) area, but it’s unlikely to take into account the elevation on the ground
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 31 July 2016 20: 57
        0
        Quote: pimen
        but it’s unlikely to take into account the elevation on the ground

        And what's this? Please deployed ...

        There is nothing simpler than parachute descent. Immediately before touching, explosive pads and brake accelerators are triggered - this is how the Airborne Forces landing their equipment, the Americans didn’t need them to splash their capsules and Shuttle boosters ...
        1. pimen
          pimen 1 August 2016 06: 09
          0
          these tanks were given to you, they won’t even jump from the jumps, it’s a hard-hit piece of iron, and here is a long thin structure that is completely not intended for resistance to kink. The slide was under a horizontally lowered sidewall, or hollow, and at some end it flopped, and then it will lie crookedly until it is picked up
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 1 August 2016 08: 04
            0
            From jumps they jump without a parachute and pillows

            It gently lowers and will lie intact, the missiles are transported in a horizontal position.
            1. pimen
              pimen 1 August 2016 11: 06
              -1
              It seems you just don’t understand, the problems will begin even when the parachutes are opened, because the empty sidewall will be heavily outweighed towards the engine: it will be very difficult to balance the parachutes so that they do not bend the sidewall when opened. The same must be taken into account when adjusting soft landing engines
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 1 August 2016 12: 27
                0
                it seems someone else does not understand that for example a step can fall vertically and go to bed later
                1. pimen
                  pimen 1 August 2016 14: 48
                  0
                  This is how it happens in water, but on land, you have to figure out how to turn the lower part, already standing on the ground, by 90 '. It was more realistic to shoot and release only the engines.
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 1 August 2016 15: 41
                    0
                    No need to invent anything, why?
                    Quote: pimen
                    turn the lower part already on the ground 90 '.
                    1. pimen
                      pimen 1 August 2016 21: 25
                      -1
                      Yes, because there is a very high probability that the nozzles will be damaged: "lane" on a parachute, this, you know, is not a "lane" on a crane
                      1. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 1 August 2016 22: 11
                        0
                        And if you lower the nozzles up? von Braun so omitted that damage then? lol
                      2. pimen
                        pimen 2 August 2016 08: 42
                        0
                        then the nose cone will be damaged, possibly the hull itself, but the engines will most likely remain. However, I would like to note that with the external feasibility of such a scheme, it will still strongly yield to the American one in "economic quality"
                      3. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 2 August 2016 09: 54
                        0
                        Why would he get hurt? It was realized during test launches under the German missile program.

                        The next one will be - and what if the parachute does not open or the pillow does not inflate ...

                        And why will it again "all the same yield to the American in economic quality" and even strongly?

                        In economic quality, the Shuttle, in comparison with the Energia-Buran or the Protons / Unions, was complete insanity, since it put itself into orbit mainly.
                      4. pimen
                        pimen 2 August 2016 11: 31
                        0
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        Why would he get hurt? It was realized during test launches under the German missile program.

                        want to say that some FAA missiles were launched twice?

                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        And why will it again "all the same yield to the American in economic quality" and even strongly?

                        because in the end, after the flight, they picked up two saved accelerators, and we, in the best case, could only 5 engines (and so on each item)

                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        In economic quality, the Shuttle, in comparison with the Energia-Buran or the Protons / Unions, was complete insanity, since it put itself into orbit mainly.

                        it is not correct to compare the Shuttle with Protons, as for the prospects of Energy, which could "raise the bar", there were no 100-ton cargoes for it (or do you believe in a flight to Mars?), but for the available smaller ones it was would be too expensive
                      5. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 2 August 2016 12: 59
                        0
                        Naturally, slightly reduced models with all the "recorders" inside instead of the warhead. They were planted with a nose on a parachute (without airbags) so as not to damage the aerodynamic rudders with large stabilizers.

                        As a result, the Americans brought out a healthy Shuttle less than proton lol what to compare with Energy, in which, as a result, the first 4 steps as a whole and the second engines would be reusable. Those. only the tank from the second stage would also disappear, and the weight from the returned engines of the second stage would go to the payload. Because of what, even an automatic Buran could fly 1,5-2 times higher than the shuttle: Lol:
                        Everything is correct, you just need to understand the purpose of these systems.
                        Well, one load in the form of not Buran for Energy was found right away (or did you not know?), And she could not "pull up" the bar, but pulled it up!
                      6. pimen
                        pimen 2 August 2016 16: 12
                        0
                        Quote: Simpsonian
                        As a result, the Americans brought out a healthy Shuttle less than proton

                        in fact, I'm pretty skeptical of the Shuttles. And the squadron as many as 4 ships, indirectly, also indicates serious problems in terms of economy and reusability. All the more ridiculous would have looked ours, the same, with a dubious military purpose and without a clear civilian application. Probably the only really useful application of such ships was the ability to withdraw from orbit and return satellites
                      7. Simpsonian
                        Simpsonian 2 August 2016 17: 11
                        +1
                        three in museums + two crashed

                        Where does all this "come from" again?

                        Quote: pimen
                        All the more ridiculous would have looked ours, the same, with a dubious military purpose and without a clear civilian application.


                        not the only one, the X-37 with automatic from Buran is now flying, and is being displayed on the engine half from Energy ... America is the best!
                        but Roscosmos for some reason does not use them, although it’s necessary to add only a tank to them ...

                        and even the main providing module in the American ISS segment, like the docking nodes, control and life support systems including air and water regeneration, the climate and the toilet in it are Soviet, and the module was brought out by the way Proton (not even Energy) because the shuttle did not pull.
  23. NordUral
    NordUral 31 July 2016 18: 02
    0
    It is a pity that the ideas of this person did not go as they deserved it. I know from personal modest experience that a successful invention is what appeared at the right time and in the right place. Neither before nor after will an unenviable fate await him.
  24. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 1 August 2016 17: 24
    0
    Yes, there were PEOPLE in our time, ........
  25. Justme
    Justme 24 September 2016 21: 45
    0
    So I worked at a research institute, design bureau, design bureau .. including space ones ..

    You have no idea - how many wildly fantastic projects did we have..
    Moreover - they were everywhere (!) ... (..the place where I worked - you can cite facts and tell ..)
    Moreover - I took part .. (how ordinary designer -17B14 - plasma ion engines for space tug ..) .. for example .. or suggested ideology (was "Negro"), implemented and achieve results in the second version of the system , which was originally launched as a Soviet analogue of the Hyperbar system (deep forcing of engines of tanks and corvettes)

    My deepest opinion is to make science fiction a reality - REALLY!
    But the system of management and technical competence in our country has turned into a cancerous tumor in many places, or at least is far from adequate, "selfish interests" are often in direct conflict with any real logic leading to a real end result ..
    What are we silent about? -
    "And how did these projects end?"

    Need at least some selection of legal capacity.
    This should be manifested in the implementation of projects with minimal sufficient resources and the obligation of the final result. Here you can give a bunch of examples of how the "public" is "boring", .. how the leadership and specialists are decomposing.
    I have something to compare - now I work in a private company.

    But not so long ago, and in our time, in front of my eyes in the space industry, the topic "Diagnostics" was crushed (this is after the problems in rocketry in the 2000s) ... and the topic "Sandwich" ... There was a lot of funding and resources there. excess..

    When I look at a bunch of fantastic projects - "I'm For!"
    But only I have one question -
    "Will you be able to make these projects and make them so that the country in which we live is not covered with a" copper basin "again?"

    So I’m used to that usually - I have wildly destitute resources and I need to somehow crawl to the result.
    Maybe some comrades also need to be more modest ..
  26. gridasov
    gridasov 13 January 2017 12: 06
    0
    Any physicist should have theoretical knowledge of why aircraft should be of that configuration. who have a UFO. Therefore, propulsion systems must be considered from the perspective of the fact that they will ensure the effective flight of such geometric shapes.