Rogozin and Musk argued about competition in space


The head of the Russian state-owned corporation Roscosmos, Dmitry Rogozin, and the head of SpaceX, a private American company, Ilon Musk, exchanged critical attacks on Twitter accounts regarding competition in launching missiles. This happened after April 10, 2020, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a meeting in Novo-Ogaryovo in the form of a video conference on the development of the rocket and space industry.


At the meeting, the Russian leader pointed out that "Russia must strengthen its position in the global launch services market." He emphasized that “it is imperative that our withdrawal products remain competitive and in demand.”

Rogozin replied to the president’s words that Roskosmos would reduce launch services prices by more than 30% due to dumping policyconducted by SpaceX, an American company led by Musk, with support from NASA.

The pricing procedure we proposed is, in fact, our response to dumping from US companies funded by the US budget, and if the market launch price, for example, at SpaceX is about $ 60 million, then NASA pays one and a half for the same service up to four times more

- said Rogozin.

Musk was indignant and wrote that the problem of Russian missiles is their disposability, since they cannot be reused.

SpaceX rockets are 80% reusable, their (Russians - ed.) - 0%. This is an urgent problem.

- clarified Musk.

In response, Rogozin wrote that he did not need instructions from Washington.

All instructions for resolving problematic issues in our rocket and space industry were received during a meeting with the President of Russia

- Rogozin informed.

After that, already in a separate tweet, Rogozin added that the words of the Mask are cynicism and hypocrisy. The head of Roscosmos believes that Americans use sanctions and dumping because of fear of fair competition.

And when they are asked about the real price of the launch service, they blush and instead of answering try to cast a shadow on the fence

- summed up Rogozin.
Photos used: https://pxhere.com/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

114 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. Blondy Offline
    Blondy (Blondy) April 12 2020 15: 08
    -3
    • 1
    • 4
    It seems to me that a lot more people are tired of Rogozin than Putin - it’s just time to clean up.
  2. 123 Offline
    123 (123) April 12 2020 15: 30
    +2
    • 5
    • 3
    Musk was indignant and wrote that the problem of Russian missiles is their disposability, since they cannot be reused.

    But he did not refute Rogozin’s “inventions” about dumping, subsidies and financing from the budget, I think that in this case Rogozin is right. Far from the fact that reusable missiles are cheaper, this issue needs to be delved into.
    I suggest that Rogozin and Mask meet in a full-time match and settle all differences. yes
    The live broadcast will collect a lot of views. laughing
    1. Cyril Offline
      Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 15: 39
      0
      • 3
      • 3
      SpaceX has no dumping and government subsidies.
      1. 123 Offline
        123 (123) April 12 2020 15: 49
        +1
        • 3
        • 2
        SpaceX has no dumping and government subsidies.

        He stopped financing from the budget?
        1. Cyril Offline
          Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 16: 06
          +1
          • 2
          • 1
          SpaceX was financed from the budget only once - when they won the competition (on a competitive basis, by the way) for the creation of the spacecraft and spacecraft for the delivery of goods and people to the ISS.

          And the state’s payment for launches under state programs (for NASA or for the military) is precisely payment for services, and not "state financing".
          1. 123 Offline
            123 (123) April 12 2020 16: 29
            -1
            • 2
            • 3
            SpaceX was financed from the budget only once - when they won the competition (on a competitive basis, by the way) for the creation of the spacecraft and spacecraft for the delivery of goods and people to the ISS.

            As it is already tired, every time there appears another "city madman" and begins to tell tales. sad

            This is not the first time that SpaceX and the Department of Defense have joined forces. The company has launched a number of DoD payloads into orbit. In particular, in early 2018, he launched a secret experimental spacecraft called Zuma.

            https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32346/the-air-force-and-spacex-are-teaming-up-for-a-massive-live-fire-exercise

            And the state’s payment for launches under state programs (for NASA or for the military) is precisely payment for services, and not "state financing".

            Of course of course, yes and Roscosmos is not financed from our budget, it just receives payment for services winked
            I believe that you need to pick up Tweeter, preferably with a keyboard on your fingers ........ smile
            1. Cyril Offline
              Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 16: 46
              0
              • 3
              • 3
              This is not the first time that SpaceX and the Department of Defense have joined forces.

              - and? The Ministry of Defense ordered the launch of its satellite, SpaceX completed the order for money. Where are the "subsidies" here?

              Do you understand what the word "subsidies" means? Not? Well, bother to find out first.

              As it is already tired, every time there appears another "city madman" and begins to tell tales.

              - really. Another lunatic claiming dumping and state financing.

              and Roscosmos is not financed from our budget, it simply receives payment for services.

              - The fact of the matter is that it is financed from the budget. In particular, it was the state that paid the debts of the head developer of the Roskosmos Center to them. Khrunicheva when he was on the verge of bankruptcy. That is, this money did not go to pay for the services performed, but specifically to support the enterprise itself so that it would not go bankrupt.

              Once again, for those in an armored train. Payment for the execution of a state order and payment for the very existence of an enterprise are two radically different things.
              1. 123 Offline
                123 (123) April 12 2020 17: 41
                -1
                • 2
                • 3
                - and? The Ministry of Defense ordered the launch of its satellite, SpaceX completed the order for money. Where are the "subsidies" here?

                Try to make an effort on yourself and perceive the information without a “filter”, even if it comes from Rogozin, whom you hate.

                and if the market launch price, for example, of SpaceX is about $ 60 million, then NASA pays for the same service from one and a half to four times more

                It is an honor to date. Without it, launches at a price of 60 million are unrealistic. Why not NASA pay for launches at market prices?

                Do you understand what the word "subsidies" means? Not? Well, bother to find out first.

                Grant - State allowance to enterprises, organizations to cover any expenses. Will such a definition suit you? If this is not a subsidy, then what? Fraud and theft of public funds? Or is a subsidy only if the letter "DOTATION" is written in capital letters? Do you want to check or ride? Didn't the definition suit you? Suggest yours. How can one formulate the essence of what is happening?

                "As it is already tired, each time another" city madman "appears and begins to tell tales" - really. Another lunatic claiming dumping and state financing.

                I gave you a link where it is written in black and white in the American edition, the representative of the Air Force claims that SpaceX and the Ministry of Defense are not cooperating for the first time. It is about using satellites for military purposes. Do you think that in such cases the financing comes from the company?
                But you persistently repeat, this is an isolated case. I don’t see any further delving into projects, I’m tired of looking for all these links every time.

                In particular, it was the state that paid the debts of the head developer of the Roskosmos Center to them. Khrunicheva when he was on the verge of bankruptcy. That is, this money did not go to pay for the services performed, but specifically to support the enterprise itself so that it would not go bankrupt.

                Are enterprise support measures sporadic? Remember how many disturbances were there in Deripaska? But the state cannot help Roskosmos? These are still different things. Or is GAZ also state?
                In addition, if you have not noticed the irony, yes, the state finances Roscosmos, and the American finances SpaceX. Without government orders and overpriced payments, the enterprise is not viable.

                Once again, for those in an armored train. Payment for the execution of a state order and payment for the very existence of an enterprise are two radically different things.

                True? What are the cardinal differences? Do you think that if the state transfers Roscosmos shares to private hands, but transfers orders to it and pays at inflated prices so that the company remains profitable, will this change anything?
                1. Cyril Offline
                  Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 18: 11
                  +3
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  It is an honor to date. Without it, launches at a price of 60 million are unrealistic. Why not NASA pay for launches at market prices?

                  - because the price that NASA pays is the market price.

                  Unlike private customers, NASA and the Department of Defense are placing higher demands on launch safety and conducting additional certification of launch vehicles. This, of course, also requires money. Therefore, launches under state programs are more expensive.

                  In addition, the majority of launches for NASA SpaceX performs under the ISS supply program. That is, in addition to the cost of the launches themselves, it pays for the cost of the Dragon cargo ship, which also makes and prepares for SpaceX flights. Plus additional certification. Due to this, naturally, the cost of launches for NASA is increasing.

                  Grant - State allowance to enterprises, organizations to cover any expenses.

                  - as I said, you did not even bother to read what a subsidy is.
                  Since you are not able to find a normal definition yourself, I will help you:

                  Grant (from lat. Dotatio - gift, donation):

                  In Russian legislation - intergovernmental transfers provided by on a gratuitous and irrevocable basis without establishing directions and (or) conditions for their use [1].
                  Funds allocated from state and local budgets for financial support unprofitable enterprisesfor which the cash proceeds from the sale of the product being produced are less than the costs of producing and selling the product, to lower budgets to bridge the gap between their income and expenses [2].

                  The state allocates money to SpaceX exclusively to pay for the services that this state ordered from SpaceX. Do you feel the difference, don’t you?

                  I gave you a link where it is written in black and white in the American edition, the representative of the Air Force claims that SpaceX and the Ministry of Defense are not cooperating for the first time. It is about using satellites for military purposes. Do you think that in such cases the financing comes from the company?

                  Where did I write that the company performs this launch at its own expense? She performs it at the expense of the customer. In this case, the state. Launches for private companies are also paid not by SpaceX itself, but by these very private companies. What is incomprehensible here?

                  The only launches paid by SpaceX itself are launches by own Starlink program.

                  Are enterprise support measures sporadic?

                  - I gave you this example as an illustration of the word "subsidies". The government is taking exactly the same measures with respect to all companies included in the structure of Roskosmos. That is, not only pays for their orders, but also supports those moments when these enterprises are unprofitable. This is what is called subsidies. What am I trying to explain to you, damn it.

                  Without government orders and overpriced payments, the enterprise is not viable.

                  - did you audit SpaceX to confirm this? Do you have insider information about the financial condition of the company? Can you present?

                  True? What are the cardinal differences?

                  - The cardinal difference is that now the state pays Roscosmos enterprises even if these same enterprises do not fulfill any orders. It pays them just to exist. Therefore, I gave an example of the situation with the Khrunichev Center as an illustration of how the state’s cooperation with SpaceX differs from state support for Roskosmos enterprises.
                  1. 123 Offline
                    123 (123) April 12 2020 18: 56
                    -1
                    • 2
                    • 3
                    - because the price that NASA pays is the market price.

                    Let’s say, therefore, “commercial” launches are carried out at low prices - this is dumping, as they say. yes

                    Unlike private customers, NASA and the Department of Defense are placing higher demands on launch safety and conducting additional certification of launch vehicles. This, of course, also requires money. Therefore, launches under state programs are more expensive.

                    It turns out that in Russia the same requirements are imposed on all launches, and does SpaceX “save” on the reliability of commercial satellites? They are also not cheap, their loss flies a pretty penny, therefore, insurance will be more expensive.

                    The state allocates money to SpaceX exclusively to pay for the services that this state ordered from SpaceX. Do you feel the difference, don’t you?

                    That's right, because the owner of SpaceX is not a state, Roscosmos belongs to the state. Could it be different? Do you think the American option is more cost-effective? Remove hidden subsidies and see what SpaceX is worth. How much did the company realize space projects on its own, without state participation, and how much did it bring profit?

                    Where did I write that the company performs this launch at its own expense? She performs it at the expense of the customer. In this case, the state. Launches for private companies are also paid not by SpaceX itself, but by these very private companies. What is incomprehensible here?

                    I do not see a fundamental difference. We allocate funds to our company, in the US private, except for the form of ownership, what are the differences?

                    The government is taking exactly the same measures with respect to all companies included in the structure of Roskosmos. That is, not only pays for their orders, but also supports those moments when these enterprises are unprofitable. This is what is called subsidies. What am I trying to explain to you, damn it.

                    Yes, it does. And the USA supports SpaceX, is the situation unique? So do all states who can afford it. Remember the debate, who receives more government support - Boeing or Airbus? Tell you how agriculture exists in the EU? Or how much money was poured into banks during the crisis?
                    State support for enterprises, both public and private, is a global practice, it works everywhere, but do you want Roscosmos to work differently?

                    Where did I write that the company performs this launch at its own expense? She performs it at the expense of the customer. In this case, the state. Launches for private companies are also paid not by SpaceX itself, but by these very private companies. What is incomprehensible here?

                    I do not see a fundamental difference. Who cares who owns the enterprise? In any case, in order to produce the same products, one must spend a comparable amount. From the fact that another owner is written in the constituent documents, the cost price will not change. The state spends money on the maintenance of the company, the private trader "will take his" from the cost. If you are going to compare SpaceX and Roskosmos, then this is wrong. Does Roskosmos perform the same functions as NASA, as it does with profitability? In fact, SpaceX is a "cooperative" in a large enterprise.

                    Without government orders and overpriced payments, the enterprise is not viable.

                    - did you audit SpaceX to confirm this? Do you have insider information about the financial condition of the company? Can you present?

                    I do not have insider information. Can you say that without a “state order” a company can do something? What profitable project have they completed?

                    The fundamental difference is that now the state pays Roscosmos enterprises even if these same enterprises do not fulfill any orders.

                    And is there a situation when Roscosmos does nothing at all? It is rather strange to have such a company and not load it with orders. Can you name the period when Roscosmos was "sitting on vacation"?
                    1. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 19: 19
                      +3
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      Let’s say, therefore, “commercial” launches are carried out at low prices - this is dumping, as they say.

                      Excuse me, do you know how to read? I wrote in black and white and Russian that the higher cost of state launches is determined by the higher requirements of state customers. The higher the requirements of the customer, the more he requires additional checks - the higher the cost for him. This is market pricing.

                      It turns out that in Russia the same requirements are imposed on all launches, and does SpaceX “save” on the reliability of commercial satellites? They are also not cheap, their loss flies a pretty penny, therefore, insurance will be more expensive

                      SpaceX does not save on commercial customers. The company provides them with exactly the level of services that these customers require. The state requires more, commercial customers require less.

                      It turns out that in Russia the same requirements are imposed on all launches

                      - who told you that?

                      How much did the company realize space projects on its own, without state participation, and how much did it bring profit?

                      Yes Easy. The company itself, for its money, developed the super-heavy PH Falcon Heavy. She also organized the first launch of 4 with her own money.
                      The company itself ensures the creation of Starlink system satellites and their launch into orbit - currently, 240 satellites have already been launched into orbit under this program.
                      The company itself ensures the construction of its own cosmodrome in Boca Chica; it itself ensures the creation of prototypes for its new Starship ship.
                      And all this without any help from the state. Now the question is: where would the company have money for all this if it was unprofitable?

                      Yes, it does. And the USA supports SpaceX, is the situation unique?

                      - The fact of the matter is that the state does not support the very existence of SpaceX, it pays for the execution of orders. The state does not give the company money simply to pay off its debts.

                      Can you say that without a “state order” a company can do something? What profitable project have they completed?

                      - The above has already given examples. This is all without state support. A non-profit company simply would not have money for this.

                      And is there a situation when Roscosmos does nothing at all? It is rather strange to have such a company and not load it with orders. Can you name the period when Roscosmos was "sitting on vacation"?

                      - not about Roscosmos, but the Khrunichev Center. And yet, yes, there were periods when he did not do anything - that’s why he got into debt, which the state paid off.
                      1. 123 Offline
                        123 (123) April 12 2020 22: 47
                        -2
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        Excuse me, do you know how to read? I wrote in black and white and Russian that the higher cost of state launches is determined by the higher requirements of state customers. The higher the requirements of the customer, the more he requires additional checks - the higher the cost for him. This is market pricing.

                        Market pricing is the process of assessing the size of payment at market rates for comparable jobs. In this case, the price is determined by the requirements made by the customer, this has nothing to do with market pricing. Who compared payment at market rates? Just supported the "domestic manufacturer." As soon as a missile with a prohibitive cost appeared, all launches were transferred to it, the series increased, the price accordingly decreased, hence the decrease in the number of launches at Roskosmos.

                        SpaceX does not save on commercial customers. The company provides them with exactly the level of services that these customers require. The state requires more, commercial customers require less.

                        Only all US orders automatically crossed the Mask. I also believe that they took advantage of the "financial leverage", it would be interesting to look at the financial condition of the company, for sure, there is a decent debt burden. I also doubt that Rogozin himself complicates the requirements for commercial launches. This should not affect the price. When comparing commercial launches, the price may be affected by the size of the series, the more launches, the cheaper.

                        Yes Easy. The company itself, for its money, developed the super-heavy PH Falcon Heavy. She also organized the first launch of 4 with her own money.
                        The company itself ensures the creation of Starlink system satellites and their launch into orbit - currently, 240 satellites have already been launched into orbit under this program.
                        The company itself ensures the construction of its own cosmodrome in Boca Chica; it itself ensures the creation of prototypes for its new Starship ship.
                        And all this without any help from the state.

                        Let me remind you a question:

                        How many companies have implemented space projects themselves, without state participation and how much did it bring profit? [

                        How much profit did it bring?

                        Now the question is: where would the company have money for all this if it was unprofitable?

                        Good question good Loans, many low interest loans and subsidies. laughing If you want, "hidden subsidies."
                        You gave a link there to an article -

                        https://habr.com/ru/post/425347/

                        - it indicates 67 launches.

                        The space company SpaceX appeared in 2002 and so far has completed 67 rocket launches of its own design and production. Of these, medium and heavy classes are 62 pieces. Customers are the US space agency NASA, the Pentagon, commercial and government companies and agencies of other countries.

                        I looked at who the customers were, NASA almost every third launch, still on the USAF list, that is, the Air Force, NOAA structure from the Ministry of Commerce, NRO space intelligence, these launches can hardly be called commercial. In fact, almost half, maybe a little less, is a government order with "market prices", that’s the whole secret of success in the market.

                        - The above has already given examples. This is all without state support. A non-profit company simply would not have money for this.

                        Take away the state order and there is no profit. Has the Boca Chica space center already paid off and makes a profit? Has it become profitable right from the start of construction? What about Starship? Are you seriously? Are such investments already paid off? In one flight? You are funny in your blind faith. laughing

                        - not about Roscosmos, but the Khrunichev Center. And yet, yes, there were periods when he did not do anything - that’s why he got into debt, which the state paid off.

                        If one of the divisions of the company is temporarily not working, this does not mean that the whole company is standing. By the way, the construction of the same cosmodrome in Boca Chica was suspended. Does this bother you?
                      2. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 23: 48
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        Market pricing is the process of assessing the size of payment at market rates for comparable jobs. In this case, the price is determined by the requirements made by the customer, this has nothing to do with market pricing. Who compared payment at market rates?

                        So for the state customer, the price would be exactly the same as for the commercial one, if the requirements were the same. Well, what is there to understand? The state makes great demands - which means it pays more. This is precisely market pricing.

                        If you still do not understand, I will explain with a simple example.

                        Suppose you produce and sell shovels. The main model consists of a steel sheet and a simple straight handle made of pine. Most of your customers have enough. The price for such a shovel is 100 r (for example). This is its market price.

                        And here you are approached by one customer who needs the same shovel, but with a slightly modified, more ergonomic handle shape. This will require additional work from you. Naturally, its price is also increasing compared to the main model. And this will also be its market price.

                        Only all US orders automatically crossed the Mask

                        - nonsense. The company has been seeking orders from the Ministry of Defense for military launches for 2 years. They were given access to military launches only in 2017 and only after Musk filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Defense for the military giving all their ULA orders at much higher prices. There was no "automatic translation".

                        it would be interesting to look at the financial condition of the company, for sure there is a decent debt load.

                        - when you present evidence of this, then you will affirm it. Without specific data, this is just your speculation.

                        I also doubt that Rogozin himself complicates the requirements for commercial launches. This should not affect the price. When comparing commercial launches, the price may be affected by the size of the series, the more launches the cheaper.

                        But for some reason, the price of Protons was reduced from 100 million to 65 million just at the time when these missiles began to be released less. What goes against your statement.

                        Good question. good Loans, many low interest loans and subsidies. laughing If you want, "hidden subsidies."

                        Do you have any documents proving that SpaceX took loans from the state?

                        I looked at who the customers were, NASA almost every third launch, still on the USAF list, that is, the Air Force, NOAA structure from the Ministry of Commerce, NRO space intelligence, these launches can hardly be called commercial.

                        Well, let's take a closer look.

                        So, today (April 2020), the total number of Falcon-9 launches was 81. Of these:
                        - according to the ISS supply program - 20;
                        - for NRO (American intelligence) - 1 launch;
                        - for USAF (US Air Force) - 2 launches;
                        - for NRL (laboratory as part of the US Navy) - 1 (moreover, it was concomitant
                        load in one of the flights under the ISS supply program);
                        - 2 more launches of research satellites for NASA, NOAA, USAF;
                        - 1 launch in the interests of NASA (tess telescope);
                        - 1 more launch for NASA (GRACE satellite), moreover, as an additional
                        startup load with a commercial Iridium.
                        - and a test launch of the Crew Dragon manned spacecraft for NASA.

                        Total, count. Only 28 government launches out of 81. And this is not counting the fact that some of these loads were joint or additional in commercial launches. But we will simplify and calculate that there was a separate launch for each state satellite. It turns out 28 state out of 81. The remaining 53 - in the interests of third-party customers. 53 is almost 2 times more than 28.

                        From the article on Habré, which I sent you, we found out that the average cost of state launches is 87-90 million dollars.

                        You do not need to be a brilliant mathematician to understand that government orders are not the main source of funding for SpaceX.
                      3. 123 Offline
                        123 (123) April 13 2020 00: 40
                        -1
                        • 2
                        • 3
                        About shovels are entertaining, only I can compare, where is the price better, maybe there were some contests? Yet the market seems to be? Not?

                        - nonsense. The company has been seeking orders from the Ministry of Defense for military launches for 2 years. They were given access to military launches only in 2017 and only after Musk filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Defense for the military giving all their ULA orders at much higher prices. There was no "automatic translation".

                        You see my word military orders? I look, you are serious about launch information, try to highlight the share of American companies in the total number of customers. There, of course, sometimes the French meet others, but mostly their own. As soon as the rocket arrived, all orders were dragged home.

                        But for some reason, the price of Protons was reduced from 100 million to 65 million just at the time when these missiles began to be released less. What goes against your statement

                        The price was reduced for another reason, it was pulled up earlier and in the absence of competition three skins were torn. An alternative appeared and the price naturally fell.

                        Do you have any documents proving that SpaceX took loans from the state?

                        You will probably be surprised, but I don’t even have documents confirming that SpaceX exists at all. request In addition, why exactly the state? There the system is arranged somewhat differently. I’m not going to prove anything to you, you asked - where did the money come from? I told you where it might come from. Do you have other options? You think cocaine is being trafficked?

                        Well, let's take a closer look.

                        Let's. yes It looks beautiful, you can see that they tried to write. good Only in vain, as a result, it turns out the same data, every third launch of a government order. To it add orders from American companies "supporting the domestic manufacturer", hence the large series and, in fact, the whole "commercial success".

                        From the article on Habré, which I sent you, we found out that the average cost of state launches is 87-90 million dollars.

                        You found out. I see no reason to dispute this figure. Even if she is true, what does this mean? "Government order" is still more expensive. If we attribute everything to “other requirements”, the question arises, how well are they justified? Is the rocket the same that they test it five times before launch? Why more expensive?

                        You do not need to be a brilliant mathematician to understand that government orders are not the main source of funding for SpaceX.

                        An interesting statement. yes Loans?
                      4. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 01: 11
                        +1
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        About shovels are entertaining, only I can compare, where is the price better, maybe there were some contests? Still a market, sort of? Not?

                        So NASA has admitted SpaceX to the ISS supply program just on a market basis. You can read on Wikipedia about the COTS program - which companies participated, what technologies were offered, etc.

                        I look, you are serious about launch information, try to highlight the share of American companies in the total number of customers. There, of course, sometimes the French meet others, but mostly their. As soon as the rocket arrived, all orders were dragged home.

                        Specially highlighted in bold. For it is ridiculous.

                        Of the SpaceX commercial customers, the United States are:

                        - Orbcomm - 3 launches;
                        - Iridium - 8 launches;
                        - Spaceflight Industries - 1 launch.
                        - Nortrop Grumman - 1 launch;
                        - Echostar Corporation - 1 launch.

                        Summarize - it turns out - oh, horror, how many! - as many as 14 launches out of 53.

                        If for you 14 out of 53 is “mostly yours”, then I don’t know ... In the first grade you need to learn arithmetic again. In reality, this is slightly more than 1/4 of the total number of commercial launches.

                        The price was reduced for another reason, it was pulled up earlier and in the absence of competition three skins were torn. An alternative appeared and the price naturally fell.

                        - and after that, the manufacturer of Proton began to have problems.

                        In addition, why exactly the state?

                        - because we are talking about public funding.

                        I’m not going to prove anything to you, you asked - where did the money come from? I told you where it might come from. Do you have other options? You think cocaine is being trafficked?

                        Of course, it’s hard for me to prove something, because apart from your speculations, you have no evidence. And about other options - a great many. Private investors, profit from startups.

                        You found out. I see no reason to dispute this figure. Even if she is true, what does this mean? "Government order" is still more expensive.

                        More expensive, but not by much. Only one and a half times.

                        If we attribute everything to “other requirements”, the question arises - how well are they justified? Is the rocket the same that they test it five times before launch? Why more expensive?

                        Exactly. Launches under the state program undergo additional certification. Because the load in these satellites is created on state money, reporting on which is much, much stricter than that of private traders.

                        An interesting statement. yes Loans?

                        - if loans - so what? We are talking about state financing, to which loans taken from banks do not apply.
                      5. 123 Offline
                        123 (123) April 13 2020 01: 43
                        -1
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        So NASA has admitted SpaceX to the ISS supply program just on a market basis. You can read on Wikipedia about the COTS program - which companies participated, what technologies were offered, etc.

                        Well, yes, if we had a competition, Roskosmos would probably be the winner. Did they have real competitors? Rocketplane Kistler eventually dropped out of the competition. There is little information on how it looked, old, of course, but you never know, it will suddenly be interesting.

                        http://integral-russia.ru/2017/07/12/tsena-zapuska-spacex-i-realnaya-konkurentsiya-na-rynke-kosmicheskoj-dostavki/

                        In reality, this is slightly more than 1/4 of the total number of commercial launches.

                        It is not enough? Add 1/3 of the state order launches, totaling 55-60% of the company's load.

                        - and after that, the manufacturer of Proton began to have problems.

                        Why not? Production needs a series, if it is not there, problems begin.

                        - because we are talking about public funding.

                        The USA has a different system, all injections go through private banks.
                        If you mean that all the troubles come from state-owned companies, trust everything to private owners and production will flourish, then this is not so. For example, there is such a company Westinghouse.

                        Of course, it’s hard for me to prove something, because apart from your speculations, you have no evidence. And about other options - a great many. Private investors, profit from startups.

                        In terms of evidence, we are not very different. laughing Private investors need to make a profit, or is it a pyramid like shale workers. I do not see huge profits, in any case, sufficient to recoup all expenses.

                        More expensive, but not by much. Only one and a half times.

                        In my opinion, this is not enough. In the store you will see the same thing on different counters with such a difference in price, the toad will not strangle more expensive to buy? Unless, of course, your money, and not government money. laughing

                        Exactly. Launches under the state program undergo additional certification. Because the load in these satellites is created on state money, reporting on which is much, much stricter than that of private traders.

                        Do you mean certification, like in aviation? So it is not for each aircraft individually do.

                        even if loans - so what? We are talking about state financing, to which loans taken from banks do not apply.

                        Than state. Is financing worse than money passed through private banks? Do they have a halo of holiness? In fact, this is a different financial system. Each company takes advantage of the existing one. In the US, everything is endlessly poured with money, the financial system allows. Roscosmos will not take money at such a low percentage. Companies initially have different starting conditions. Compensate differently. Or do you think it would be better if Roskomos is bent, because in the USA the interest on loans is less?
                      6. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 02: 24
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        Well, yes, if we had a competition, Roskosmos would probably be the winner. Did they have real competitors?

                        SpaceX rivals in the COTS program were Orbital ATK - a company that at that time had much more experience in aerospace. Other participants were not so eminent, but SpaceX itself in 2006 had only 4 launches of the ultra-light Falcon-1 rocket, of which only 2 were successful. So the competition was more than fair.

                        Regarding your link - it just clearly shows that no one gave SpaceX any concessions and does not. The company had to go through litigation in order to gain equal access to government orders.

                        It is not enough? Add another 1/3 of the state order launches totaling 55-60% of the company's load.

                        Firstly, 1/4 launches for US commercial companies already refute your thesis that SpaceX's main commercial customers are mostly Americans.

                        Secondly, it does not matter at all, because American companies are exactly the same customers as any others. And the prices for them are exactly the same as for everyone else.

                        Why not? Production needs a series, if it is not there, problems begin.

                        Right. And the Khrunichev Center lost orders because even having reduced the cost of Proton to $ 65 million, he still could not compete with Musk. And not only could not keep the market, but also got into debt.

                        The USA has a different system, all injections go through private banks.

                        - Well, bring evidence that the state poured into SpaceX through private banks))

                        In terms of evidence, we are not very different

                        - radically different.

                        I do not see huge profits, in any case, sufficient to recoup all expenses.

                        - Well, so check your eyesight or something.

                        Do you mean certification in aviation? So it is not done for every airplane individually.

                        - in the space sector, certification is stricter, much stricter.

                        Than state. Is financing worse than money passed through private banks?

                        Because money from private banks is not state financing. And the argument was about that. The rest of the last paragraph is irrelevant in general. Nothing.
                      7. 123 Offline
                        123 (123) April 13 2020 03: 25
                        0
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        SpaceX rivals in the COTS program were Orbital ATK - a company that at that time had much more experience in aerospace. Other participants were not so eminent, but SpaceX itself in 2006 had only 4 launches of the ultra-light Falcon-1 rocket, of which only 2 were successful. So the competition was more than fair.

                        I’m not familiar with the activities of Orbital ATK, I looked at the assets of the Pegasus cruise missile, the Minotaur carrier rocket (the Minutman conversion version. Antares appeared later in 2012, at the time of the COTS competition in 2006 there was no rocket yet. That is all, that the company was able to get the Miniment from the mine, remove the warhead from it, put the satellite in and launch. To be honest, it’s not impressive, SpaceX already had a ready-made flying rocket. The choice is obvious.

                        Regarding your link - it just clearly shows that no one gave SpaceX any concessions and does not. The company had to go through litigation in order to gain equal access to government orders.

                        Of course not, but there is other interesting information.

                        In addition, there is a contract EELV Launch Capability (ELC), in which ULA receives $ 860 million dollars annually, to provide access to space, even if there were no starts. In addition, ULA received a total of $ 5 billion in other expenses related to equipment for the production of rockets.

                        Everything as you like, remember the idle center to them. Khrunicheva? It turns out that you do not like it here, quietly existed in the United States. They received money even without launches, and even 5 billion from the noble shoulder.

                        For example, 14 months ago, the U.S. Air Force signed a contract with SpaceX in the amount of $ 83 million to launch the GPS 3 satellite, and in March 2017 another contract was won to launch another GPS 3 satellite worth $ 96.5 million. This is the full cost of the launch that the government will pay, and it can not be compared with the $ 422 million for a single launch, which is laid down in the budget of the Air Force for 2020.

                        SpaceX received contracts of 83 and 96 million for the launch of GPS satellites. Against the background of 422 million it looks just fantastic. This indicates "reasonable" prices for government orders. How they calculated this amount is not known, probably, "certified" more carefully. laughing As I understand it, the price at which the state order “flies up” - this is the amount announced by Musk, would say 200 million, we would be glad of that, anyway, half the price. yes Therefore, to compare with commercial launches can be a stretch. The difference is huge.

                        Firstly, 1/4 launches for US commercial companies already refute your thesis that SpaceX's main commercial customers are mostly Americans.

                        I can’t say that I completely refute it. Together with the "state order" this is more than half of the launches. It turns out the local version of "import substitution", in addition, it is necessary to deal with foreign customers, which influenced their choice. Has the "administrative resource" been used? The ships of the Swiss company also almost voluntarily escaped from the construction of the Nord Stream-2.

                        - Well, bring evidence that the state poured into SpaceX through private banks))

                        And through what? There are no others there. All funding is through them.
                        As I understand it, your evidence of the opposite is also not observed on the horizon, as well as an alternative source of funding.

                        - radically different.

                        True? And what? Do you provide evidence? Where are they?

                        - Well, so check your eyesight or something.

                        As I understand it, do you have better vision? So show where is this source of funding? Where are the profitable projects?

                        - in the space sector, certification is stricter, much stricter.

                        Stricter - not stricter, this is secondary. If you mean that the certification is organized as in aviation, then they certify the aircraft and begin to produce it, they do not certify separately for each side. To write off the price difference is strange. If this is not the case, correct, maybe I'm wrong.

                        Because money from private banks is not state financing. And the argument was about that. The rest of the last paragraph is irrelevant in general. Nothing.

                        Do you know state banks in the USA? Or a way to direct them, bypassing the banks?
                        Soar didn’t begin with state financing, but with

                        dumping and state subsidies.

                        This is somewhat different.
                      8. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 04: 46
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        To be honest, not impressive, SpaceX already had a ready-made flying rocket. The choice is obvious.

                        Only between Orbital and SpaceX no one made any choice - according to the results, both companies entered the program. Moreover, Orbital won in the first round, and SpaceX - only in the second.

                        Of course not, but there is other interesting information.

                        - eg?

                        SpaceX received contracts of 83 and 96 million for the launch of GPS satellites. Against the background of 422 million it looks just fantastic. This indicates "reasonable" prices for government orders.

                        This suggests that before SpaceX entered the state launch market for the military, ULA was the only company serving the U.S. Air Force. Do you know what a monopoly is? Not? I explain. This is when the market is concentrated in the hands of one company. In this case, it was ULA. Do you know what is characterized by monopoly? Overpricing. This is the law of a market economy. If you are the only contractor, you can raise the start-up prices at least up to a billion - the state will do it. Because he has a lot of money, and there is no one else to do the work.

                        Simply put, it was not the Moscow 83-87 million dollars for the launch that were not the market price, but just the 160-400 million dollars that the ULA demanded as a monopoly for its services. Moreover, how the ULA monopoly achieved a fee for "access to space", even if the launches themselves were not carried out.

                        But when Musk seized the right to participate in military orders from the military (that is, he destroyed the monopoly), ULA immediately began to design a new Vulkan launch vehicle with returnable engines in order to somehow compete with Musk. And at Atlas-5 with Delta-4 prices also fell, although not much.

                        besides, it is necessary to deal with foreign customers, which influenced their choice. Has the "administrative resource" been used?

                        If an administrative resource was used, then why, after 2015, protons continued to run launches for US and European customers - Eutelsat, Echostar, Nortrop Grumman, OneWeb? Again, there is no logic in your reasoning.

                        And through what? There are no others there. All funding is through them.
                        As I understand it, your evidence of the opposite is also not observed on the horizon, as well as an alternative source of funding.

                        The lack of your loan evidence for SpaceX is my proof of the absence of these loans. The burden of proof lies with the approver. If you claim that these loans exist, you must prove their existence. While there is no such evidence, there are no loans either. In science, they do not prove the absence of God, right?

                        So show where is this source of funding? Where are the profitable projects?

                        The source of financing is the contributions of investors and the Mask himself, as well as the profit received from orders.
                        A profitable project - SpaceX itself and their main direction (launches on Falcon-9)

                        If you mean that certification is organized as in aviation, then they certify the aircraft and begin to produce it, they do not certify separately for each side. To write off the price difference is strange. If this is not the case, correct, maybe I'm wrong.

                        In the space sector for state orders, they certify the entire series and each carrier separately. Because the payload (satellites) are piece and small-scale products, for each of them the launch vehicle is prepared and checked separately.

                        Do you know state banks in the USA? Or a way to send them bypassing banks?

                        Ways of state financing bypassing banks? Of course - you just take and directly allocate money. For example, this is how NASA funded Orbital ATK.
                        By the way, here Orbital ATK is an ideal example of what happens to a contractor who is fully seated on government orders. One launch of the Antares rocket for the ISS costs $ 85 million (moreover, it is a light class rocket, not a heavy one, like the Falcon-9). That is, they are comparable in price.
                        Well, Orbital ATK went bankrupt. It was bought (along with debts) by Nortrop Grumman.
                        This proves once again that if the enterprise is unprofitable, continuous state orders will not save it either.
                      9. 123 Offline
                        123 (123) April 13 2020 16: 24
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        Only between Orbital and SpaceX no one made any choice - according to the results, both companies entered the program. Moreover, Orbital won in the first round, and SpaceX - only in the second.

                        It could not be otherwise. Two companies - one has a flying rocket, the second has experience in removing warheads and installing satellites in place. "Favorite" is obvious. In which round the laggard dropped out - insignificant details.

                        This suggests that before SpaceX entered the state launch market for the military, ULA was the only company serving the U.S. Air Force. Do you know what a monopoly is? Not? I explain. This is when the market is concentrated in the hands of one company. In this case, it was ULA. Do you know what is characterized by monopoly? Overpricing. This is the law of a market economy. If you are the only contractor, you can raise the start-up prices at least up to a billion - the state will do it. Because he has a lot of money, and there is no one else to do the work.

                        Trying to give a lecture on monopoly is a bad decision. Just litter the comments. negative

                        Simply put, it was not the Moscow 83-87 million dollars for the launch that were not the market price, but just the 160-400 million dollars that the ULA demanded as a monopoly for its services. Moreover, how the ULA monopoly achieved a fee for "access to space", even if the launches themselves were not carried out.

                        What is meant by "Moscow 83-87 million dollars for launch" is not clear. request
                        If you have that 83-87 million less than the "monopoly" 160-400, then this is true, but how much the price corresponded to reality is a question. If SpaceX subsequently managed to lower the price to 55 million. It turns out that they simply offered a price lower than that set by the monopolist, which, in general, was not difficult, the price was clearly sky-high.

                        But when Musk seized the right to participate in military orders from the military (that is, he destroyed the monopoly), ULA immediately began to design a new Vulkan launch vehicle with returnable engines in order to somehow compete with Musk. And at Atlas-5 with Delta-4 prices also fell, although not much.

                        How does this information relate to the issue under discussion? Have you decided to shine with erudition?

                        If an administrative resource was used, then why, after 2015, protons continued to run launches for US and European customers - Eutelsat, Echostar, Nortrop Grumman, OneWeb? Again, there is no logic in your reasoning.

                        Long term contracts.

                        The lack of your loan evidence for SpaceX is my proof of the absence of these loans. The burden of proof lies with the approver. If you claim that these loans exist, you must prove their existence. While there is no such evidence, there are no loans either. In science, they do not prove the absence of God, right?

                        Do you want to see a bank statement? Do you think Musk works without loans? If you can confirm this information, I promise to hang a photograph of this financial genius over your bed. laughing
                        I tell you that Mask has no projects that generate enough profit to maintain a break-even level for his companies. The source of financing can be either loans or hidden dating, which comes through an inflated price for launching a "state order".

                        In the space sector for state orders, they certify the entire series and each carrier separately. Because the payload (satellites) are piece and small-scale products, for each of them the launch vehicle is prepared and checked separately.

                        Are you seriously? belay And for commercial launches, they simply take any rocket from the warehouse and launch it?
                        Absolutely all missiles are prepared and tested before launch. yes

                        Ways of state financing bypassing banks? Of course - you just take and directly allocate money. For example, this is how NASA funded Orbital ATK.

                        Did they carry a “cache” in their suitcases or transferred through our Treasury? Are you sure the banks were not involved at all?

                        By the way, here Orbital ATK is an ideal example of what happens to a contractor who is fully seated on government orders. One launch of the Antares rocket for the ISS costs $ 85 million (moreover, it is a light class rocket, not a heavy one, like the Falcon-9). That is, they are comparable in price.
                        Well, Orbital ATK went bankrupt. It was bought (along with debts) by Nortrop Grumman.

                        Such things happen to companies that are not sitting on government orders. Remember Westinghouse, how's she doing? You thought that this information does not apply to the topic, but this is not so. This is a good example, refuting your "slender" theory of the "sacred market", where the best survive. Rosatom is doing a little better. yes Or is the market only for the space industry?

                        This proves once again that if the enterprise is unprofitable, continuous state orders will not save it either.

                        This does not prove anything; you have an erroneous and largely naive idea of ​​market mechanisms in the economy.
                      10. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 16: 58
                        0
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        Trying to lecture on monopoly is a bad decision. Just litter the comments.

                        Obviously, a very good solution, since you do not know how prices are formed in a monopoly and in a competitive environment.

                        It turns out that they simply offered a price lower than that set by the monopolist, which, in general, was not difficult, the price was clearly sky-high.

                        Oh, so now you agree that the launch price set by Mask is a market price? Progress, progress.

                        Long term contracts.

                        So, according to your “administrative resource” logic, they could break the contract with Roscosmos and go to Mask. Moreover, in fact, such examples were (with Asiasat satellites). True, these examples are not due to an “administrative resource”.

                        Do you want to see a bank statement? Do you think Musk works without loans? If you can confirm this information, I promise to hang a photograph of this financial genius over your bed.

                        No, it’s just when you find evidence that he takes loans - then I agree that Mask enterprises cannot exist without “state subsidies” and “loans”.

                        I tell you that Mask has no projects that generate enough profit to maintain a break-even level for his companies.

                        To say this, you need to have specific financial indicators. You do not know what kind of profit Mask receives from each commercial launch, which is slightly less than 2/3 of the total number of launches.

                        But the fact that, in addition to launching Falcon-9, he has money for developing Falcon Heavy, developing Starship, building a cosmodrome, and implementing the Starlink project, which means that he has a big source of “extra” money that he can invest in these projects.

                        The source of financing can be either loans or hidden dating, which comes through an inflated price for launching a "state order".

                        You do not have evidence about loans - therefore, this argument is dismissed. And government launches cost only 30 million more than regular commercial launches. How many state were there. launches? 28? multiply 28 by 30 - it turns out 840 million the company received "superprofits" from the state. This amount would be enough for the development of Falcon Heavy, but not for Starship, the construction of the spaceport and the implementation of the Starlink satellite network.

                        Are you seriously? And for commercial launches, they simply take any rocket from the warehouse and launch it?
                        Absolutely all missiles are prepared and tested before launch.

                        For commercial launches, the requirements are milder. Checks before launches, of course, are available, but the requirements are much less stringent than for government customers. But the price is less - it suits commercial customers.

                        Did they carry a “cache” in their suitcases or transferred through our Treasury? Are you sure that the banks were not involved at all?

                        And what difference does the state transfer its money to private owners through banks or some other body? Even if the money allocated by the state is transferred to the company through the bank - this is open information, no one hides it. You take the conversation aside. We are talking about the very fact of state financing, and not about through which financial body this financing was carried out.

                        Such things happen to companies that are not sitting on government orders. Remember Westinghouse, how's she doing? You thought that this information does not apply to the topic, but this is not so. This is a good example, refuting your "slender" theory of the "sacred market", where the best survive. Rosatom is doing a little better. Or is the market only for the space industry?

                        First, Rosatom, even if it loses money, does not go bankrupt - it is a state corporation, and not private, like Westinghouse. Secondly, no one argues that Rosatom has more advanced nuclear technologies, thanks to which it gained a competitive advantage and remains a profitable enterprise. By the way, Rosatom is not sitting on state orders from the Russian Federation alone - it has both China and Europe in its clients.

                        You have an erroneous and largely naive idea of ​​market mechanisms in the economy.

                        May be. But you don’t have it at all.
                      11. 123 Offline
                        123 (123) April 13 2020 17: 58
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        Obviously, a very good solution, since you do not know how prices are formed in a monopoly and in a competitive environment.

                        I doubt that you know more about this. hi

                        Oh, so now you agree that the launch price set by Mask is a market price? Progress, progress.

                        This is not fully market pricing. Foreign companies participated in the competition?

                        So, according to your “administrative resource” logic, they could break the contract with Roscosmos and go to Mask. Moreover, in fact, such examples were (with Asiasat satellites). True, these examples are not due to an “administrative resource”.

                        Why break the contract? This may result in financial loss. They could break, but they might not break, in general, this is not an argument. no

                        No that's just when you find evidence that he takes loans - then I agree that Mask enterprises are not able to exist without "state subsidies" and "loans".

                        Very rash statement. no Virtually no company can work without loans in our time. If you think that Musk does not take loans at all, you are mistaken.

                        Tesla takes out $ 1,6 billion loan in China to invest in a factory in Shanghai

                        https://currency.com/ru/news/2019/12/27/china-tesla-loans

                        And for personal needs, loans are not uncommon.

                        Elon Musk took a mortgage of $ 61 million

                        https://www.rbc.ru/finances/22/02/2019/5c701ef89a79472e0b7171f5

                        I understand that you had a bit of the wrong loans in mind, but it’s better to put it more carefully. smile

                        To say this, you need to have specific financial indicators. You do not know what kind of profit Mask receives from each commercial launch, which is slightly less than 2/3 of the total number of launches.

                        That's right, I do not have. And let's try to count together. How much is the Merlin engine, not in the know? I do not want to waste time searching.

                        But the fact that, in addition to launching the Falcon-9, he has money for developing the Falcon Heavy, developing Starship, building a cosmodrome, and implementing the Starlink project, which means that he has a big source of "extra "the money he can invest in these projects.

                        I think so too yes and I guess this source is Uncle Sam’s pocket.

                        You do not have evidence about loans - therefore, this argument is dismissed. And government launches cost only 30 million more than regular commercial launches. How many state were there. launches? 28? Multiply 28 by 30 - it turns out 840 million; the company received "superprofits" from the state. This amount would be enough for the development of Falcon Heavy, but not for Starship, the construction of the spaceport and the implementation of the Starlink satellite network.

                        840 million, of course, is not enough to develop Starship, but it will be enough to compensate for the dumping price of "commercial launches."

                        First, Rosatom, even at a loss, will not go bankrupt - it is a state-owned corporation, and not private, like Westinghouse. Secondly, no one argues that Rosatom has more advanced nuclear technologies, thanks to which it gained a competitive advantage and remains a profitable enterprise. By the way, Rosatom is not sitting on state orders from the Russian Federation alone - it has both China and Europe in its clients.

                        You see, it turns out that state corporations can be successful.

                        May be. But you don’t have it at all.

                        Believe yourself a great economist? The second day you talk about the advantages of the market and private enterprise. Here is the paragraph above. All your tales are refuted by this.
                      12. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 18: 20
                        -1
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        I doubt that you know more about this

                        Obviously bigger than yours.

                        This is not fully market pricing. Foreign companies participated in the competition?

                        No, of course, these are military orders. This is the domestic American market.

                        Why break the contract? This may result in financial loss.
                        They could break, but they might not break, in general, this is not an argument

                        Stop. Literally in the year before comment, you said something about "administrative pressure" (or something like that), because of which supposedly a bunch of commercial customers drove off to Mask. And then you declare that "you could break it, but you might not - it’s not an argument."
                        You already decide on your position, and then as a weather vane.

                        Very rash statement no Virtually no company can work without loans these days.

                        That is, in addition to your guesses, you have no evidence.
                        By the way, even if he takes loans - this does not make his company automatically unprofitable.

                        If you think that Musk does not take loans at all, you are mistaken

                        Why are you throwing me about the loans that Musk himself takes or his Tesla? We are generally talking about another company, if that.

                        How much does the Merlin engine do not know

                        - I do not have such information. What for?

                        I also think so and believe this source is the pocket of Uncle Sam.

                        “Well, you can think of at least reptilians from Nibiru.” Evidence is needed, not reasoning.

                        840 million, of course, is not enough to develop Starship, but it will be enough to compensate for the dumping price of "commercial launches."

                        Okay Suppose he spent the money on "dumping compensation." Where did the money for the spaceport, Starlink, Falcon Heavy, Starship come from? On 'mnb projects, the state did not allocate anything))

                        You see, it turns out that state-owned corporations can be successful.

                        - So I do not deny. They can - if they are not sitting on state orders alone.

                        Believe yourself a great economist?

                        - Better than you, for sure.

                        Here is the paragraph above. All your tales are refuted by this.

                        - than "this"? An example of Rosatom, which carries out a bunch of projects that are not related to the Russian Federation?
                      13. 123 Offline
                        123 (123) April 13 2020 19: 19
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        Obviously bigger than yours.

                        This is a subjective assessment.

                        No, of course, these are military orders. This is the domestic American market.

                        Oh yeah. good Winning a closed tender is just a model of market pricing laughing

                        Stop. Literally in the year before comment, you said something about "administrative pressure" (or something like that), because of which supposedly a bunch of commercial customers drove off to Mask. And then you declare that

                        they could break, but they could not - they say, not an argument.

                        You already decide on your position, and then as a weather vane.

                        Do you see the contradictions? Companies are switching to "their" startups, while they have long-term contracts. It is logical to “refine” them to the end. Surely there are various penalties for refusing to launch. Moreover, it is not a fact that Musk could immediately provide all the required launches. Missiles are not pies, you won’t bake them in an hour.

                        That is, in addition to your guesses, you have no evidence.
                        By the way, even if he takes loans - this does not make his company automatically unprofitable.

                        I won’t show you the credit history of the Mask; there will also be no help with printing. Work on loans is a global practice, almost all companies work this way. If you think Musk is one exception and takes out money from his grandfather's chest, it would be very interesting to listen to the substantiation of this opinion.

                        Why are you throwing me about the loans that Musk himself takes or his Tesla? We are generally talking about another company, if that.

                        Firstly, you did not specify that loans are of interest for this particular company. I wrote, be careful in the expressions. laughing Secondly, Musk takes loans for himself, for his Tesla company, but he does not take loans, he has a lot of money. Are we talking about the same person? belay

                        Okay Suppose he spent the money on "dumping compensation." Where did the money for the spaceport, Starlink, Falcon Heavy, Starship come from? On 'mnb projects, the state did not allocate anything))

                        Partly investors, partly loans, perhaps the state threw it on development, but he does not do it on his own initiative for his own use?

                        - So I do not deny. They can - if they are not sitting on state orders alone.

                        In order to receive commercial orders, I needed the help of the state, including cheap loans. The market capture scheme has many similarities with the situation in question.

                        - than "this"? An example of Rosatom, which carries out a bunch of projects that are not related to the Russian Federation?

                        To get this “bunch of projects” it took decades to develop and develop technologies, provide a production base and staff training, scientific developments. I doubt that without the resources of the state this is possible.
                      14. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 19: 46
                        +1
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        Winning a closed tender is just a model of market pricing

                        And why not?

                        Companies are switching to "their" startups, while they have long-term contracts. It is logical to “refine” them to the end.

                        But, after all, there was no "administrative pressure"?

                        I won’t show you the credit history of the Mask; there will also be no help with printing. Work on loans is a global practice, almost all companies work this way. If you think Musk is one exception and takes money from a grandfather's chest, it would be very interesting to listen to the rationale for this opinion.

                        That is, loans are not a reflection of the company's profitability / loss ratio? Indeed, otherwise, if almost all companies use them, then, according to your logic, this should indicate their loss-making?

                        Firstly, you did not specify that loans are of interest for this particular company

                        - I remind you that we have a discussion about SpaceX. I thought it was obvious. But if not, I will remind you once again.

                        Partly investors, partly loans, perhaps the state threw it on development.

                        The state has not allocated a cent for these of his projects.

                        ... he doesn’t make them for his own use, on his own initiative?

                        - just on my own.))

                        In order to receive commercial orders, state assistance was needed, including cheap loans. The market capture scheme has many similarities with the situation in question.

                        Few. Starting with the type of organization itself (state corporation and private company) and ending with the scope of activity. Clients in nuclear energy are states; there are no commercial customers at all. As I said, you give analogies so-so.

                        To get this “bunch of projects”, it took decades to develop and develop technologies, provide a production base and staff training, scientific developments. I doubt that without the resources of the state this is possible.

                        Nuclear power - right, without state support is impossible. Because this market is completely divided between states, there are no private customers.
                        The space sphere is quite another. There are both state and private customers. Missiles are much simpler to design and manufacture than nuclear power plants. Plus, Musk lured specialists from NASA, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and other American space organizations. He started with a trial single-engine Falcon-1 rocket, then he received money from NASA for the manufacture of a larger Falcon-9. Everything is quite real.
                      15. 123 Offline
                        123 (123) April 13 2020 20: 08
                        +2
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        And why not?

                        Because there are practically no competitors. How do you get the concept of market pricing in a closed tender? The market implies competition and the absence of restrictions.

                        But, after all, there was no "administrative pressure"?

                        You have a rather strange way of thinking. I said that they were forced to immediately terminate all contracts in spite of financial losses? About Mask's impossibility to provide all launches at once, have you read? Or such difficulties do not fit in the head?

                        That is, loans are not a reflection of the company's profitability / loss ratio? Indeed, otherwise, if almost all companies use them, then, according to your logic, this should indicate their loss-making?

                        Can you rest? That the conclusions you have come up are rather strange. The presence of loans does not mean automatic loss. This is a common practice. It is you who claim that the Great Mask does not need loans, he has not measured money.

                        The state did not allocate a cent for these of his projects. - just on its own))

                        The projects are expensive, again the question comes up with financing.

                        Few. Starting with the type of organization itself (state corporation and private company) and ending with the scope of activity. Clients in nuclear energy are states; there are no commercial customers at all. As I said, you give analogies so-so.

                        I’m just telling you, the form of ownership is not a determining factor. By the way, it is not so important who the customer is, the state or the company. Anyway, the winner company is determined on a competitive basis.
                        You simply do not perceive arguments that do not fit into your idea of ​​market relations.

                        Nuclear power - right, without state support is impossible. Because this market is completely divided between states, there are no private customers.

                        But there are competitors, besides the Americans, there are also French, Chinese and so on. Then what about Westinghouse? By the way, will we look at the arms market? So the situation is also interesting. yes

                        The space sphere is quite another. There are both state and private customers. Missiles are much simpler to design and manufacture than nuclear power plants. Plus, Musk lured specialists from NASA, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and other American space organizations. He started with a trial single-engine Falcon-1 rocket, then he received money from NASA for the manufacture of a larger Falcon-9. Everything is quite real.

                        I have nothing against your attitude to the activities of the Mask. You can believe in anything and we will argue endlessly.

                        I propose to return, so to speak, to the roots.
                        Rogozin said that Musk is dumping and dating. Musk replied that the thing was reusable missiles.
                        I propose to stop the pointless argument and try to understand the essence of the issue.
                      16. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 20: 22
                        -1
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        I propose to return to the roots, so to speak.
                        Rogozin said that Musk is dumping and dating. Musk replied that the thing was reusable missiles.
                        I propose to stop the pointless argument and try to understand the essence of the issue.

                        I support !!
                        So, I'm waiting for evidence of "dumping" and "subsidies"))
                      17. 123 Offline
                        123 (123) April 13 2020 20: 47
                        +1
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        And I am evidence that the thing is reusable missiles.

                        SpaceX rockets are 80% reusable, their (Russians - ed.) - 0%. This is an urgent problem.

                        First you need to see how many reusable launches and how much the rocket, or, at least, the engine cost. Russian RD-180, if not mistaken, they took 10 million each, RD-181 15 million each.
                      18. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 21: 15
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        And I am evidence that the thing is reusable missiles.

                        Easy:
                        - the lowest price on the market.
                        - A large number of commercial customers.

                        Quote: 123
                        First you need to see how many reusable launches and how much the rocket, or, at least, the engine cost.

                        See the wiki page for Falcon-9 launches.

                        The Merlin engine costs about $ 1,5 million.
  3. Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 23: 54
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    How much profit did it bring?

    And where does the profit come from? You claim that without government support, SpaceX would be unprofitable. That is, without it, the company, by definition, would have no money for anything else. However, she developed a superheavy for her money. And he builds a spaceport for his money. And he develops Starship for his money. And he sells Starlink for his money.

    The mere presence of these projects, not funded by the state, shows that SpaceX has extra money. A lot of extra money. What, by definition, cannot be a loss-making company. Ask the Khrunichev Center, he will confirm.

    And if we talk about profitability, then SpaceX itself is profitable and its main direction is putting payload into orbit.

    If one of the divisions of the company is temporarily not working, this does not mean that the whole company is standing.

    Roscosmos is not a company. This is an analogue of the American NASA. This is a governing state organization. Khrunichev Center is a manufacturer.
  • Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 19: 22
    +2
    • 3
    • 1
    Oh yeah, about SpaceX projects without state participation - in fact, the development of the reusable version of Falcon-9 was also carried out on the company's own money, the state did not allocate any funds for this. Under the ISS supply program, NASA allocated part of the money (just part) to create only a one-time version of the rocket.
  • Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 18: 52
    +3
    • 3
    • 0
    In order not to be unfounded, I will cite an article that provides a detailed analysis of the SpaceX pricing policy for government customers.

    https://habr.com/ru/post/425347/

    By the way, Rogozin’s words that state launches for SpaceX are paid 2-3 times more expensive than commercial ones are, to put it mildly, not quite true.
    But who really started dumping due to subsidies is Roscosmos. Before SpaceX entered the commercial (private) launch market, the cost of launching Proton was $ 100 million. Then, in order to compete in price with Musk, Roscosmos had to reduce the cost of these launches, first to 75 million, and then to 65. And just at that time, Khrunichev began to have problems with debts. With whom he had to help the state.
  • cmonman Offline
    cmonman (Garik Mokin) April 12 2020 16: 58
    +1
    • 3
    • 2
    He stopped financing from the budget?

    123, talk about the launch price and the cost paid by the customer. I know that you own English, go to the SpaceX website and look at the price tag for launching your satellite. Compare prices with a yuzana rocket and a new one. There is a whole price dynamics depending on weight / height / special requests / time / orbit, etc. And everything is paid by the customer, i.e. you.
    1. 123 Offline
      123 (123) April 12 2020 18: 13
      0
      • 2
      • 2
      Talk about the launch price and the cost paid by the customer.

      Absolutely. yes

      the launch market price, for example, at SpaceX, is about $ 60 million, then NASA pays for the same service one and a half to four times more

      NASA has nowhere to put money? What is it if not financing? Call it subsidy, subsidy, support, the essence of this does not change. The company does not receive money for fulfilling the order at the market price.

      I know that you own English.

      Knowledge, loudly said, this is a problem, they leave much to be desired.

      go to the SpaceX website and look at the price tag for launching your satellite.

      What's the point? I understand that SpaceX launches are cheaper. Rogozin said this, as well as explained why it became possible. To be honest, the answer of Mask did not impress me, saying that launches are cheaper because of reusable missiles without publishing data on what and how much it costs is premature. Life experience and elementary common sense suggests that all disposable is cheaper than reusable. An elementary disposable syringe, pricked and thrown away, reusable more expensive, it must be sterilized, monitor its serviceability, which increases the cost and complicates its use. A disposable lighter is cheaper than a reusable lighter and you do not need to buy a bottle of gas and silicon to it. Porcelain dishes are not cheaper than disposable ones; drones comparable in class with missiles are unlikely to be cheaper. If this does not work in relation to all sectors, why is space an exception? Perhaps it is cost-effective to return part of the first stage, for example, a small “rescue capsule” for engines, this is a technically complex and expensive device. But the rest of the rocket is just a tank. Of course, she was not made of tin, but I doubt that her return to earth is so cost-effective. For its delivery, you need to make a complex landing system, then this hefty gizmo needs to be transferred, checked. In general, for me the benefits are far from obvious.

      There is a whole price dynamics depending on weight / height / special requests / time / orbit, etc.

      Certainly. yes That is why we are talking about "from one and a half to four times."

      And everything is paid by the customer, i.e. you.

      Does SpaceX have orders from Russia? belay Did I understand correctly? The fact of the matter is that customers pay the commercial price and it is underestimated, and without "surcharges" from NASA it will not work to keep such a price, it is very similar to dumping.
      1. cmonman Offline
        cmonman (Garik Mokin) April 12 2020 18: 53
        +2
        • 3
        • 1
        ... NASA pays for the same service from one and a half to four times more.

        Yes, understand, 123, that there are no SAME services !! This is not the USSR!
        Launching a satellite into orbit 400 km, after which the satellite itself reaches a height of 1000 km - one price, and launching at a height of 1000 km - another!
        Launch of 3 satellites from 3 customers - cheaper price for each, for one customer - much more expensive. All prices are dynamic, and Rogozin knows about it, but is disingenuous !!!
        NASA requires additional checks / conditions - the price rises, etc.
        1. 123 Offline
          123 (123) April 12 2020 19: 25
          -1
          • 1
          • 2
          Yes, understand, 123, that there are no SAME services !! This is not the USSR!
          Launching a satellite into orbit 400 km, after which the satellite itself reaches a height of 1000 km - one price, and launching at a height of 1000 km - another! Launch of 3 satellites from 3 customers - cheaper price for each, for one customer - much more expensive.

          I understand, from here the scatter is 1,5-4 times.

          All prices are dynamic, and Rogozin knows about it, but is disingenuous !!!
          NASA requires additional checks / conditions - the price rises, etc.

          Everybody is a little cunning winked nobody tells the absolute truth. NASA requires ..... but do not require anything from Roskosmos? How do they want to run?
      2. Cyril Offline
        Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 19: 39
        +1
        • 2
        • 1
        Life experience and elementary common sense suggests that all disposable is cheaper than reusable. An elementary disposable syringe, pricked and thrown away, reusable more expensive, it must be sterilized, monitor its serviceability, which increases the cost and complicates its use. A disposable lighter is cheaper than a reusable lighter and you do not need to buy a bottle of gas and silicon to it. Porcelain dishes are not cheaper than disposable

        There is such a mistake in science called logic as a false analogy. Here you just admit it. To compare the transport system (launch vehicle) with a lighter and a plate is, of course, the top of the logic.

        Life experience and elementary common sense suggests that all disposable is cheaper than reusable

        Oh really? That is, we have disposable planes flying, disposable cars driving, disposable ships floating, disposable trains riding? What is such a reality? Or do we have people walking around in disposable clothes and shoes? Use disposable computers and phones?

        From this your conclusion, only one conclusion can be drawn - your life experience and common sense are zero.

        Perhaps it is cost-effective to return part of the first stage, for example, a small “rescue capsule” for engines, this is a technically complex and expensive device.

        - which without fuel tanks will not sit down. And the fuel tanks are in the first stage. It would be possible, of course, to save the engines with the help of parachutes, only the mass of these parachutes would be much larger than the mass of fuel needed to land the first stage. In addition, parachutes are susceptible to wind, do not provide a completely soft landing (only soften the blow), and do not provide accuracy of landing.
        1. 123 Offline
          123 (123) April 12 2020 19: 59
          0
          • 2
          • 2
          There is such a mistake in science called logic as a false analogy. Here you just admit it. To compare the transport system (launch vehicle) with a lighter and a plate is, of course, the top of the logic.

          The quote is not complete. no

          drones comparable in class with missiles are unlikely to be cheaper.

          The end of the sentence was “deleted” and all conclusions were built on this. winked

          - which without fuel tanks will not sit down. And the fuel tanks are in the first stage. It would be possible, of course, to save the engines with the help of parachutes, only the mass of these parachutes would be much larger than the mass of fuel needed to land the first stage. In addition, parachutes are susceptible to wind, do not provide a completely soft landing (only soften the blow), and do not provide accuracy of landing.

          Do you think it's worth considering the technical aspects in detail? I just questioned the economic feasibility of returning and reusing the "tank", because this requires additional engines and fuel to them, a control system. This is also not cheap, by the way, I doubt that parachutes weigh much more. But this is all a dispute about anything, we have no exact data.
          1. Cyril Offline
            Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 20: 14
            +1
            • 2
            • 1
            The end of the sentence was “deleted” and all conclusions were built on this

            - About drones, then? Of course, deleted. Because you, firstly, mixed drone with plates in a bunch, which in itself is incorrect. And secondly, where did you see a single-use drone? Even light reconnaissance models launched “from the shoulder” are reusable items.

            So with this "end" of your quote or without it - it still remains incorrect.

            Believe it is worth considering in detail the technical aspects? I just questioned the economic feasibility of returning and reusing the "tank", because this requires additional engines and fuel to them, a control system.

            But how can one generally analyze the cost-effectiveness of a technical system without evaluating its technical aspects?

            This is also not cheap, by the way I doubt that parachutes weigh much more.

            - the parachute for the propulsion block (and it is, in fact, heavy) has at least the same mass as the amount of fuel that is needed for landing. Moreover, the parachute system is more expensive than the fuel itself. In addition, the parachute system for the engine block has the following disadvantages:

            - it saves only the engines, while the stage itself also stands, in general, a lot.

            - parachutes do not save from the blow completely, they only extinguish it. And just after that, reassembly of the engines will be required. The experience of Shuttle accelerators being saved with parachutes has shown this clearly.

            - parachutes do not provide landing accuracy. This means that by launching over the sea, you will not be able to land them accurately on the platform. So you have to land on the water. And seawater - and this is also proved by Shuttle boosters, does a lot of damage to the engines.
            1. 123 Offline
              123 (123) April 12 2020 20: 34
              -2
              • 1
              • 3
              - About drones, then? Of course, deleted. Because you, firstly, mixed drone with plates in a bunch, which in itself is incorrect.

              I did not mix in a heap, but continued a series of examples, from simple to complex.

              And secondly, where did you see a single-use drone? Even light reconnaissance models launched “from the shoulder” are reusable items.

              As you will find reusable rockets launched from the shoulder, we continue this fascinating conversation. yes

              So with this "end" of your quote or without it - it still remains incorrect.

              Incorrect is an incomplete quote, distorting the meaning of what was said, usually called "pulled out of context." hi

              But how can one generally analyze the cost-effectiveness of a technical system without evaluating its technical aspects?

              Why not? You do not doubt it, although I doubt that you own detailed data. If they tell me that it is cheaper, I treat the message with caution, which is why your optimism is due to - a mystery to me. winked

              Moreover, the parachute system is more expensive than the fuel itself.

              Do you not consider the cost of engines?

              - it saves only the engines, while the stage itself also stands, in general, a lot.

              But is it advisable to save the barrel? It must be considered, but since there is no data ..... the question hangs in the air.

              - parachutes do not save from the blow completely, they only extinguish it. And just after that, reassembly of the engines will be required. The experience of Shuttle accelerators being saved with parachutes has shown this clearly.

              Experience has shown the "flimsy" design of Shuttle accelerators, or the inefficiency of a parachute system. After landing by parachute, the astronauts do not need to "rebuild". In addition, accelerators, in fact, are the same rocket, some engines are much smaller, both in mass and in volume.

              parachutes do not provide landing accuracy. This means that by launching over the sea, you will not be able to land them accurately on the platform. So you have to land on the water. And seawater - and this is also proved by Shuttle boosters, does a lot of damage to the engines.

              We don’t need to put anything into the water, and the taiga is not the sea, it does not add corrosion. Where they were going to plant pieces of the Shuttles was not relevant, due to the lack thereof. hi
              1. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 20: 59
                +2
                • 2
                • 0
                I did not mix in a heap, but continued a series of examples, from simple to complex.

                - only here disposable drones do not exist. With the exception of projectiles, the function of which is to fly and detonate the target with you. And, since you decided to continue from simple to complex, what didn’t you say about planes, ships, trains, cars, computers and other reusable equipment? And the answer is simple - because they do not fit into your "coherent logic." Although booster rockets are just logical to compare precisely with them, because launch vehicles are transport systems, and they have a completely different function than that of kitchen plates or lighters. By the way, you even goofed off with plates - it’s more profitable to operate porcelain plates than to constantly buy disposable ones.

                How to find reusable rockets launched from the shoulder, continue this fascinating conversation

                - So you yourself drew an analogy between drones and missiles. Moreover, the analogy is invented, because there are no disposable drones. You contradict yourself.

                An incorrect quote is incomplete, distorting the meaning of what was said, usually called "pulled out of context"

                - nothing is distorted there. You made a false analogy; I showed why it is false.

                Why not? You do not doubt it, although I doubt that you own detailed data.

                I have no doubt about it, because it has been explained from a technical point of view hundreds of times already. How, why and due to what SpaceX landing scheme is more profitable than using parachutes.

                Do you not consider the cost of engines?

                - why take them into account? The Falcon-9 rockets are returned using the same engines as they take off. Small shunting engines on the steps are additional, but they are cheap and very light, their impact on the cost of construction is minimal.

                But is it advisable to save the barrel?

                The first step is not a barrel. This is a high-tech product even without engines. Tanks, fuel supply system, control complex are used not only for return, but also for launch. And losing them every time is very expensive.

                Experience has shown the "flimsy" design of Shuttle accelerators, or parachute system inefficiency.

                With the design of the side shuttle boosters, everything is in order - not flimsy any other missiles. And their experience has shown the inefficiency of the parachute system as such. Therefore, SpaceX and chose their way of landing.

                After landing by parachute, the astronauts do not need to "rebuild".

                - right. Because the entire load from the impact is taken upon by the design of the descent vehicles. They themselves become unsuitable for subsequent launches, but the astronauts remain intact.

                We don’t need to put anything into the water, and the taiga is not the sea, it does not add corrosion.

                - Firstly, during launches from the Eastern flight path, LVs will pass just above the sea. Secondly, taiga does not cause corrosion of engines, but it ruins them with a hard surface from impact.
          2. Cyril Offline
            Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 20: 30
            +2
            • 2
            • 0
            By the way. To return the stage, SpaceX uses the same engines that start it. There are no "additional engines" for landing on it. Shunting engines are additional, correcting the trajectory of the step on the descent, but they are primitively simple and practically worthless. And practically do not weigh anything.
            1. 123 Offline
              123 (123) April 12 2020 20: 38
              -2
              • 1
              • 3
              By the way. To return the stage, SpaceX uses the same engines that start it. There are no "additional engines" for landing on it. Additional are

              shunting engines

              correcting the trajectory of the steps on the descent, only they are primitively simple and practically worthless. And practically do not weigh anything.

              It was about them that I spoke. Do you think the parachute system is prohibitive in comparison with them, is the road and terribly expensive? They are already descending for more than 50 years and nothing.
              P / S. I missed one more of your comments there, I will answer later, otherwise the meat on the stove will burn, and it is more dear to me than the Shuttle. hi
              1. Cyril Offline
                Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 21: 17
                +2
                • 2
                • 0
                It was about them that I spoke. Do you think the parachute system is prohibitive in comparison with them, is the road and terribly expensive?

                A lot. See which parachute systems are used to land landing equipment. In order not to be unfounded, here is an example of the Bahcha parachute system:

                https://defendingrussia.ru/upload/articles/

                This complex of parachutes and shock-absorbing pillows is necessary for soft landing of only one landing BMD. Moreover, it descends from a height of a maximum of several kilometers, that is, its fall rate is much, much less than the fall speed of the propulsion block of the launch vehicle. At the same time, the BMD has a margin of safety, allowing it to withstand a blow to the ground during descent with parachutes (and there is a blow there), and rocket engines - by definition, the design is more fragile, they have a completely different purpose. They are afraid of any, even a small blow to the ground.
                1. 123 Offline
                  123 (123) April 12 2020 21: 52
                  -1
                  • 2
                  • 3
                  Yes figs with her, with a parachute system, I say that it is possible to return some engines without tanks is perhaps more appropriate. On Falcon 9, if I am not mistaken, 9 of them. Here is the opinion of the SpaceX engineer:

                  95% of the mass of the rocket is the mass of fuel, I'm talking about the Falcon 9. So maybe the fuel is just very expensive? No, actually not, it costs less than 0,5% of the cost of the rocket. The most important thing is the structure, the rocket engines. They are very expensive. The problem is that we throw rockets. Until recently, it was believed that all missiles were disposable.

                  https://sc2tv.ru/blogs/asphalt/2017/06/26/intervyu-s-
                  inzhenerom-spacex

                  In my opinion, the bulk of the rocket is capacity, the engines are the lightest, most compact and valuable part of the rocket, and it is them that are worth returning to the ground. How this will be done is secondary.
                2. Cyril Offline
                  Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 21: 59
                  +2
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  Yes figs with her, with a parachute system, I say that it is possible to return some engines without tanks is perhaps more appropriate.

                  - So the point is that you can only return engines with parachutes. Tanks are in the rest of the stage.

                  In my opinion, the bulk of the rocket is capacity. Engines are the lightest, most compact and valuable part of the rocket, and it is precisely them that are worth returning to the ground.

                  - right. Engines are the most complex and valuable part of them. But the stage itself, including tanks, a fuel supply system, a control system, etc., is also valuable, albeit less valuable, than engines. About this engineer SpaceX in his statement and spoke.

                  How will this be done a second time.

                  - You can only return the engines using parachutes. There are no other ways. But I already wrote about the shortcomings of the parachute system, moreover, several times.
                3. 123 Offline
                  123 (123) April 12 2020 22: 10
                  -2
                  • 1
                  • 3
                  - So the point is that you can only return engines with parachutes. Tanks are in the rest of the stage.

                  Enough small capacity, it is not necessary to drag the entire empty "barrel".

                  How will this be done a second time.

                  - You can only return the engines using parachutes. There are no other ways. But I already wrote about the shortcomings of the parachute system, moreover, several times.

                  You can write about its shortcomings at least 1000 times, without specific data it is useless. Both methods have their pros and cons.
                  You can assume that American engineers are the smartest and never wrong, and their decisions are the only right ones, but this is not so.
                4. Cyril Offline
                  Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 22: 42
                  +2
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  Enough small capacity, it is not necessary to drag the entire empty "barrel".

                  Firstly, not enough. To sit on their own traction, engines need a system and controls. Secondly, as I have already said, tanks and a fuel supply system, although relatively cheaper than the engines themselves, also cost money. Much money.

                  You can write about its shortcomings at least 1000 times, without specific data it is useless.

                  Want specific data? Okay

                  The minimum speed of decline, which provides the same "Bakhcha" of 11 domes - 10 m / s. That is, the load suspended from it is thrown to the ground at a speed of at least 10 m / s per second. And if for BMD this is not so scary, then for rocket engines it is critical.

                  The speed of the Falcon-9 step at the moment of touching the platform or landing pad is - attention! - 0 m / s.

                  Both methods have their pros and cons.

                  - The only minus landing on their own engines is that for it you need to leave a certain amount of fuel. Everything.

                  You can assume that American engineers are the smartest and never wrong, and their decisions are the only right ones, but this is not so.

                  - Why do you ascribe to me some of your speculations? We are considering a specific technology. The effectiveness of this technology has been proven by SpaceX in practice. Empirically.
                5. 123 Offline
                  123 (123) April 12 2020 23: 04
                  -2
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  You don’t tell me about Bahchu, tell me better how much the capacity for kerosene costs, then we will discuss profitability. hi
                6. Cyril Offline
                  Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 23: 59
                  +2
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  better tell me how much the capacity for kerosene costs, then we will discuss profitability

                  I may tell you a secret, but the liquid propellant rocket engines do not fly on one kerosene, but on its mixture with an oxidizing agent (oxygen). Therefore, to save the engines you will need not just one, but two tanks. This time.

                  Secondly. Why invent extra tanks for fuel and oxidizer to save only the engine block, if you can save the entire stage at once, without complicating its design and allowing you to save the tanks themselves, fuel supply system, system and controls in addition to the engines?

                  You offer a completely irrational option.
                7. cmonman Offline
                  cmonman (Garik Mokin) April 13 2020 19: 23
                  0
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  SW 123 and Cyril,
                  you communicated with each other with such enthusiasm, discussing the landing of the first stage by parachute, which I missed, did you discuss splashdown? A parachute, of course, is good, but salt water will ruin the stage very much. And all launches are carried out over the ocean. Corrosion from salt will lead to the replacement of so many parts and will leverage the low cost of restarting. You can catch a parachute in the air with a helicopter, as Rocket Lab does for its Electron rocket (movie in link).

                  https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-tests-electron-stage-recovery/

                  - but Musk correctly decided to plant.
                  By the way, NASA news:

                  SpaceX won a NASA contract to deliver cargo to Gateway, offering what the agency identified as the most efficient solution at the lowest price.
                  On March 27, NASA announced it had signed a contract with SpaceX for Gateway Logistics Services (GLS) to deliver cargo to Gateway. The agency did not disclose the specific terms of the contract, but stated that the total cost of the program was a maximum of $ 7 billion for 15 years.
                  At the time of the announcement, NASA did not disclose any other bidders for the contract. However, in a statement on source selection published by NASA on April 9, the agency said that Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) along with SpaceX submitted program proposals.
                8. Cyril Offline
                  Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 19: 30
                  +1
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  you communicated with each other with such enthusiasm, discussing the landing of the first stage by parachute, which I missed, did you discuss splashdown?

                  Yes, I mentioned it in one of the comments.
  • Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 15: 38
    0
    • 3
    • 3
    Lord, take Twitter from Rogozin. I thought that he had grown wiser - but no, again about "dumping and state financing" mumbles.
  • Igor Pavlovich Offline
    Igor Pavlovich (Igor Pavlovich) April 12 2020 16: 44
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    Rogozin still needed to remind the Mask once about trampolines and how harmful Americans "cynically and hypocritically" drilled holes in the space station ...
  • Alexander Semenov (Alexander Semenov) April 12 2020 17: 16
    -1
    • 2
    • 3
    It's time to already become a branch of the Mask and everything will be fine. With their money and technology, Roskosmos might still have somehow existed for 10 years .... and so this sharaga is already breathing, and all the same, it gives out victorious slogans to justify its worthlessness!
  • shadow Offline
    shadow April 12 2020 17: 59
    +1
    • 3
    • 2
    And the fact that Mask ships explode, have everyone forgotten?
    And the fact that Musk gave out devices for combating snoring for mechanical ventilation, which on the contrary only increase infection. Somehow everyone forgot. So believe the Mask.
    1. Cyril Offline
      Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 19: 45
      +1
      • 2
      • 1
      And the fact that Mask ships explode, have everyone forgotten?

      - Mask for all the time had only 2 accidents with LV and one ship explosion during ground tests. Let me remind you that tests for that and tests, so that the equipment could explode on them.

      And the fact that Musk issued a device to combat snoring for mechanical ventilation

      - Firstly, Musk did not give them out for mechanical ventilation. Secondly, these devices are designed to combat apnea, not snoring. Thirdly, these devices are quite suitable for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate pulmonary insufficiency. Mechanical ventilation is needed for severe patients.

      which on the contrary only increase infection.

      - they do not increase infection. Not at all.
      1. shadow Offline
        shadow April 12 2020 19: 55
        -2
        • 1
        • 3
        Look at that. Who, what, where.

        1. Cyril Offline
          Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 20: 23
          0
          • 3
          • 3
          Again. Musk purchased 1255 devices to combat night apnea. They are quite suitable for oxygenation of patients with mild or moderate pulmonary insufficiency.

          Instead of watching the highs of some whistleblowers, you need to turn to the original source - to the tweet of Mask himself. And it sounds like this:

          Yup, China had an oversupply, so we bought 1255 FDA-approved ResMed, Philips & Medtronic ventilators on Friday night & airshipped them to LA. If you want a free ventilator installed, please let us know!

          He used the term "ventilator". This concept refers to all devices for ventilation of the lungs - from those used in clinics, to home models. In addition, he indicated that these devices are approved by the US government organization FDA.
          1. shadow Offline
            shadow April 12 2020 20: 36
            -2
            • 2
            • 4
            And what do they show there? What tweet? So, you can further protect the liar Mask. And also show photos of these same devices.
            1. Cyril Offline
              Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 21: 02
              +2
              • 3
              • 1
              That's right, showed the devices that Musk bought. And then for some reason they attributed to him that he gave them away those that are used in clinics. Although he did not say anything at all. I say - they ascribe some kind of speculation to him, and then they refute it.
              1. shadow Offline
                shadow April 12 2020 21: 44
                -3
                • 1
                • 4
                Well yes. First he writes a tweet, then they expose him and take a photo, and after that they write that he was assigned something there. Sure. And yes. If the tests fail, it means that it does not work, and therefore does not fly.
                1. Cyril Offline
                  Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 21: 52
                  +2
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  He tweet first

                  - and where in this tweet it is said that these devices are intended for patients with severe pulmonary insufficiency?

                  If the tests fail, it means that it does not work, and therefore does not fly

                  - Do you imagine how the stage of development and testing of spacecraft goes? Looks like no. So:

                  - a project is being developed;
                  - the prototype is being implemented under the project;
                  - An experimental product is being tested.
                  - if the tests are not successful, the experimental product is finalized taking into account the results of these tests;
                  - The modified product is tested again. If the testing is successful, the product is put into operation and mass production. If the tests are not successful, the project is being finalized again. And so on until the product passes the test.

                  Before entering into service, the Russian spacecraft Soyuz also passed the tests. And yes, in these tests, it also often collapsed, after which it was further developed.

                  I'll tell you even more. The very first manned flight of the Soyuz spacecraft in 1967 led to the death of cosmonaut Komarov. Do you know why? Because it has not been finalized. At the time of launch with Komarov, he did not pass the entire test cycle.
          2. 123 Offline
            123 (123) April 12 2020 21: 07
            -2
            • 2
            • 4
            Again. Musk purchased 1255 devices to combat night apnea.

            Oh yeah, yes the difference is huge. fellow

            Sleep apnea is a type of apnea characterized by the cessation of pulmonary ventilation during sleep for more than 10 seconds ..
            Narrowing of the upper respiratory tract during sleep predisposes to obstructive apnea. With apnea lasting more than 10 seconds, a state of hypoxia and hypercapnia with metabolic acidosis occurs, with an increase in the severity of changes as the duration of apnea increases. At a certain threshold of these changes, there is an awakening or transition to the superficial stage of sleep, at which the tone of the muscles of the pharynx and mouth increases with the restoration of patency of the pharynx. This is followed by a series of deep breaths, usually with intense snoring. As the blood gas composition normalizes, a deeper sleep phase begins.

            The deeper phase of sleep, and even without snoring, is what is called "what the doctor ordered," yes with coronavirus the most. good
            I understand that it’s a shame for an idol, but you should not tear your heart like that. request
            1. Cyril Offline
              Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 21: 25
              +3
              • 4
              • 1
              Oh yes, yes the difference is just huge.

              - actually huge. Read the definition you made yourself. Read it again and again - maybe the difference between apnea (prolonged respiratory arrest) and snoring, which accompanies the exit from this state.

              Deeper sleep phase

              - you are not even able to master the definition that you yourself have led. Well, I will give you my own quote:

              Sleep Apnea - apneawhich is characteristic cessation of pulmonary ventilation during sleep for more than 10 seconds ..

              with coronavirus the most.

              - with mild to moderate degree of respiratory failure arising in the majority (vast majority) of patients with coronavirus, this is just enough.
              1. 123 Offline
                123 (123) April 12 2020 21: 29
                -2
                • 2
                • 4
                with coronavirus the most.

                - with mild to moderate degree of respiratory failure arising in the majority (vast majority) of patients with coronavirus this is just enough.

                With mild to moderate degree of insufficiency, people do not need mechanical ventilation, they are needed for complications, and it is they that give a chance to survive. And these will give the opportunity to sleep before death and without snoring.
                1. Cyril Offline
                  Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 21: 31
                  +3
                  • 4
                  • 1
                  With mild to moderate degree of failure, people do not need mechanical ventilation

                  - no invasive ventilators (ventilating through the breathing tube) are required. And fans that deliver air through a standard oxygen mask are very much required.
                  1. 123 Offline
                    123 (123) April 12 2020 21: 35
                    -1
                    • 2
                    • 3
                    That is, they will help people with a mild to moderate severity of the disease feel more comfortable? For seriously ill patients they are useless and life will not be saved.
                    1. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 21: 41
                      +3
                      • 4
                      • 1
                      That is, they will help people with a mild to moderate severity of the disease feel more comfortable?

                      - Bingo! And most importantly, they will help them do this at home, without visiting an already overloaded hospital.

                      For seriously ill patients they are useless and life will not be saved.

                      - right. For these, just the more expensive and rare invasive mechanical ventilation are needed.

                      In other words, Musk bought devices that help patients with mild to moderate pulmonary insufficiency, thereby allowing the use of rarer, more expensive and complex invasive mechanical ventilation for the treatment of people with severe respiratory failure.

                      And nowhere and in no way did he claim that the devices he purchased were intended for ALL patients with any degree of respiratory failure.

                      As I already said, the “whistleblowers” ​​themselves invented some kind of nonsense, attributed to him, and then they themselves “expose” it. Actually, it always has been. For example, they attributed words to him about the “free Internet Starlink”, and then exposed - they say, it turns out that it is not free. Although Musk called it "affordable" and not free - these are two different, completely different things.
                      1. shadow Offline
                        shadow April 12 2020 22: 04
                        -3
                        • 1
                        • 4
                        Houses? But he bought it for hospitals, not for home. 1255 pieces for the home, what, in America there are so few people?
                      2. Cyril Offline
                        Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 22: 09
                        +2
                        • 3
                        • 1
                        Houses? But he bought it for hospitals, not for home.

                        - he gave the purchased devices to medical institutions, and the medical institutions themselves install them for patients who are on home treatment. What is incomprehensible here?

                        1255 pieces for the home, what, in America there are so few people?

                        - And not the whole population needs them.
                    2. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 12 2020 22: 07
                      -2
                      • 2
                      • 4
                      - Bingo! And, most importantly, they will be helped to do this at home, without visiting an already overloaded hospital.

                      Yeah, they’ll bury them in the garden, again, don’t have to carry far. good

                      - right. For these, just the more expensive and rare invasive mechanical ventilation are needed.

                      It would be logical to buy them, and not every ....

                      In other words, Musk bought devices that help patients with mild to moderate pulmonary insufficiency, thereby allowing the use of rarer, more expensive and complex invasive mechanical ventilation for the treatment of people with severe respiratory failure.

                      - in other words, Musk bought useless toys, a slight degree of respiratory failure is shortness of breath. Do you think that when shortness of breath is immediately connected to a ventilator?

                      And nowhere and in no way did he claim that the devices he purchased were intended for ALL patients with any degree of respiratory failure.

                      What did he say? Dear compatriots, I bought you devices that help with shortness of breath and give you the opportunity to sleep without snoring?

                      As I already said, the “whistleblowers” ​​themselves invented some kind of nonsense, attributed to him, and then they themselves “expose” it. Actually, it always has been. For example, they attributed words to him about the “free Internet Starlink”, and then exposed - they say, it turns out that it is not free. Although Musk called it "affordable" and not free - these are two different, completely different things.

                      I'm generally violet on Starlink, he will never work on Russia. Who wrote to you about paid or free Internet, write to them. What do I have to do with it? If someone claimed something, it means that here is Mask in chocolate? This is not an argument, rather - an insult to the "idol", do not thin out so for him.
                    3. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 22: 24
                      +3
                      • 4
                      • 1
                      Yeah, they’ll bury them in the garden, again, don’t have to carry far

                      - smack nonsense. Patients with mild and severe symptoms may well be treated at home. This is practiced throughout imre, including in Russia.

                      It would be logical to buy them, and not every ....

                      - Invasive mechanical ventilation was also purchased by other private and public companies. Musk bought non-invasive home-friendly people with mild to moderate pulmonary insufficiency. Thus freeing up places in hospitals for seriously ill patients. Everything here is absolutely logical.

                      What did he say? Dear compatriots, I bought you devices that help with shortness of breath and give you the opportunity to sleep without snoring?

                      He wrote that he had purchased such and such devices approved by the FDA. And that’s all.
                      I see, you do not quite understand what pulmonary failure is and what its danger is. Well, I'll chew you.

                      Respiratory failure is an indicator of how much the lungs "do not give" the body the oxygen necessary for its normal functioning. This is exactly an indicator of lung function, excluding other body systems.

                      Respiratory failure can be mild, moderate, and severe.

                      It may seem that mild or moderate respiratory failure is simply uncomfortable shortness of breath, which is inconvenient, but not life threatening. I explain why this is not so.

                      For example, you have anemia - a lack of red blood cells that carry oxygen in the body. That is, even with normal breathing, insufficient oxygen is delivered to the tissues. This is accompanied by weakness, in severe cases - loss of consciousness. And this is during normal functioning of the lungs themselves. And here, in addition to anemia, you have mild oxygen deficiency. The brain also received insufficient oxygen without it, and with it it received even less. As a result, getting even less air, it simply dies.

                      The same situations will arise if you have heart failure, atherosclerosis, and other cardiovascular diseases.

                      Now it’s clear why many people even need lung ventilation, even with mild to moderate respiratory failure?
                    4. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 12 2020 22: 53
                      -1
                      • 3
                      • 4
                      - smack nonsense. Patients with mild and severe symptoms may well be treated at home. This is practiced throughout imre, including in Russia.

                      It’s you who smashes the nonsense, so much so that the screech is heard here already. I am not interested in what is practiced all over the world, thousands are dying right now, sometimes due to a lack of mechanical ventilation. “Mask devices” did not save a single life. Whom he helped with snoring, atherosclerosis, maybe with a stutter or something else, in this case, it doesn’t matter. Thousands of people die from the coronavirus and Musk has not helped anyone.
                    5. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 00: 04
                      +2
                      • 4
                      • 2
                      I am not interested in what is practiced all over the world ...

                      - Ah, well, since it’s not interesting for you, this changes everything ...

                      Whom he helped with snoring, atherosclerosis, maybe with a stutter or something else, in this case, it doesn’t matter. Thousands of people die from the coronavirus and Musk has not helped anyone.

                      You absolutely do not understand that the majority does not die because of the virus itself, but because of the complications that it causes to a weakened organism.

                      First of all, those who have experienced health problems even without the virus die. The virus only exacerbates them to a fatal state. And yes, just the “cores”, which are especially numerous among the elderly, are the first to die due to a lack of air amid reduced heart and vascular function. They die even if their respiratory failure itself is not particularly great.
                    6. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 00: 46
                      -1
                      • 3
                      • 4
                      - Ah, well, since it’s not interesting for you, this changes everything ...

                      In this case, it does not change anything. PR on the background of the epidemic and no real help.

                      You absolutely do not understand that the majority does not die because of the virus itself, but because of the complications that it causes to a weakened organism.

                      Complications? People just don't have lungs.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-YlOW8ri9Y

                      How can a snoring device help them, sorry - from apnea?
                    7. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 01: 22
                      +2
                      • 4
                      • 2
                      PR on the background of the epidemic and no real help.

                      Real help for those suffering from mild to moderate pulmonary insufficiency. And, therefore, the release of invasive mechanical ventilation for severe sufferers.

                      Complications? People just don't have lungs

                      Lungs are "absent" only in patients with a severe form of the disease, of which a minority. They just need invasive mechanical ventilation.

                      I repeat this 5 times already, how much more is needed?
                    8. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 01: 51
                      -1
                      • 3
                      • 4
                      I repeat this 5 times already, how much more is needed?

                      You can repeat 300 times, the essence of things from this will not change request Epidemic, Coronavirus. Need ventilation. We would need these "anti-ratchets", we would buy them. But Musk was one such "creative."
                      The boy was sent to the store for bread, because there is nothing at home, he bought chewing gum for all the money. Here is about such a darn your Musk.
                    9. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 02: 00
                      +2
                      • 4
                      • 2
                      Epidemic, Coronavirus. Need ventilation.

                      Severely ill. Light and medium enough models for night apnea.

                      We would need these "anti-ratchets", we would buy them.

                      March 26 BIPAP and CPAP machines have been approved for the treatment of patients with coronavirus and are on the list of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

                      https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/fda-authorizes-cpap-machines-more-as-emergency-ventilator-alternatives - ссылка.

                      The boy was sent to the store for bread, because there is nothing at home, he bought chewing gum for all the money. Here is about such a darn your Musk.

                      We have long known your "ability" to give analogies; you should not demonstrate it once again.
                    10. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 02: 11
                      -2
                      • 2
                      • 4
                      Severely ill. Light and medium enough models for night apnea.

                      Why didn’t I buy exercise bikes? For those who are just about to get sick? Let the lungs train while it’s also good.

                      On March 26, BIPAP and CPAP machines were approved for the treatment of patients with coronavirus and were on the list of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

                      Included. yes 26 March. belay And when did he buy? Not otherwise, a seer. Included, by the way. from hopelessness, because ventilation is stupidly lacking. They rake everything that is. Have you read the link yourself?

                      The FDA issued a wide-ranging emergency policy allowing alternative devices to be used as potentially lifesaving ventilators as shortages begin to impact hospitals' responses to the coronavirus pandemic.

                      We have long known your "ability" to give analogies; you should not demonstrate it once again.

                      Glad you liked it. hi I try to keep up with your "shovels".
                    11. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 02: 29
                      +2
                      • 4
                      • 2
                      Quote: 123
                      Why didn’t I buy exercise bikes? For those who are just about to get sick? Let the lungs train while it’s also good.

                      Because people with mild to moderate pulmonary insufficiency are already sick, and if they have other diseases, even from mild lack of air, they can die.

                      Included, by the way, from hopelessness, because the ventilation is stupidly lacking. They rake everything that is. Have you read the link yourself?

                      Bingo!!!! Finally, it starts to reach you.

                      I try to keep up with your "shovels".

                      - to you to my "shovels" in terms of the correctness of the analogy, as to Beijing with cancer.
                    12. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 03: 31
                      -2
                      • 2
                      • 4
                      Bingo!!!! Finally, it starts to reach you.

                      But it will not reach you in any way. request Included in the recommendations on March 26. Musk bought his hoarser earlier. That they were included in the list. not his merit, just out of hopelessness everyone uses. If this goes on, maybe the vacuum cleaners will turn on. He stupidly bought them out of ignorance or because it is cheaper. That's all.

                      - to you before my "shovels" in terms of the correctness of the analogy as to Beijing with cancer.

                      It’s hard to judge, cancer isn’t accustomed to walking. You know better.
                    13. The comment was deleted.
                    14. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 03: 55
                      0
                      • 3
                      • 3
                      But request doesn’t reach you in any way. We included it in the recommendations on March 26th. Musk bought his hoarser earlier.

                      Lol The FDA did not include non-invasive fans on the emergency list to help coronavirus patients, not March 26, but earlier. This article, which says this, was published on March 26.

                      The FDA permission itself came out earlier:

                      https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-situations-medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizations#covid19ventilators

                      In continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 24, 2020, and based on the February 4, 2020 HHS EUA determination, the HHS Secretary declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of medical devices, including alternative products used as medical devices, due to shortages during the COVID-19 outbreak.

                      HHS is, by the way, the US Department of Health. On the same day, the FDA approved the same recommendations.
                      So Mask didn’t have any “foresight” - it’s just that you don’t know how to look for Old.

                      It’s hard to judge, cancer isn’t accustomed to walking. You know better.

                      - but for some reason always go.
                    15. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 14: 32
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      Lol The FDA did not include non-invasive fans on the emergency list to help coronavirus patients, not March 26, but earlier. This article, which says this, was published on March 26.

                      Yes, it does.

                      So Mask didn’t have any “foresight” - it’s just that you don’t know how to look for Old.

                      But I didn’t look for her, you showed me her.
                      As for the essence of the matter, there is no extreme. As far as I understand, both points of view have a place to be. For some reason I remembered an old, not funny joke about a low flying crocodile.
                      Let me explain.
                      Mask appeared on Twitter on March 24th:

                      Yup, China had an oversupply, so we bought 1255 FDA-approved ResMed, Philips & Medtronic ventilators on Friday night & airshipped them to LA. If you want a free ventilator installed, please let us know!

                      FDA approved ventilators announced purchase. In general, as I understand it, everything that pumps air, ventilates the lungs and is included in the list of permitted fans for them.
                      By our standards, the purchased ventilation devices are not. Rather, it is the same type of equipment that is similar to the operating principle, in fact a surrogate, a cheaper substitute, and I hope this will not come to inclusion on our list.
                      When they start to say that Musk bought ventilation machines, people understand that this is not so, hence the rejection of information.
                      It looks something like this. They say to the person that they bought and handed over the butter for the school canteen and the name is given, say, “Margarine is a special sandwich”. Naturally, you get the answer - margarine is not butter, than feed the children? And you begin to explain - you see, there are not enough products there, the list has been expanded, now there is no separation, all that can be spread on bread is butter.
                      In general, inclusion of this “fan” in the list of permitted in the USA does not make it mechanical ventilation. For us, it is not. A person should not delve into what is somewhere overseas included in some list.
                      And your questions should arise not to the person who says this, but to the herd of enthusiastic Internet broadcasts "Ilon Mask bought IVL devices." fellow
                      Provide the information correctly and there will be no such questions. But they either do not understand the difference, or do it on purpose. To say that in the "citadel of democracy and the driver of world development" "children are stuffed with margarine", the language does not turn.
                      I recommend that you apply your seething energy to correct precisely the incorrectly submitted primary information.
                    16. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 14: 58
                      0
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      Strictly speaking, in Russia, too, the term mechanical ventilation refers to both invasive and non-invasive models.

                      An artificial lung ventilation device (ventilator) is medical equipment that is designed to force a gas mixture (oxygen and compressed, dried air) into the lungs to saturate the blood with oxygen and remove carbon dioxide from the lungs.

                      The ventilator can be used both for invasive (through an endotracheal tube inserted into the patient’s airways or through the tracheostomy), and for non-invasive ventilation of the lungs - through a mask.

                      Even the “Ambu Bag” with an oxygen mask is a ventilator, you won’t believe it. So the phrase in the Russian-language media “Mask bought 1255 ventilators” is also quite correct.

                      So the only ones to blame for this whole situation are all kinds of “Mask exposers” who, without understanding the topic, began to rant about that “now, look what a scoundrel and a liar” he is. And a person just bought 1255 devices that can be used to treat patients with mild or moderate respiratory failure. Or in extreme cases, temporarily replace the invasive mechanical ventilation in case of failure.
                    17. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 15: 36
                      +1
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      Strictly speaking, in Russia, too, the term mechanical ventilation refers to both invasive and non-invasive models.

                      Strictly speaking, there is GOST R ISO 10651-5-2015 "UNITS OF ARTIFICIAL VENTILATION OF LUNG MEDICAL"

                      http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200123296

                      - identical to the international standard ISO 10651-5: 2006 "Lung ventilators for medical use - Particular requirements for basic safety and essential performance - Part 5: Gas-powered emergency resuscitators"

                      https://www.iso.org/ru/standard/35975.html

                      This is a complex and expensive resuscitation medical equipment. It is this equipment that we understand by the term ventilator.
                      All other equipment, similar in functionality, is not such, and your further considerations have a share of cunning.
                      Yes, in the USA they have lowered the standards below the generally accepted international ones, but this is not our problem. This does not concern us. It’s not worth spreading to us the reality adopted there.

                      Even the “Ambu Bag” with an oxygen mask is a ventilator, you won’t believe it. So the phrase in the Russian-language media “Mask bought 1255 ventilators” is also quite correct.

                      And the straw in your opinion is mechanical ventilation? Oxygen can also be blown through it. winked

                      So the only ones to blame for this whole situation are all kinds of “Mask exposers” who, without understanding the topic, began to rant about that “now, look what a scoundrel and a liar” he is.

                      The only culprits in this situation are the dull-headed Mask fans screaming about purchased ventilation. If the correct information were initially reported, the problem would not have arisen. But for them this is unacceptable. How can you tell that there are lowered standards.
                      In Russia, fortunately, the people are not so stupid, they understand the difference between ventilation devices and various "fans".
                    18. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 16: 25
                      -1
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      No, in Russia, ventilation is also understood as a variety of devices. We look GOST R 52423-2005 (ISO 4135: 2001) "Devices of inhalation anesthesia and artificial ventilation of the lungs. Terms and definitions".

                      mechanical ventilation apparatus; ventilator: An automatic device designed to partially or completely replace the patient’s self-ventilation

                      Here - http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200044521:

                      2.4.4.10 non-invasive mechanical ventilation; non-invasive mechanical ventilation: Respiratory ventilation through a nose or face mask

                      Next, about this one of your passage:

                      And the straw in your opinion is mechanical ventilation?

                      Did you make such a dismissive analogy with respect to the Ambu bag? Well, I hasten to disappoint you - it applies to manual ventilation devices - see Appendix 3, “Division of devices for drive and control”.

                      http://docs.cntd.ru/document/gost-18856-81

                      So, no matter how frustrating it may be for you, non-invasive devices, according to our standards, are related to mechanical ventilation. And it turns out that the “Mask fans squealed” everything is absolutely correct, but this -

                      In Russia, fortunately, the people are not so stupid, they understand the difference between ventilation devices and various "fans".

                      As we see, in doubt.
                    19. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 17: 26
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      No, in Russia, ventilation is also understood as a variety of devices. We look GOST R 52423-2005 (ISO 4135: 2001) "Devices of inhalation anesthesia and artificial ventilation of the lungs. Terms and definitions".

                      With coronavirus, it is medical ventilators that are needed to save people's lives, the definition is given above, it is a complex complex, it is necessary to undergo training to work with it.
                      What you are talking about are a few other things. It is no accident that they are listed somewhere after inhalation anesthesia machines, somewhere among others. This is a simplified equipment similar in principle. They are not intended to save lives and resuscitation.

                      http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200044521

                      Clause 2.4.4.10 non-invasive mechanical ventilation; non-invasive mechanical ventilation: Mechanical ventilation attached to the airways through a nasal or facial mask.
                      Located in: 2.4.4 Ventilation modes. That is, it simply describes the operating mode of the ventilator.
                      If the devices purchased by Mask were initially suitable for treatment, why did you need to add them to the list of allowed?

                      Did you make such a dismissive analogy with respect to the Ambu bag? Well, I hasten to disappoint you - it refers to manual ventilation devices. See Appendix 3 "Division of devices for drive and control"

                      I have cited such a dismissive analogy with respect to obsolete models that are not suitable for saving people's lives. Yes, they are suitable for pumping oxygen, however, like a straw. For a long time, they are not able to maintain a given mode. You can advise the Mask to buy also Ambu bags, it is even cheaper. I hope this will not come to their application. Address to the ambulance paramedic, for certain such rarities remained somewhere, try to shake handles, it is interesting, how much will be enough for you. I will listen with interest about the practice of using this equipment in the treatment of coronavirus.

                      As we see, in doubt.

                      It You You see, for the vast majority of people this is not so. Do not believe? Maybe give an example of how such devices are used to treat coronavirus in our country?
                    20. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 17: 57
                      0
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      They are not intended to save lives and resuscitation.

                      They are quite suitable for the following purposes:

                      - maintaining a comfortable state of patients with small and medium pulmonary insufficiency. Thanks to this, they do not have to go to overloaded hospitals.

                      - to save the lives of people with mild to moderate respiratory failure, suffering from anemia, diseases of the cardiovascular system.

                      - as backup ventilation in case the main ventilation device breaks down.

                      In other words, with a shortage of “serious ventilator” devices, such “frivolous” ventilator devices, at least as a temporary solution, are quite, completely. Which explains why the FDA included them in the list of drugs for treating patients with coronavirus.

                      Located in: 2.4.4 Ventilation modes. That is, it simply describes the operating mode of the ventilator.

                      Right. And if the device supports this mode, it means that it is considered a ventilator. This was to the question of the applicability of the term. In the past, you said that Russian standards do not call such ventilation devices. Which is obviously not so.

                      If the devices purchased by Mask were initially suitable for treatment, why did you need to add them to the list of allowed?

                      Because it is a specialized document relating specifically to methods of care for patients with coronavirus.

                      I have cited such a dismissive analogy with respect to obsolete models that are not suitable for saving people's lives.

                      First, I gave an example with an Ambu bag to confirm that in Russian medical standards, the “ventilator” means not only those devices that are used in intensive care, but also any devices that provide forced ventilation of the lungs. This is again to the question of the applicability of the term.

                      Secondly, you will not believe it, but the Ambu bag is designed just to save lives - with its help, artificial ventilation of the lungs is temporarily supported in emergency situations. For example, when transporting a seriously ill patient from his home to intensive care unit.

                      That is, yes, with the help of an Ambu bag, you will not be able to maintain the patient’s breathing for several hours, days, etc. But to help him not suffocate for several minutes while he is being taken from the apartment to the intensive care unit is complete. You will not carry a huge stationary IVL for this, right? Right. Moreover, if such devices are not enough in the hospitals themselves.

                      This you see, for the vast majority of people this is not so. Do not believe?

                      - Oh, so you interviewed all people with us?

                      Maybe give an example of how such devices are used to treat coronavirus in our country?

                      Do we have the same epidemiological situation as in the USA?
                    21. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 18: 54
                      +1
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      They are quite suitable for the following purposes:

                      So explain to the boobies praising the "savior", let them post the correct information. Say, I bought devices for the comfortable maintenance of patients, the rescue of patients suffering from cardiovascular diseases and so on.

                      In other words, with a shortage of “serious ventilator” devices, such “frivolous” ventilator devices, at least as a temporary solution, are quite, completely. Which explains why the FDA included them in the list of drugs for treating patients with coronavirus.

                      In other words, with a shortage of “serious IVL devices,” they are worth buying. It is because of their absence that everyone, even these “snaps”, is included in the list.

                      First, I gave an example with an Ambu bag to confirm that in Russian medical standards, the “ventilator” means not only those devices that are used in intensive care, but also any devices that provide forced ventilation of the lungs. This is again to the question of the applicability of the term.

                      Dying patients need ventilators, not terms.

                      Secondly, you will not believe it, but the Ambu bag is designed just to save lives - with its help, artificial ventilation of the lungs is temporarily supported in emergency situations. For example, when transporting a seriously ill patient from his home to intensive care unit.

                      This is just great. good Will he die in the hospital, or will you pump this bag for days?

                      That is, yes, with the help of an Ambu bag, you will not be able to maintain the patient’s breathing for several hours, days, etc. But to help him not suffocate for several minutes while he is being taken from the apartment to the intensive care unit is complete. You will not carry a huge stationary IVL for this, right? Right. Moreover, if such devices are not enough in the hospitals themselves.

                      Devices and so are in intensive care. People do not die because they are not comfortable; hospitals lack completely different bags, plastic, for corpses.
                      Why are you telling me about AmbU bags? No one to talk to? Musk and bought them?

                      - Oh, so you interviewed all people with us?

                      No, it's just statistics, most people unlearned before the introduction of the exam.

                      Do we have the same epidemiological situation as in the USA?

                      No, not like that, at least for now. But we have much more normal ventilation machines. About the use of "wheezing" in China or Italy, I also did not hear something.
                    22. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 19: 19
                      0
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      So explain to the boobies praising the "savior", let them post the correct information. Say, I bought devices for the comfortable maintenance of patients, the rescue of patients suffering from cardiovascular diseases and so on.

                      The news was: "Elon Musk purchased 1255 ventilators."

                      We found out that according to all standards (both Russian and American), the devices purchased by Mask are IVL devices.

                      So what's the problem? Musk said somewhere that the devices he purchased were intended for ALL patients? Not. He only indicated that these devices are FDA approved. Lied? Not a drop.

                      In other words, when there is a shortage of “serious IVL devices,” it is them that are worth buying. It is because of their absence that everyone, even these “snaps”, is included in the list.

                      And is it not fate to brainwash that now there is a shortage of "serious ventilation devices" around the world? And that by a wave of their hand you can’t increase their production? But there are much more “frivolous” who are able to help (and even save lives) parts of the sick.

                      Dying patients need ventilators and not terms.

                      The devices that Musk purchased can help even dying patients. At least temporarily. In conditions of scarcity - this is quite a solution.

                      This is just great. Will he die in the hospital, or will you pump this bag for days?

                      Where did I say that Bag Ambu provide ventilation in the hospital? Can't you read at all?

                      Devices and so are in intensive care. People do not die because they are not comfortable; hospitals lack completely different bags, plastic, for corpses.
                      Why are you telling me about Ambu bags? No one to talk to? Musk and bought them?

                      I gave you an example of a situation where the Ambu Bag, which you so disparagingly compared to a straw, saves lives.

                      No, it's just statistics, most people unlearned before the introduction of the exam.

                      Clearly, again, no evidence other than speculation.

                      No, not like that, at least for now. But we have much more normal ventilation machines. About the use of "wheezing" in China or Italy, I also did not hear something.

                      Ooh, in Italy they’re even cooler. From masks for swimming.

                      https://www.kaluga.kp.ru/daily/27110.7/4185575/

                      So, the summary.

                      Musk purchased 1255 non-invasive mechanical ventilation machines that can help people with mild to moderate respiratory failure. Including, to save the lives of those who have a weakened cardiovascular system and other diseases that interfere with the normal saturation of blood with oxygen. And also to unload "serious ventilators" for severe patients, thereby at least temporarily reduce their deficit.

                      Previously, these devices were approved by the FDA as an additional means of care for patients with coronavirus.

                      The “Mask Revealers”, having not really figured out what ventilation is, what classes they are divided into, in what situations they are used, began to rant about the “deceiver Mask, who bought cheap fans under the guise of ventilation.”

                      Just what I was talking about - they themselves came up with and they themselves exposed their ideas.
                    23. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 19: 42
                      +1
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      The news was: "Elon Musk purchased 1255 ventilators."
                      We found out that according to all standards (both Russian and American), the devices purchased by Mask are IVL devices.

                      I don’t know what you found out, I know that under the definition of mechanical ventilation we mean resuscitation equipment, American standards do not interest me. And Musk bought "snores", which, due to hopelessness in an epidemic and lack of quality equipment, were allowed for use in the United States. And I think the choice when buying fell on them, because of the low cost. To say that I bought 1200 devices sounds louder than to say - I bought 5 devices.

                      So what's the problem? Musk said somewhere that the devices he purchased were intended for ALL patients? Not.

                      There is no problem, he can help the sick with anything. But in fairness, that they were not intended for all patients, he did not speak either.

                      He only indicated that these devices are FDA approved. Lied? Not a drop.

                      That's right. Questions about storytellers - Musk bought mechanical ventilation. fellow People who say they bought snoring devices are also not lying. But for some reason this hurts you. You would like them to be called IVL. What is the problem?

                      The “Mask Revealers”, having not really figured out what ventilation is, what classes they are divided into, in what situations they are used, began to rant about the “deceiver Mask, who bought cheap fans under the guise of ventilation.”

                      If you are such a seasoned "whistle-blower whistle-blower", then say that the following is not true:
                      1. The devices purchased by the Mask fans are exactly what the Americans call them.
                      2. Purchased devices are much cheaper than high-quality "real" ones used in resuscitation.
                      3. The devices purchased by Mask are intended for treating snoring and (what is the name of the disease? Well, you know) and are approved for use for treating coronavirus in the mild to moderate stages of the course of the disease, due to a lack of high-quality equipment.

                      Just what I was talking about - they themselves came up with and they themselves exposed their ideas.

                      Before you 3 "notions", you can refute right now.
                    24. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 19: 59
                      +1
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      I don’t know what you found out. I know that under the definition of mechanical ventilation we mean resuscitation equipment,

                      I brought you the Russian standards, according to which even the Ambu Bag is a ventilator.

                      There is no problem, He can help the sick with anything. But in fairness, that they were not intended for all patients, he did not speak either.

                      Was he obliged to say that?

                      People who say they bought snoring devices are also not lying. But for some reason this hurts you.

                      The devices purchased by the Mask are used to help patients suffering any diseaseaccompanied by mild to moderate pulmonary insufficiency. It can be not only sleep apnea, but also any other illness.

                      But the wording “to combat snoring” is absolutely incorrect. Non-invasive ventilators are designed to compensate for pulmonary failure. But snoring is completely different. Read at your leisure what it is. Maybe it will reach you.

                      You would like to name it IVL.

                      I don’t want to, but they are called that way. Both by American and Russian standards.

                      1. The devices purchased by the Mask fans are exactly what the Americans call them.

                      Right. AND? The term ventilator there is called the apparatus and non-invasive and invasive ventilation. In other words, the term ventilaor is equivalent to the Russian "ventilator".

                      2. Purchased devices are much cheaper than high-quality "real" ones used in resuscitation.

                      Cheaper - yes. Poor quality - no. Can non-invasive devices be used in resuscitation? Yes.

                      The devices purchased by Mask are intended for the treatment of snoring and (what is the name of the disease? Well, you know) and are approved for use for treating coronavirus in the mild to moderate stages of the disease, due to a lack of high-quality equipment.

                      They are not intended to treat snoring. They are designed to compensate for respiratory failure. A specific syndrome that can manifest in a variety of diseases.
                    25. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 20: 43
                      +1
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      I brought you the Russian standards, according to which even the Ambu Bag is a ventilator.

                      God forbid, the epidemic will affect, I hope you get just such a bag. Assess the difference immediately. yes

                      Was he obliged to say that?

                      No, not obligated. But I, however, like other people, do not have to say that this is a ventilator and not "wheezing."

                      The devices purchased by Mask are used to help patients suffering from any disease, accompanied by mild to moderate pulmonary insufficiency. It can be not only sleep apnea, but also any other illness.

                      They are designed specifically for the treatment of sleep apnea. Why should I say that this is not so?

                      But the wording “to combat snoring” is absolutely incorrect. Non-invasive ventilators are designed to compensate for pulmonary failure. But snoring is completely different. Read at your leisure what it is. Maybe it will reach you.

                      Do not quibble, want to fight for the transition to the correct medical terms?

                      I don’t want to, but they are called that way. Both by American and Russian standards.

                      I don’t give a damn about American standards, even if they standardize the straws. For me, the ventilator is a resuscitation equipment, and the apparatus for treating apnea is an apparatus for treating apnea. Why on earth should I call it a ventilator?

                      Right. AND? The term ventilator there is called the apparatus and non-invasive and invasive ventilation. In other words, the term ventilaor is equivalent to the Russian "ventilator".

                      Wonderful. good With paragraph 1 decided. These are fans.

                      Cheaper - yes. Poor quality - no. Can non-invasive devices be used in resuscitation? Yes.

                      With paragraph 2, too, everything is fine. good They are cheap.
                      For comparison: such Russia transferred to the USA:

                      https://eurosmed.ru/products/apparat-ivl---aventa-m

                      Avent, the cost of 1 rubles apiece. Musk bought something like this in China:

                      https://www.oxy2.ru/catalog/cpap/

                      cost from 30 to 000 thousand. I suppose they are even cheaper in China.

                      They are not intended to treat snoring. They are designed to compensate for respiratory failure. A specific syndrome that can manifest in a variety of diseases.

                      With paragraph 3, everything is just as wonderful. good
                      Congratulations. good You are the best myth myth exposer fellow Musk bought cheap fans for sleep apnea under the guise of mechanical ventilation.

                      The “Mask Revealers”, having not really figured out what ventilation is, what classes they are divided into, in what situations they are used, began to rant about the “deceiver Mask, who bought cheap fans under the guise of ventilation.”

                      No more questions. I consider the correspondence to be terminal. hi
                    26. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 20: 59
                      0
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      God forbid, the epidemic will affect, I hope you get such a bag. Assess the difference immediately.

                      Substitution of theses absolutely does not color you.

                      No, not obligated. But I, however. like other people, it’s not obliged to say that this is mechanical ventilation and not “wheezing”.

                      These devices are mechanical ventilation. The fact that you and “other people” do not consider them as such is solely your problem of not knowing medical standards and terminology.

                      They are designed specifically for the treatment of sleep apnea. Why should I say that this is not so?

                      No, they are designed to compensate for respiratory failure, including sleep apnea. In addition to sleep apnea, they can be used (and are used) in any other cases where the patient has respiratory failure. Including with coronavirus.

                      Do not quibble, want to fight for the transition to the correct medical terms?

                      Right. After all, it is all about the correctness of the terms. The mask is accused of "giving out snakes for mechanical ventilation." While he bought it IVL.

                      For me, the ventilator is a resuscitation equipment, and the apparatus for treating apnea is an apparatus for treating apnea. Why on earth should I call it a ventilator?

                      Yes, do not care that there "personally for you" ventilator. There is a specific Russian standard, which includes invasive devices, non-invasive devices, and even Ambu bag to mechanical ventilation. If you do not know the terminology, these are your problems.

                      Remarkably good. We decided on paragraph 1. These are fans.

                      Right. What is the absolute analogue of the Russian term "mechanical ventilation apparatus".

                      With paragraph 2, too, everything is remarkably good. They are cheap.
                      For comparison, Russia transferred these to the United States:

                      https://eurosmed.ru/products/apparat-ivl---aventa-m Авента,

                      the cost of 1 500 000 rubles per piece. Musk bought something like this in China:

                      https://www.oxy2.ru/catalog/cpap/

                      the value of y is from 30 to 000 thousand. I believe in China they are even cheaper.

                      AND? Russia well done, that passed on expensive devices. Musk did well, that he transferred cheaper ones (in larger quantities). Am I opposing them? Both of them help American doctors treat coronavirus patients.

                      Musk bought cheap fans for treating anoe in a dream under the guise of mechanical ventilation.

                      Musk purchased non-invasive mechanical ventilation, which helps patients with mild to moderate pulmonary insufficiency, including with apnea.
                    27. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 21: 21
                      +1
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      These devices are mechanical ventilation. The fact that you and “other people” do not consider them as such is solely your problem of not knowing medical standards and terminology.

                      They are devices for the treatment of apnea, and I reserve the right to call them cheap fans in the future, because they are so. The fact that you do not know their purpose is your problem. How they are used in the USA for resuscitation or oxygenation of aquariums does not concern me.

                      No, they are designed to compensate for respiratory failure, including sleep apnea. In addition to sleep apnea, they can be used (and are used) in any other cases where the patient has respiratory failure. Including with coronavirus.

                      You can use them as you want, for me this does not change anything.

                      Right. After all, it is all about the correctness of the terms. The mask is accused of "giving out snakes for mechanical ventilation." While he bought it IVL.

                      He bought CPAP devices, I repeat, it doesn’t matter to me what the Americans buy and how they use them. We sell them under this name. I don’t see the basis for the terminology adopted in the USA.

                      Yes, do not care that there "personally for you" ventilator. There is a specific Russian standard, which includes invasive devices, non-invasive devices, and even Ambu bag to mechanical ventilation. If you do not know the terminology, these are your problems.

                      And I do not care about your idea of ​​standards.
                      If I need a ventilator, I type in a search engine, here is the result:

                      https://eurosmed.ru/products/apparat-ivl---aventa-m

                      If you need an apparatus for invasive and non-invasive ventilation, then:

                      https://formed.ru/catalog/neinvazivnaya_ventilyaciya/apparat

                      If you need a bag of Ambu, then here:

                      https://www.medtehno.ru/catalog/mewok_amby/

                      Why on earth should I consider it equivalent devices? The difference in price and functionality is huge. I will call them exactly what they are called. hi
                    28. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 21: 44
                      -1
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      He bought CPAP machines

                      Right. And CPAP devices are a special case of ventilators. wink

                      https://formed.ru/glossary/apparat_iskusstvennoy_

                      Sipap is ventilator at constant positive pressure.

                      In other words, Musk, stating that he had bought ventilators, said everything was absolutely correct. And those media that said "Musk bought 1255 ventilators" - also everyone said absolutely correctly.

                      And I do not care about your idea of ​​standards.

                      This is not my idea of ​​standards - these are the standards.
                    29. 123 Offline
                      123 (123) April 13 2020 21: 56
                      +2
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      Right. And CPAP devices are a special case of ventilators

                      It makes no difference to me what a special case they are. If the name of the device is given, the most accurately describing its consumer properties will be applied. I will not name the thing differently, even if the pope buys them and gives them.

                      In other words, Musk, stating that he had bought ventilators, said everything was absolutely correct. And those media that said "Musk bought 1255 ventilators" - also everyone said absolutely correctly.

                      It’s correct to write for a Russian-speaking audience, using generally accepted terms that are not misleading regarding its consumer properties. Do not believe? An example with the search engine above, you can repeat.

                      This is not my idea of ​​standards - these are the standards.

                      The Internet does not agree with you, re-read the paragraph above, if you wish, contact the sellers, try to convince them that they have a misconception about the standards.
                      Please do not write me any more on this subject. Or are you hoping to just persuade me to change my mind? In vain. I will call a spade a spade. hi
                    30. Cyril Offline
                      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 22: 27
                      -1
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      If the name of the device is given, the most accurately describing its consumer properties will be applied.

                      So they are called "mechanical ventilation devices", which exactly determines their consumer properties. wink

                      It’s correct to write for a Russian-speaking audience, using generally accepted terms that are not misleading regarding its consumer properties.

                      The term "ventilator" for CPAP devices is generally accepted and not misleading. Because CPAP devices are mechanical ventilation devices according to all Russian medical standards.

                      The Internet does not agree with you, re-read the paragraph above, if you wish, contact the sellers, try to convince them that they have a wrong idea about the standards.

                      Okay We enter into the Google search engine the phrase "IVL for coronavirus" and click on the first link in the search - https://medpribor.pro/pt/ivl-pri-koronaviruse/

                      Quote:

                      Many of our clients thought about buying a ventilator in case of an increase in the coronavirus pandemic and a possible lack of equipment in hospitals. We made a special selection of equipment.

                      What do they offer in the catalog?) We look at the first model - WEINMANN VENTILOGIC LS. We read the description:

                      Non-invasive ventilation device

                      So, the very first link to a Russian equipment supplier shows us in the list of mechanical ventilation suitable for coronavirus patients, a model for non-invasive ventilation.
                      How so, how so ??? laughing Probably does not comply with standards)))

                      Please do not write me any more on this subject. Or are you hoping to just persuade me to change my mind? In vain. I will call a spade a spade. hi

                      Yes, you can even call the sun a planet.
                2. Cyril Offline
                  Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 22: 15
                  0
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  But about the practice of using CPAP devices in other countries:

                  In Britain - https://lenta.ru/news/2020/04/07/cpap/

                  Johnson is known to be in the intensive care unit at St. Thomas's Hospital in London. His treatment includes continuous positive pressure ventilation (CPAP). - It is usually used for obstructive sleep apnea (respiratory arrest). According to doctors, CPAP may be effective for patients with COVID-19 at the initial stage of the disease.. Sources in the hospital said that Johnson needed about four liters of oxygen.

                  And here are the WHO recommendations for the treatment of patients with coronavirus.

                  http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/426151/Disease-commodity-package-dcp-ncov-RUS.pdf

                  In the section "Portable ventilators", CPAP devices are also mentioned.

                  And here are some more recommendations from WHO https: // minzdrav-

                  irkutsk.ru/upload/iblock/31b/31b0246191ab7865bcc95644ad723d26.pdf

                  Adopted, by the way, by the department of the Ministry of Health of Irkutsk:
                  Read in Section 2 on the use of non-invasive ventilation.

                  And here's some more news from Britain -

                  https://rusonline.org/britaniya-ispytaet-apparaty-cpap-razrabotannye-komandoy-formuly-1

                  According to the newspaper, CPAP-therapy consists in artificial ventilation of the lungs with constant positive pressure, this method is widely used in hospitals in China and Italy for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 coronavirus. Breathe-helping machine helps to avoid transferring patients to intensive care and eliminate the need for invasive ventilation.

                  The new device was already approved by the UK Medicines and Medical Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and now 100 CPAP devices will be delivered to the University of London College Hospital London (UCLH) for testing and their further dispatch to the rest of the country.
        2. Cyril Offline
          Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 20: 05
          -1
          • 0
          • 1
          To say that I bought 1200 devices sounds louder than to say I bought 5 devices.

          No, just buying 1200 non-invasive ventilators in one day is better than buying 0 invasive machines, which just don't exist.
  • Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 16: 28
    -1
    • 0
    • 1
    And here's another one about Ambu's bag:

    https://westmedgroup.ru/meshok-ambu-printsip-raboty

    Quote:

    In 1953, doctors Holger Hessen and Henning Ruben developed the concept of the world's first manual ventilator. According to their idea, it was supposed to be a pump bag containing medical valve systems and a flexible face mask in a plastic case.

    The bag they created - or the AMBU breathing bag - is a device for emergency ventilation of the lungs in conditions of inaccessibility of resuscitation equipment. This bag is used to transport patients between departments thanks to its compact size and independence from a power source.
  • 123 Offline
    123 (123) April 13 2020 20: 10
    +1
    • 1
    • 0
    It’s hard to judge, cancer isn’t accustomed to walking. You know better.
    - but for some reason always go.

    You will straighten up, the angle will change and the picture of the world will change.
  • cmonman Offline
    cmonman (Garik Mokin) April 13 2020 19: 50
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    If this goes on, maybe the vacuum cleaners will turn on.

    123, and you are almost right:

    “It's not fashionable, but it works”: a Mississippi doctor uses a garden hose, a lamp timer, and an electronic valve to create home-made fans.

    https://www.theledger.com/zz/news/20200408/its-not-fancy-but-it-works

    And it's time for you to agree with Cyril - he's right.
  • Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) April 12 2020 22: 26
    +2
    • 3
    • 1
    Who wrote to you about paid or free Internet, write to them. What do I have to do with it? If someone claimed something, then does Mask here in chocolate mean? This is not an argument, rather an offense for the "idol", do not worry so much for it.

    And in this case, I did not say anything about you. I just showed with another example how the “whistleblowers” ​​of Mask like to ascribe to him what he did not say, and then expose their own conjectures.
  • 123 Offline
    123 (123) April 12 2020 23: 03
    0
    • 3
    • 3
    I am very happy for them, this example does not fit. Or want to say that I ascribe something to him? In my opinion, this is more inherent in you, stories are born on the fly. yes Can you tell me when you paid off and began to make a profit at the spaceport in Boca Chica? How many commercial launches have been made from it? In my opinion, you ascribe to the Mask supernatural properties. Do you think everything that the Hand of the Mask touched automatically turns into gold?
  • Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 00: 05
    +1
    • 3
    • 2
    Can you tell me when you paid off and began to make a profit at the spaceport in Boca Chica? How many commercial launches have been made from it? In my opinion, you ascribe to the Mask supernatural properties.

    And I never said that these projects bring him profit. I cited them as evidence that Mask has a lot of extra money from his main area of ​​activity - the operation of the Falcon-9.
  • 123 Offline
    123 (123) April 13 2020 00: 52
    -1
    • 2
    • 3
    And I never said that these projects bring him profit. I cited them as evidence that Mask has a lot of extra money from his main area of ​​activity - the operation of the Falcon-9.

    There is no superfluous money, especially under capitalism.
    You have provided evidence of huge expenses and not a single evidence of income. The question - where did the money come from - remains extremely relevant. yes Loans do not suit you, deny subsidies.
  • Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 01: 17
    +2
    • 3
    • 1
    You have provided evidence of huge expenses and not a single evidence of income.

    Costs of “side” lines of business mean the availability of income from the main line of business. No one will be scattered on side programs if there is no money for it.

    Loans do not suit you, deny subsidies.

    - because there are neither one nor the other.
  • Arkharov Offline
    Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) April 13 2020 11: 05
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    Such propaganda shit, made incomprehensibly by someone "on the knee", watch ?!
  • shadow Offline
    shadow April 12 2020 20: 57
    -2
    • 1
    • 3
    Siberian State University of Science and Technology named after academician Mikhail Fedorovich Reshetnev has patented a force field to protect a person from radiation during space flights. This is stated in a message published on the website of Rospatent.
    “The invention relates to methods and means of protecting the crew and equipment from ionizing radiation (charged high-energy particles) during space flights, and can also be used to generate electricity on board the spacecraft and control the energy parameters of protective electrostatic and magnetic fields,” Rospatent informs .
    The main danger to human health and the operation of electronic devices when flying into space are protons and positively charged nuclei of high-energy cosmic radiation elements.
    As Vyacheslav Shurshakov, head of the radiation safety department of manned space flights of the Institute of Biomedical Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said earlier, an astronaut can spend a total of no more than four years in his entire life, and in the case of an expedition to Mars, a person will receive an authorized dose of radiation in just one flight.
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) April 12 2020 23: 29
    +2
    • 3
    • 1
    Even the article shows that they compare warm to salty.

    Mask:

    SpaceX rockets are 80% reusable.

    Rogozin:

    All instructions for resolving the problematic issues of our rocket and space industry were received during a meeting with the president. .... Mask's words are cynicism .....
    1. Cyril Offline
      Cyril (Kirill) April 13 2020 01: 17
      +3
      • 4
      • 1
      It’s just that Rogozin has no logical counterarguments, so he hit into emotions.
  • Aleksandr2020 Offline
    Aleksandr2020 (Alexander Vk) April 13 2020 06: 28
    -2
    • 1
    • 3
    Only the most primitive creatures with a delay in mental development, such as its sectarians, can still believe in the "genius" of the Mask. All Ilona's projects are unprofitable and fail. Even with NASA support, he really can't do anything. Technology of the 60s teaches its naive hamsters for something "breakthrough".
    All he can do is cut loot!
    But the manned ship was not, and is not. Accidents one after another.
    The only thing that he can do is to arrange a beautiful presentation and to disrupt financing, yes.