The SpaceX rocket engine is gaining popularity with the Russian RD-180

38

The Spacecon Falcon 9 booster rockets using their company's Merlin liquid propellant rockets for the first time outflanked the Atlas V launch vehicles using Russian RD-180s in terms of the number of launches. It is reported by the American news and online analytical publication Ars Technica.

It is noted that on April 22, 2020, the 84th launch of the Falcon 9 rocket took place. Another batch of Starlink project satellites went into low Earth orbit - SpaceX is going to create a cheap and high-performance satellite Internet communication channel for stable reception and transmission of signals from the earth and orbit.



At the same time, the Atlas V launch vehicle, the American company United Launch Alliance (ULA), was launched 83 times. Moreover, the Russian RD-180 rocket engines installed on these LVs have been repeatedly called one of the most reliable and efficient in the world.

The publication noted that the Falcon 9 launch vehicle was launched in June 2010, and the Atlas V launch vehicle was launched in August 2002. At the same time, the last three years, on average, SpaceX LVs were launched 17 times a year, while ULA LVs were launched about 5 times a year. At the same time, the publication acknowledges that one launch of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle was unsuccessful, and another launch was partially successful, while the Atlas V launch vehicle only one launch was partially successful.

It should be added that the publication did not take into account three successful launches of the Falcon Heavy superheavy launch vehicle, a pair of side accelerators and the central unit of which consist of the first stage of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle using Merlin. On the other hand, Russian RD-180s were used on the Atlas III launch vehicle, which was launched six times in 2000-2005.

We remind you that recently the head of the American company ULA Tori Bruno wrote in his Twitter account that the Russian RD-180 rocket engine is a technological miracle. At the same time, the head of Roscosmos state corporation Dmitry Rogozin and the head of SpaceX, Ilon Mask, managed to to exchange critical attacks on the social network Twitter about competition in the implementation of missile launches.
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cyril
    Cyril
    -3
    April 26 2020 12: 33
    Rather, it is not the engine that conquers, but the rocket as a whole. When developing the engine, Energomash focused on efficiency and power, while SpaceX, when developing Merlin, made it as simple, cheap and technologically advanced as possible. Well, plus the reusability of the Falcon, yes.
    1. 123
      123
      +1
      April 26 2020 13: 29
      When developing the engine, Energomash focused on efficiency and power, while SpaceX, when developing Merlin, made it as simple, cheap and technologically advanced as possible.

      I don’t know who was focusing on what during the development, but the RD-180 is, above all, reliable and reliable. As for Merlin, then:
      1. It's difficult to judge about simplicity. First, it is not clear what it is. Rather, it is a subjective opinion. Secondly, the line between simplicity and primitiveness is rather fragile. I think only engine designers can appreciate this "simplicity".
      2. Cheap - a relative concept. The estimated cost of Merlin is 1,2-1,5 million dollars, Americans buy RD-180 for about 10 million. Cheaper? Definitely yes, but there are nuances. At the first stage of the Atlas V launch vehicle, an RD-180 is installed; at the first stage of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, 9 Merlin engines are installed. If you add the cost of 9 engines, then their cheapness is not so obvious.
      3. Manufacturability. What makes Merlin more technologically advanced than the RD-180 is a mystery to me. It is not clear what you mean by the very concept of manufacturability.
      I believe that all these characteristics by which Merlin allegedly surpasses the RD-180 (as simple as possible, cheap and technologically advanced) are listed by you meaninglessly, it is rather a reflex. When you look at the image of the Mask, it is the same for you as a chameleon at the sight of a fly. winked

      Rather, it is not the engine that conquers, but the rocket as a whole.

      Rather, it’s not even a rocket, but the organization of launches, a complex, including marketing.

      Well, plus the reusability of the Falcon, yes.

      This is a reflex again. Yes The possibility of reusable use of the first stage, of course, can reduce the cost of launches. But without analyzing each specific launch, the number and weight of satellites, their mass, and into which orbit are delivered, it is impossible to draw a conclusion about economic feasibility.
      1. Cyril
        Cyril
        +1
        April 26 2020 16: 32
        It is difficult to judge about simplicity, firstly, it is not clear what it is, rather, it is a subjective opinion. Secondly, the line between simplicity and primitiveness is rather fragile. I think only engine designers can appreciate this "simplicity".

        Merlin is an open-cycle engine, and RD-180 is a closed-loop engine. The design of open-cycle engines is simpler by definition.

        Cheap is a relative concept. The estimated cost of Merlin is 1,2-1,5 million dollars, Americans buy RD-180 for about 10 million. Cheaper? Definitely yes, but there are nuances. At the first stage of the Atlas V launch vehicle, an RD-180 is installed; at the first stage of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, 9 Merlin engines are installed. If you add the cost of 9 engines, then their cheapness is not so obvious.

        All right. 9 Merlins in the first stage of the Falcon-9 are slightly more expensive than one RD-180 in the first stage of the Atlas-5.

        That's just Falcon-9 is transporting 9 tons of cargo at 22 Merlins at DOE, and Atlas-5 at one RD-180 - only 9,8 tons. Atlas-18,8 is able to bring out its maximum 5 tons at DOE only when using solid fuel side boosters.

        In other words, a bunch of 9 Merlin provides about 2 times more traction than one RD-180. And their price is about the same.

        So yes, Merlin is cheaper.

        Manufacturability. What makes Merlin more technologically advanced than the RD-180 is a mystery to me. It is not clear what you mean by the very concept of manufacturability.

        I put in this concept what it means - namely:

        this is a set of product properties that determine the fitness of its design to achieve optimal cost of resources in its production, repair and disposal.

        I believe all these characteristics by which Merlin supposedly surpasses the RD-180 (as simple as possible, cheap and technologically advanced) are not meaningfully listed by you, it is rather a reflex.

        It is not my fault that you do not know these concepts.

        Rather, it’s not even a rocket, but the organization of launches, a complex, including marketing.

        Yes, these points can also be added, although the main benefit is still achieved through the design of the rocket.

        This is a reflex again

        So do not reflect.

        But without analyzing each specific launch, the number and weight of satellites, their mass, and into which orbit are delivered, it is impossible to draw a conclusion about economic feasibility.

        Naturally, I mean, with the same load and orbit parameters. This goes without saying, therefore there is no point in specifying it.
        1. 123
          123
          0
          April 26 2020 18: 14
          Merlin is an open-cycle engine, and RD-180 is a closed-loop engine. The design of open-cycle engines is simpler by definition.

          Easier, I would even say, more primitive. Yes

          Unlike open-circuit engines, in a closed-circuit engine, the generator gas after being triggered on the turbine is not released into the environment, but is fed into the combustion chamber, thus participating in the creation of traction and increasing engine efficiency (specific impulse).
          In a closed circuit engine, the flow rate of the working fluid through the TNA turbine is significantly higher than in an open circuit engine, which makes it possible to achieve higher pressures in the combustion chamber. In this case, the dimensions of the combustion chamber are reduced, and the degree of expansion of the nozzle increases, which makes it more effective when working in the atmosphere.
          The disadvantage of this scheme is the difficult operating conditions of the turbine, a more complex piping system due to the need to transport hot generator gas to the main combustion chamber, which has a great influence on the overall engine design and complicates the management of its operation. [/ Quote]
          The design of the RD-180 is more complex, but it is more efficient. In this case, this cannot be attributed to the disadvantages of the RD-180.

          All right. 9 Merlins in the first stage of the Falcon-9 are slightly more expensive than one RD-180 in the first stage of the Atlas-5.
          That's just Falcon-9 is transporting 9 tons of cargo at 22 Merlins at DOE, and Atlas-5 at one RD-180 - only 9,8 tons. Atlas-18,8 is able to bring out its maximum 5 tons at DOE only when using solid fuel side boosters.

          Firstly, since 9 Merlins are more expensive, to compare economic efficiency it would be more reasonable to compare a smaller number with RD-180.
          Secondly, why is it referred to the NOU (low Earth orbit)? Probably because the numbers look more profitable for a certain point of view? Let's look at the geo-transitional orbit (GPO) at Falcon 9 is 8,3 tons, and without any return stage, Atlas-5 is up to 8,9 tons. Don't you think that the Falcon 9 advantage doesn't look so impressive? As for solid fuel boosters, they partially compensate for a larger number of Merlin engines, even with them the price is about the same.

          In other words, a bunch of 9 Merlin provides about 2 times more traction than one RD-180. And their price is about the same.

          Do not you think that talking about double superiority in traction, with the conclusion to the GPO, is not justified?

          quote] is a set of product properties that determine the suitability of its design to achieve optimal resource costs in its manufacture, repair and disposal.

          RD-180 has an optimal design for its tasks, it copes with them perfectly, its production is cheaper, repair and disposal are not required at all. What is it less tech Merlin?

          It is not my fault that you do not know these concepts.

          It’s not my fault that you are not even trying to understand what these concepts mean.

          Yes, these points can also be added, although the main benefit is still achieved through the design of the rocket.

          First, we are not talking about a rocket, but about an engine. Secondly, how effectively they use the capabilities incorporated in the engines by the designer is of no less importance.

          So do not reflect.

          I'm trying to objectively compare the data, and not pull out "convenient numbers" from the set of characteristics.
          So train, knead the tongue, suddenly you will see the Mask.

          1. Cyril
            Cyril
            +1
            April 26 2020 19: 50
            Easier, I would even say, more primitive.

            Well, what would you say there, nobody cares.

            RD-180 has an optimal design for its tasks

            Certainly.

            its production is cheaper

            - where does infa come from? Figures in the studio.

            repair and disposal are not required at all

            That's just for every launch you have to constantly produce a new one.

            It’s not my fault that you are not even trying to understand what these concepts mean.

            I understand them perfectly, unlike you.

            First, we are not talking about a rocket, but about an engine.

            We are talking about a rocket, because the article talks about rocket launches, and not just engines.

            Secondly, how effectively they use the capabilities incorporated in the engines by the designer is of no less importance.

            For that matter, the capabilities inherent in the RD-180 are used much less efficiently. Because this engine is designed for reusable use. And use it only once.

            I'm trying to objectively compare the data, and not pull out "convenient numbers" from the set of characteristics.

            You do not compare any data (because you do not even give them), you compare your amateurish speculations.

            So train, knead the tongue, suddenly you will see the Mask.

            Do not project your latent fantasies onto me.
            1. 123
              123
              0
              April 26 2020 20: 23
              Well, what would you say there, nobody cares.

              Just like your opinion. 1: 1.

              - where does infa come from? Figures in the studio.

              Made a reservation. Meant compared group of engines Merlin (9 pieces). After all, they were compared.

              That's just for every launch you have to constantly produce a new one.

              It is necessary, but what does this have to do with the technological parameters? Repair and disposal are not required, in addition, the costs of maintaining the infrastructure for landing, transportation, maintenance and repair are not required. You probably didn’t take these costs into account when comparing the cost of launches? By the way, Merlins also do not always return.

              For that matter, the capabilities inherent in the RD-180 are used much less efficiently. Because this engine is designed for reusable use. And use it only once.

              The engine is designed with a multiple margin of safety, however, like many samples of Soviet and Russian technology. It is not designed for reusable use, these are slightly different things.

              You do not compare any data (because you do not even give them), you compare your amateurish speculations.

              Learn to express your thoughts correctly, if you mean your speculation, so write.
              1. Cyril
                Cyril
                0
                April 26 2020 21: 51
                Made a reservation. Meant compared group of engines Merlin (9 pieces). After all, they were compared.

                9 Merlins in total cost (I use your prices) 10-14 million dollars. At the same time, they provide traction of the first stage of 7,7 kN and put 22,8 tons of cargo into low orbit.

                1 RD-180 costs (again, at your prices) $ 10 million (for Americans), provides first-stage thrust of 3,8 kN and puts 9,8 tons into orbit.

                In other words, a bunch of 9 Merlins is the same or 1,4 times more expensive, and more effective - 2 times.

                In fairness, it is necessary to make a reservation - ULA buys RD-180 (accordingly, they also pay a markup), and SpaceX makes its own Merlins (there is no markup). Therefore, it is more correct to compare the use of SpaceX Merlins and the use of RD-180 by Roskosmos. But it is not used on Russian missiles.

                It is necessary, but what does this have to do with the technological parameters?

                And such that preparing an already flying engine is cheaper for reuse is easier than re-creating a new one.

                Repair and disposal not required

                But you need to create a new one. Which is more complicated and more expensive.

                You probably didn’t take these costs into account when comparing the cost of launches?

                Given that the cost of launching a one-time Atlas-5 is 3 times (for a rocket version of the same payload) more expensive than the cost of launching a Falcon-9 - these costs are clearly cheaper than the cost of manufacturing a new rocket (including engines).

                By the way, Merlins also do not always return.

                - How many times have they not always returned?

                The engine is designed with a multiple margin of safety, however, like many samples of Soviet and Russian technology. It is not designed for reusable use, these are slightly different things.

                RD-170, on the basis of which the RD-180 was created, is certified for multiple (10-fold) use.

                “There is one more important advantage of the RD-180 engine, which must be applied in the future. Our engines can be used up to 10 times, so we will continue to develop the necessary groundwork for the creation of reusable rockets, "said Arbuzov, quoted by the press service of Energomash.

                Are you going to argue with the head of Energomash?

                Learn to express your thoughts correctly, if you mean your speculation, so write.

                No, it’s your speculation. I give specific figures, facts, characteristics.
        2. Oyo Sarkazmi
          Oyo Sarkazmi
          +1
          April 26 2020 20: 17
          Quote: Cyril
          Yes, these points can also be added, although the main benefit is still achieved through the design of the rocket.

          Or features of the organization of the financial pyramid. Only the state is able to pay the mask the real cost of the launch - 200-400 million dollars. He attracts the rest with a low price, covering only operating expenses. Something like shale astronautics.
          1. Cyril
            Cyril
            -1
            April 26 2020 21: 13
            Only the state is able to pay the mask the real cost of the launch - 200-400 million dollars

            The cost of state launches at the Mask is 80-90 million rubles. Do you even lie more convincingly.
            1. Oyo Sarkazmi
              Oyo Sarkazmi
              0
              April 27 2020 10: 25
              Gee. The very first launch of state loading by Mask - 180 million dollars. Since then, only one state-run launch has cost 120 million. The launch of a manned dragon is estimated at $ 450 million. Transport - 200 million
              1. Cyril
                Cyril
                -1
                April 27 2020 12: 02
                Since then, only one state-run launch has cost 120 million.

                It costs 120 million to launch Falcon-9 with the Dragon space truck, which is also manufactured by SpaceX. Naturally, its cost is added to the cost of the rocket.

                The cost of launching satellites for the Pentagon or for NASA is 80-100 million. For example, in 2016, SpaceX signed a contract with the U.S. Air Force to launch a GPS satellite on the Falcon 9 launch vehicle for $ 82,7 million.

                The launch of the manned Dragon is estimated at 450 million dollars. Transport - 200 million

                First, 405 million. Secondly, the launch of the transport "Dragon" costs 120 million, the price is fixed.
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer
        0
        31 March 2021 15: 44
        Quote: 123
        I do not know who focused on what during the development, but the RD-180, first of all, is reliable and trouble-free

        And crashes along with the first stage of the RN
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. shadow
      shadow
      0
      9 May 2020 22: 19
      Bypassed by the number of launches in the USA))))))))))) How can this be compared at all?
  2. Alexander Semenov
    Alexander Semenov
    -1
    April 26 2020 14: 31
    Now the patriots will rush and tell that the RD-180 is eternal and there is a panacea for the entire missile industry in the world. Space X well done !!
    1. alexandrmakedo
      alexandrmakedo
      +1
      April 26 2020 14: 53
      Semenov came running, nothing to do in quarantine in his Khreshchatyk, and trying to prove that elderberry in the garden is better than the uncle in Podil.
      Learn first to distinguish MUSIC from what your president lost on the piano. Then come back.
      1. Alexander Semenov
        Alexander Semenov
        -2
        April 26 2020 14: 57
        Musk has already proved everything to everyone, dear, relax and watch the launches ... Ah, I forgot, you are busy building the East. When run, by 2030! ???
        1. Arkharov
          Arkharov
          -1
          April 26 2020 17: 11
          There they promised now to let the stratostats into heaven. Perhaps it was possible to do this near Moscow?
        2. Oyo Sarkazmi
          Oyo Sarkazmi
          +1
          April 26 2020 20: 23
          Quote: Alexander Semyonov
          Musk has already proved everything to everyone, dear, relax and watch the launches.

          And what, 20-22 launches per year. Nothing outstanding. It would be 50, one could admire. But there is nothing to launch, that’s the ambush.
          1. Cyril
            Cyril
            -1
            April 26 2020 21: 11
            And what, 20-22 launches per year. Nothing outstanding.

            For one company - a very outstanding result.
    2. Nick
      Nick
      +2
      April 26 2020 15: 49
      Quote: Alexander Semenov
      Now the patriots will rush and tell that the RD-180 is eternal and there is a panacea for the entire missile industry in the world. Space X well done !!

      No, the "panacea" is exclusively everything that is done by Elon Musk, and the RD-180 is simply a very reliable engine, with good specific thrust and an optimal price.
    3. 123
      123
      +1
      April 26 2020 18: 16
      Shurik, are you back already? We lacked your valuable opinion. hi
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    4. Oyo Sarkazmi
      Oyo Sarkazmi
      +1
      April 26 2020 20: 20
      Quote: Alexander Semyonov
      they will say that the RD-180 is eternal

      RD-180 - only for the Atlas, and for nothing more. As long as the Atlas will exist, as long as the RD-180 will exist. Not an hour more.
    5. Dust
      Dust
      +2
      16 May 2020 11: 31
      By the way, how is the space program doing in Ukraine? When will you build a spaceport? .... I hope that not all land was sold to private traders under rape and corn !?)
  3. alexandrmakedo
    alexandrmakedo
    0
    April 26 2020 14: 47
    Quote: 123
    When developing the engine, Energomash focused on efficiency and power, while SpaceX, when developing Merlin, made it as simple, cheap and technologically advanced as possible.

    I don’t know who was focusing on what during the development, but the RD-180 is primarily reliable and reliable. As for Merlin, then:
    1. It is difficult to judge about simplicity, firstly, it is not clear what it is, rather, it is a subjective opinion. Secondly, the line between simplicity and primitiveness is rather fragile. I think only engine designers can appreciate this "simplicity".
    2. Cheap - a relative concept. The estimated cost of Merlin is 1,2-1,5 million dollars, Americans buy RD-180 for about 10 million. Cheaper? Definitely yes, but there are nuances. At the first stage of the Atlas V launch vehicle, an RD-180 is installed; at the first stage of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, 9 Merlin engines are installed. If you add the cost of 9 engines, then their cheapness is not so obvious.
    3. Manufacturability. What makes Merlin more technologically advanced than the RD-180 is a mystery to me. It is not clear what you mean by the very concept of manufacturability.
    I believe that all these characteristics by which Merlin allegedly surpasses the RD-180 (as simple as possible, cheap and technologically advanced) are not meaningfully listed by you, it is rather a reflex. When you see the image of the Mask, it is the same for you as a chameleon at the sight of a fly. winked

    Rather, it is not the engine that conquers, but the rocket as a whole.

    Rather, it’s not even a rocket, but the organization of launches, a complex, including marketing.

    Well, plus the reusability of the Falcon, yes.

    This is a reflex again. Yes The possibility of reusable use of the first stage can undoubtedly reduce the cost of launches. But without analyzing each specific launch, the number and weight of satellites, their mass, and into which orbit are delivered, it is impossible to draw a conclusion about economic feasibility.

    Simplicity of design and manufacturability .... A friend does not understand such things. Not simplicity and manufacturability - why is it especially needed when the principle of reusability is put at the forefront. In this case, the main thing is maintainability and an increased resource of elements. And this, just, increases the cost of construction.
    Further. Talking about the cost of launching is an absolutely empty idea. At least because the mask NEEDS to work out the preferences and handouts received during the organization of your company. Billion subsidies from the budget. Donated design companies, dispersed at the close of the lunar program, dozens of unused Marilyn-1 engines, launch complexes not built for their loot, but rented from NASA. Documentation, patents, specialists, pumped from NASA at shuttle shuttle, and much more. This Korolev created the INDUSTRY, from chemistry, instrument making, metallurgy, precision engineering, mathematics, astronomy, ..... This crook got everything ready. Need to work out advances? Of course. Why not reduce the appetite for the cost of launch, since the owner requires?
    1. Cyril
      Cyril
      +1
      April 26 2020 16: 39
      The comrade does not understand such things. Not simplicity and manufacturability - why is it especially needed when the principle of reusability is put at the forefront.

      Now go and see what the term "manufacturability" means. I hasten to disappoint you - this is not the use of super-duper nanotechnology in a product, as you think, this is just:

      the adaptability of its design to achieve optimal resource costs when it production, repair and disposal.

      Well, about the rest of your writings, it makes no sense to even speak.
      1. 123
        123
        0
        April 26 2020 18: 19
        Now go and see what the term "manufacturability" means. I hasten to disappoint you - this is not the use of super-duper nanotechnology in a product, as you think, this is just:

        I already wrote to you about the repair and disposal of the disposable RD-180, take the trouble to read and comprehend.
        And yet, Kiryusha, do not be rude to the elders, otherwise I will tell mom.
        1. Cyril
          Cyril
          +1
          April 26 2020 19: 52
          I already wrote to you about the repair and disposal of the disposable RD-180, take the trouble to read and comprehend.

          I did not talk to you in this thread. Take the trouble to make sense of at least that first.

          And yet, Kiryusha, do not be rude to the elders, otherwise I will tell mom.

          Tell your mother that I was rude to you? Still clinging to her skirt, "senior"?
          1. 123
            123
            +1
            April 26 2020 20: 26
            Nothing Kiryusha, you will mature, you will gain your mind. Everything will be fine.
            1. Cyril
              Cyril
              0
              April 26 2020 21: 10
              Nothing Kiryusha, you will mature, you will gain your mind. Everything will be fine.

              Of course. It’s a pity that you didn’t.
  4. alexandrmakedo
    alexandrmakedo
    +1
    April 26 2020 16: 43
    Quote: Alexander Semenov
    Musk has already proved everything to everyone, dear, relax and watch the launches ... Ah, forgot you are busy building the East, when you start by 2030! ???



    Crawls to such numbers, maybe it will prove.
    We’ll finish the east. Before you expel your clown.
    1. Arkharov
      Arkharov
      -1
      April 26 2020 17: 13
      The first ever cosmodrome, where landings began before the launch ....
    2. Alexander Semenov
      Alexander Semenov
      -2
      April 26 2020 19: 54
      Remove half of the military launches from the line Russia ... somewhere there will be a real picture.
      1. 123
        123
        +1
        April 26 2020 20: 27
        It’s easier for you to thin your teeth. hi
    3. Cyril
      Cyril
      -1
      April 26 2020 22: 22
      Crawls to such numbers - maybe it will prove.

      USSR / Russia launches rockets since 1957. Musk launches from 2010. From 2010 to 2019, Russia completed 261 successful launches, Musk - 77. Only 3,4 times less.
  5. alexandrmakedo
    alexandrmakedo
    +1
    April 26 2020 21: 50
    Quote: Arkharov
    The first ever cosmodrome, where landings began before the launch ....

    And this is good. You have no landing there. Although, half of the entire top (one) can already be planted, and the second to shoot.
  6. alexandrmakedo
    alexandrmakedo
    +1
    April 26 2020 21: 51
    Quote: Alexander Semenov
    Remove half of the military launches from the line Russia ... somewhere there will be a real picture.

    Take it away. If you reach out.
  7. alexandrmakedo
    alexandrmakedo
    +1
    April 26 2020 21: 56
    Quote: Oyo Sarkazmi
    Quote: Alexander Semyonov
    ... will tell that the RD-180 is eternal

    RD-180 - only for the Atlas, and for nothing more. As long as the Atlas will exist, as long as the RD-180 will exist. Not an hour more.

    Well? They will not At these engines, they will wait until their own. And how much time is required, God alone knows. During this time, no matter how the ISS fell. Now, again, something will be wrong with us, and there will be no one to correct the orbit. Here you have to take risks, fly with bad Russian engines. There are no good ones yet. Especially those that the crews will carry.
  8. alexandrmakedo
    alexandrmakedo
    +1
    April 26 2020 21: 58
    Quote: Cyril
    The comrade does not understand such things. Not simplicity and manufacturability - why is it especially needed when the principle of reusability is put at the forefront.

    Now go and see what the term "manufacturability" means. I hasten to disappoint you - this is not the use of super-duper nanotechnology in a product, as you think, this is just:

    the adaptability of its design to achieve optimal resource costs when it production, repair and disposal.

    Well, about the rest of your writings, it makes no sense to even speak.

    Since you don’t understand what technology is, then, of course, you do not need to read further. It makes no sense. Not a horse oats.
    A more complete definition - read.
    If oats are enough for this. In the head.

    Manufacturability of the design - a set of product design properties, manifested in the possibility of optimizing labor costs, means, materials and time during the technical preparation of production, manufacturing, operation and repair of the product design for the same purpose, while ensuring the established values ​​of quality indicators and accepted conditions for manufacturing, operation and repair.

    This is from the directories. You can find the definition in State standards. But this is already very difficult to understand. The horses.