The project of the reusable Russian missile Krylo-SV was approved

3 May 2020

The Russian Academy of Sciences approved the development direction of the new generation of Russian launch vehicles proposed by Roscosmos State Corporation. This is stated in the decision of the Council on Outer Space, which was signed by President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Sergeev.

To approve the main directions of development of launch vehicles, including, in addition to those already developed, high-tech launch vehicles of a new generation of various classes (ultra-light, light, medium, heavy, heavy-duty, super-heavy), including using promising fuels, materials, reusable stages and other design solutions

- reported in the document, a copy of which is available RIA News".

We remind you that currently only SpaceX, the head of which is Elon Musk, has reusable stages for space launches. Before this, the head of Roskosmos Dmitry Rogozin and the aforementioned Mask managed to exchange critical Statementsthat dealt with competition in launching. Musk then drew attention to the fact that the problem of the Russians is that they have all single-use missiles.

Ранее сообщалосьthat the first flight tests of the new Russian reusable cruise missile ultralight class “Wing-SV”, a smaller version of the Baikal missile, may take place already in 2020. It is known that the development of a promising rocket is engaged in the "Experimental Engineering Plant named after V. M. Myasishchev."

It must be added that Roscosmos has a whole line of different launch vehicles, both manufactured and developed, of various classes. In the light class - “Soyuz-2.1v” and “Angara-A1.2”, on average - “Soyuz-2”, is being developed - “Soyuz-5” and development is planned - “Soyuz-6”. In the heavy class - "Proton-M" and "Angara-A5", increased payload is planned - "Angara-A5V", and in the superheavy class - "Yenisei" and "Don". In addition, a desire was expressed to create launch vehicles flying on methane.

American super-rocket BFR: too good to be true

The revival of Baikal: what is wrong with the Russian reusable missile?

Reporterin Yandex News

Read Reporterin Google News

We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]

78 comments

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Offline Pivander

Pivander (Alex) 3 May 2020 15: 54

+6

9

3
Yes, these are all fairy tales. Like the Crimean bridge. Sobchak with Navalny will confirm.
1. Offline Alexei Ushakov
  
  Alexei Ushakov (Alexey Ushakov) 3 May 2020 17: 10
  
  +7
  
  8
  
  1
  
  And if they do. That for one such missile could feed a thousand and one grandmother and cat. And on YouTube, Dud will shoot a 6-hour film interview with this cat and grandmothers.
Offline 123

123 (123) 3 May 2020 16: 25

+5

7

2
It was previously reported that the first flight tests of the new Russian reusable cruise missile ultralight class “Wing-SV”, a smaller version of the Baikal missile, may take place in 2020.

As I understand it, the Baikal project is closed, the landing pattern is the same, but I'm not sure that this is its mini copy. It’s good that they clarified that it was planned to test a reduced prototype, the first flight of a real rocket in 2023.
And then a little later they will write that they experienced a reduced prototype, and an ecstatic groan will sound out over the ground of the Russian, they say, again storytellers, but they promised ....
1. Offline Monster_Fat
  
  Monster_Fat (What's the difference) 3 May 2020 17: 35
  
  -5
  
  3
  
  8
  
  Naturally, these are fairy tales. The main thing is to get funding, and then: "either donkey, or padishah ...." Russian, space "breakthroughs" of recent years, cause only laughter. By the way, I keep forgetting to ask - have you found "drillers", or are they still looking?
  1. Offline 123
    
    123 (123) 3 May 2020 18: 55
    
    +1
    
    5
    
    4
    
    Donkey ... padishah .... first take your companion, otherwise your "Lybid" has already got it, 10 years at Rogozin's shed lying around. Then we'll figure out what makes you laugh.
  2. Offline Rum rum
    
    Rum rum (Rum rum) 3 May 2020 19: 46
    
    +2
    
    6
    
    4
    
    This project of returnable stages is more likely to actually launch missiles than Maskov’s (from the word Ilon). Those have no chance at all.
    1. Offline Cyril
      
      Cyril (Kirill) 3 May 2020 21: 17
      
      -1
      
      2
      
      3
      
      Those have no chance at all.
      
      Maskavian rockets have long been releasing cargo into orbit.
      1. Offline Rum rum
        
        Rum rum (Rum rum) 3 May 2020 22: 27
        
        +6
        
        7
        
        1
        
        Dear, did you study at school?
        To return 1 step to the ass, you need:
        To take fuel into flight, to return the stage is the growth of useless mass (weaning it from the useful one).
        To take extra fuel, you won’t believe it - you still need fuel (again minus the payload).
        But that is not all. Return to the ass on the engine increases the thermodynamic loads on this engine by about 2,5 times (figures are not accurate), thereby greatly reducing its resource.
        As far as I understand, the USAM Challenger was not enough with Voyager.
        
        Based on all this, you can understand for yourself what real effectiveness these devices have.
        Or do you believe in a perpetual motion machine?
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 3 May 2020 22: 49
        
        -2
        
        3
        
        5
        
        Dear, did you study at school?
        
        I am. And you?
        
        To return 1 step to the ass, you need:
        To take fuel into flight, to return the stage is the growth of useless mass (weaning it from the useful one).
        To take extra fuel, you won’t believe it - you still need fuel (again minus the payload).
        
        To return the stage in an airplane, you need:
        
        - take in flight the landing gear, wing, tail, additional (in addition to the main rocket engine) air-jet engine for landing and fuel for its operation.
        
        - To take additional fuel for the WFD, you will not believe it (c) - you still need fuel.
        
        But that is not all. Return to the ass on the engine increases the thermodynamic loads on this engine by about 2,5 times (figures are not accurate), thereby greatly reducing its resource.
        
        The numbers you have taken from the ceiling, and not "inaccurate". When returning the Falcon-9 stage, only 1 engine out of 9 installed on it is used for braking. Moreover, it "lights up" only twice during the landing for a couple of seconds. There is no trace of an increase in loads by 2,5 times.
        
        As far as I understand, the USAM Challenger was not enough with Voyager.
        
        As far as I understand, in space technology you are not a stranger. Firstly, the “Challenger” landed just according to the aircraft scheme, and not on its own engines. Secondly, Voyager is not a Shuttle, but a research interplanetary probe, which was successfully launched in the 70s and is currently located on the border of the solar system.
        
        Based on all this, you can understand for yourself what real effectiveness these devices have.
        
        Good performance, proven by repeated, repeated (and successful) launches of the Falcon-9.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 3 May 2020 23: 15
        
        -3
        
        1
        
        4
        
        When returning the Falcon-9 stage, only 1 engine out of 9 installed on it is used for braking. Moreover, it "lights up" only twice during the landing for a couple of seconds. There is no trace of an increase in loads by 2,5 times.
        
        Here I lied. During the landing, the engines are switched on 3 times:
        
        - the first time to turn the stage (3 engines out of 9, duration 30–40 seconds)
        
        - the second time when entering the atmosphere (3 engines out of 9, duration 25-30 seconds);
        
        - the third time immediately before landing for final braking (1 engine, duration 30 seconds).
        
        The payload mass loss of the Falcon-9 in the return version is 30–40%. For the vast majority of launches, these numbers are quite acceptable.
        
        Offline Rum rum
        
        Rum rum (Rum rum) 3 May 2020 23: 45
        
        +3
        
        5
        
        2
        
        That is, you say that the heavy step falls anyhow, from a height of several tens of kilometers and is aligned strictly vertically, the speed is guided and extinguished, and this is twice in a couple of seconds?
        
        Do not count for work, count: mass, acceleration of gravity, height and estimate the brake impulse. Not for me, for myself, I give you a reason to think about what you read on TV and see on the fence (this is a joke, do not be offended).
        
        Okay, okay, Voyager is really a mistake, it was Columbia.
        But the fact is that they were reusable, and exploded at the start. Engines experience such loads that no one can predict that there will fail during repeated starts.
        
        Offline Rum rum
        
        Rum rum (Rum rum) 4 May 2020 00: 09
        
        +3
        
        4
        
        1
        
        Here
        
        At an altitude of 20000 m
        ground speed 626.3114 m / s
        weight is 1000 kg.
        energy 196132984.88498002 J
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 01: 25
        
        -3
        
        1
        
        4
        
        Here
        
        Well done. Now calculate all this for the Falcon-9 rocket, taking into account the trajectory of its landing, 3 single switching on of the engines for braking, the total thrust of 3 Merlin engines, aerodynamic braking and a bunch of other factors affecting this process.
        
        Calculate - show.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 00: 22
        
        -2
        
        1
        
        3
        
        That is, you say that the heavy step falls anyhow, from a height of several tens of kilometers and is aligned strictly vertically, the speed is guided and extinguished, and this is twice in a couple of seconds?
        
        Nearly. I made a mistake there with the number of inclusions and the duration of the engines during the descent. I corrected myself there a little higher, you can read.
        
        But actually, yes - the Falcon-9 landing profile on most of the trajectory is a controlled fall. Engines (and not all 9, but only 3) are switched on only three times (when undocking with the second stage, when entering the atmosphere and immediately before landing) for braking on key sections of the trajectory. Correction of the trajectory of falling is carried out by trellised rudders.
        
        Do not count for work, count: mass, acceleration of gravity, height and estimate the brake impulse. Not for me, for myself, I give you an occasion to reflect on what you read on TV and see on the fence.
        
        I do not read, I watch live broadcasts of these launches and landings. The steps are returning quite intact.
        
        But the fact is that they were reusable, and exploded at the start. Engines experience such loads that no one can predict that there will fail during repeated starts.
        
        1. At the start, only the Challenger exploded. Columbia collapsed on re-entry.
        
        2. Both disasters were not related to engines. The Challenger exploded due to the destruction of the O-ring at the junction of the side boosters and the fuel tank. By the way, these o-rings were a disposable item that was replaced before each launch. And “Columbia” collapsed during the descent due to the fact that at the start a piece of thermal insulation that had broken off from the tank (by the way, also replaced every time) hit the wing. During the descent, due to high loads in the place of this damage, the wing began to collapse, which led to the disaster.
        
        In other words, in both cases the disaster was not caused by the reusability of the Shuttles. For reference, the same "Columbia" before the disaster successfully and without problems flew into orbit and returned 27 times and operated for 21 years (from 1981 to 2003).
        
        Offline Rum rum
        
        Rum rum (Rum rum) 4 May 2020 00: 39
        
        +4
        
        7
        
        3
        
        I once went to the movies on "Avatar". There, rocks hung in the air. And the Americans flew to the moon. But for some reason, their satellites are launched on modernized engines from the Soviet lunar program.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 00: 45
        
        -1
        
        2
        
        3
        
        I once went to the cinema to see the "author". There, rocks hung in the air.
        
        An argument of the form "they can take whatever they want there" doesn't work. First, because these are broadcasts. Secondly, because SpaceX's rockets landings are captured on camera not only by the company itself, but also by heaps of enthusiasts who, at every launch and landing, are on duty at the landing sites and even at the landing barges (yes, at sea). And thirdly, because this "argument" is based solely on your conjectures, and not on facts. With the same success I can say that Russia does not launch rockets into space, but shoots everything at the Roskosmos studio.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 01: 08
        
        -1
        
        3
        
        4
        
        And the Americans flew to the moon.
        
        All right. Fly to the moon, 6 times.
        
        But for some reason, their satellites are launched on modernized engines, from the Soviet lunar program.
        
        To launch their satellites and AMS at the moment, Americans are using the following launch vehicles:
        
        - Falcon-9 - flies on American engines.
        
        - Falcon Heavy - flies on American engines.
        
        - Atlas-5 - flies on Russian engines (1 step).
        
        - Delta-4 - flies on American engines.
        
        - "Antares" - flies on Russian engines (stage 1).
        
        - Delta-2 (American engines),
        
        - "Minotaur" (American engines).
        
        In total, out of 6 operational missiles, only 2 fly on Russian engines.
        
        And in addition: almost all modules of the Russian segment of the ISS (except one) have been injected into orbit by the Shuttles. But for some reason it doesn't bother you.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 01: 36
        
        -1
        
        2
        
        3
        
        Well, in addition, almost all modules of the Russian segment of the ISS (except one) are injected into orbit by the Shuttles. But for some reason it doesn't bother you.
        
        Sorry, wrong again. Almost all of the Russian modules were withdrawn by Russia itself, only one of them by the American Shuttle.
        
        Offline Rum rum
        
        Rum rum (Rum rum) 4 May 2020 02: 05
        
        +3
        
        4
        
        1
        
        OK OK. The Americans have the best and most economical missiles in the world. You won.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 02: 09
        
        -1
        
        1
        
        2
        
        No, not so.
        SpaceX (not Americans, as such) has the most economical rockets in the world at the moment.
        If someone else does it more economically, it means that someone will have the most economics.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 4 May 2020 12: 43
        
        +4
        
        4
        
        0
        
        I do not read, I watch live broadcasts of these launches and landings. The steps are returning quite intact.
        
        Did you watch it on March 18 too? Emergency shutdown of one of the engines. It was lucky that this happened just before the separation of the second stage. As I understand it, this is a failed record (5 first stage returns). She will not fly into space again. So the rocket so far can be called a maximum of four times, and most likely 2-3 times. This is not much different from a disposable one. The cost recovery is highly questionable. The same Wing-SV is planned to be launched up to 50 times.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 15: 29
        
        -2
        
        0
        
        2
        
        Did you watch it on March 18? Emergency shutdown of one of the engines.
        
        AND? Estimate, airplane engines designed for 1000 flights break down.
        
        She will not fly into space anymore. So for now, the rocket can be called a maximum of four times, and most likely 2-3 times. This is not very different from a disposable one.
        
        Four-time is already reusable. 4 launches at one stage give quite a tangible benefit.
        
        The same Wing-SV is planned to be launched up to 50 times
        
        So I don’t mind - it’s very good if that is so.
        
        Offline isofat
        
        isofat (isofat) 4 May 2020 15: 34
        
        +2
        
        2
        
        0
        
        Quote: Cyril
        Four-time is already reusable
        
        Four-time is low-cost or four times a day, without show-offs.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 15: 36
        
        -2
        
        0
        
        2
        
        Four-time is low-cost.
        
        May be. However, 4-fold savings compared to disposable ones.
        
        Offline isofat
        
        isofat (isofat) 4 May 2020 15: 47
        
        +2
        
        2
        
        0
        
        Quote: Cyril
        However, 4-fold savings compared to disposable ones.
        
        Cyril, you have already proven on the site that this is not entirely true, you continue to argue.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 15: 54
        
        -2
        
        0
        
        2
        
        Cyril, you have already proved on the site that this is not entirely true, you continue to argue.
        
        Who has proven? Where? Were there any calculations and calculations?
        
        Offline isofat
        
        isofat (isofat) 4 May 2020 16: 24
        
        +2
        
        2
        
        0
        
        Quote: Cyril
        Who has proven? Where? Were there any calculations and calculations?
        
        Cyril, in your dispute with yesterday Pom pom - He was more convincing.
        
        To prove that a magician cannot cut an assistant and she would still be alive - do you need calculations?
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 16: 29
        
        -2
        
        0
        
        2
        
        Cyril, in your argument with Pom Pom yesterday - he was more convincing.
        
        And what was he more convincing of? By maximizing the simplified calculation of momentum, ignoring a bunch of factors affecting the rocket at the time of landing?
        
        To prove that a magician cannot cut an assistant and she would still be alive - do you need calculations?
        
        In a science called "logic" there is such a mistake as "false analogy". Check it out - it's just about the example you gave.
        
        Offline isofat
        
        isofat (isofat) 4 May 2020 16: 44
        
        +1
        
        1
        
        0
        
        Cyril. The analogy is not a proof and does not prove anything. It only helps to understand the speaker’s thought. Too bad you don't know that.
        PS There is such a Russian proverb - I heard a jingle, but does not know where he is.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 17: 52
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        The analogy is not a proof and does not prove anything. It only helps to understand the speaker’s thought. Too bad you don't know that.
        
        Correct analogy is exactly a tool
        
        proof of
        
        in logic and theory of argumentation. But it is the correct analogy.
        
        https://lawbook.online/page/logikap/ist/ist-18--idz-ax272--nf-40.html
        
        The analogy is correct if the compared objects or phenomena have great similarities. For example, an alkali metal potassium during a reaction with water releases a large amount of thermal energy. Consequently, the alkali metal sodium, which is very similar to potassium, will also react violently with water.
        
        Actually, scientific modeling is precisely based on the method of analogy. A model is an analogue of an object or phenomenon.
        
        An incorrect analogy is when two objects or phenomena are compared that do not have any similarity or the percentage of this similarity is very small. I think it’s not necessary to clarify that there is very, very little in common between the process of launching the launch vehicle and the cutting of an assistant by a magician.
        
        So, an incorrect analogy is either a mistake (if it is given unintentionally), or a demagogic device (if it is given intentionally).
        
        There is such a Russian proverb - I heard a jingle and don’t know where he is.
        
        And she's just about you.
        
        Offline isofat
        
        isofat (isofat) 4 May 2020 18: 01
        
        +1
        
        1
        
        0
        
        Cyril, do not be offended, it’s not my fault that you have problems with logic.
        PS You are a good advertising agent for the American way of life, but this level is not enough to discuss serious things.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 18: 04
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        do not be offended, it’s not my fault that you have problems with logic.
        
        I just don’t have them - it’s you who give incorrect analogies, not me.
        
        You are a good advertising agent for the American lifestyle,
        
        I do not advertise "American lifestyle" anywhere. I am talking about reusable missile landing systems and only about them.
        
        But you are a demagogue. Moreover, a bad demagogue, with too clumsy methods.
        
        Offline isofat
        
        isofat (isofat) 4 May 2020 18: 11
        
        +1
        
        1
        
        0
        
        Quote: Cyril
        ... Moreover, a bad demagogue ...
        
        Yes, I'm a demagogue bad! I do not know how, sorry.
        PS For Logic - 2 with a minus!
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 18: 13
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        Yes, I'm a demagogue bad! I do not know how, sorry.
        
        So why then take it?
        
        For Logic - 2 with a minus!
        
        Yes, your false analogies deserve such an assessment. Self-criticism is the first step towards correction. Act in the same spirit.
Offline 123

123 (123) 4 May 2020 15: 51

+2

2

0
Four-time is already reusable. 4 launches at one stage give quite a tangible benefit.

I don’t argue, only when the payback threshold is reached is unclear. I came across Russian estimates, they say that about 10 launches are needed. The reliability of the estimates is doubtful, but I have not seen any data from the opposite side. I doubt that 4 starts are enough for this.
Offline Cyril

Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 15: 59

-1

0

1
I came across Russian estimates, they say that about 10 launches are needed.

Just for 10 or more launches without inter-flight maintenance and designed Falcon-9.
Offline 123

123 (123) 4 May 2020 16: 09

+2

2

0
Just for 10 or more launches without inter-flight maintenance and designed Falcon-9

The question remains, after what flight does the payback threshold come and whether it is reached.
Offline Cyril

Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 16: 49

-1

0

1
This is a question, of course.
Offline cmonman

cmonman (Garik Mokin) 5 May 2020 02: 31

0

0

0
From Wiki (Google translations):

Making the first-stage booster makes up about 60% of the starting price of one Falcon 9 (and three of them more than 80% of the starting price of Falcon Heavy), which forced SpaceX to develop a program designed for recovery and reuse. of these boosters to significantly reduce startup costs.
“... first-stage Falcon 9 launch vehicles were landed and rebuilt 51 times out of 61 attempts, including synchronized recovery of side boosters in the Falcon Heavy test flight, Arabsat-6A and STP-2 missions. One of the three central Falcon Heavy boosters landed softly, but was seriously damaged in transit.
“... A total of 23 rebuilt boosters were repaired and subsequently launched a second time, including several boosters with three or four missions and one with five missions. SpaceX deliberately limited the Block 3 and Block 4 boosters to only two missions each, but the company expects Block 5 versions to complete 10 flights each without major repairs. ”
“Block 5 is the last iteration of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy boosters. Changes include a stronger heat shield, engines with improved performance, new carbon composite sections (landing struts, engine sections, raceways, RCS thrusters and intermediate steps), retractable landing legs, fins from a titanium grill and other additions that simplify restoration and allow easier reuse. SpaceX claims that block 5 launch vehicle can fly 10 or more times. As of March 2020, not one booster rocket flew more than five times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters

If you open this footnote, then in the table
“Falcon 9 block 5 first-stage boosters” in the “Turnaround Time” column (recovery time to the next flight) is m (month) and d (days) - in how much time the first stage was prepared and took off again (or 1 / 3/4). I suspect that this preparation is cheaper than the cost of a new stage.
Offline 123

123 (123) 5 May 2020 09: 42

+2

2

0
All this is great, but in order to assess economic efficiency it would be nice to know the amount of costs for maintaining ground infrastructure, maintenance and repair of missiles. In addition, if I am not mistaken, it was planned 10 re-launches. So far, only 5 have turned out, as a result of a malfunction, engine shutdown, unsuccessful landing, it is no longer suitable for flight 6. The company has not yet reached the calculated indicators. In general, let Citizen Musk recount his "boosters" himself, success in this noble cause of space exploration, if anything, I am without irony

Offline

Cyril (Kirill) 3 May 2020 21: 46

It’s good that they clarified that it was planned to test the reduced prototype

Wing-SV is not a prototype. It is in this size and will be used.

Offline 123

123 (123) 4 May 2020 12: 46

+2

2

0
Wing-SV is not a prototype. It is in this size and will be used.

That's for sure? I saw something like this:

On February 28, the Advanced Research Foundation approved the start of work to create a flight stage demonstrator. It will have a reduced size (about a third of the full), and it will also be tested not with a rocket, but with a drop from an airplane. It is expected that tests of the reduced prototype can begin in 2020, and a full-fledged first flight of the rocket with a reusable stage will take place in 2023. She will be able to display in a solar-synchronous orbit up to 600 kilograms.
1. Offline Cyril
  
  Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 15: 38
  
  -2
  
  0
  
  2
  
  Ah, right - I didn’t figure it out to the end. I meant that Krylo-SV itself is not a scaled-down prototype of Baikal - it will be an independent project based on Baikal.

Offline

Observer2014 4 May 2020 17: 59

As I understand it, the Baikal project is closed

Wow. You. You know that. Or rather, remember? Already commendable.

The whole joke is that this is just according to the author of the project!

And the same "Baikal" was a project. Do you agree with me? And there, in the bins of the irrepressible imagination of the authors of all kinds of ideas! In the spider web! Horror how many things.

Offline

Cyril (Kirill) 3 May 2020 21: 17

development of Russian launch vehicles

Regarding the content. Aircraft design is likely to be less optimal than vertical landing, but still definitely better than losing one-time steps all the time. Definitely a step forward.

Offline 123

123 (123) 4 May 2020 12: 48

+3

3

0
Regarding the content. Aircraft design is likely to be less optimal than vertical landing, but still definitely better than losing one-time steps all the time. Definitely a step forward.

The flight scheme is designed for 50 flights, Musk has not yet mastered more than four successful returns. Payback is extremely doubtful.
1. Offline Cyril
  
  Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 15: 33
  
  -2
  
  0
  
  2
  
  The flight scheme is designed for 50 flights
  
  Designed - this is not the same as flying.
  
  Musk has not yet mastered more than four successful returns.
  
  Well, the missiles are not decommissioned either.
  1. Offline 123
    
    123 (123) 4 May 2020 15: 56
    
    +2
    
    2
    
    0
    
    Designed - this is not the same as flying.
    
    Конечно. I'm talking about economic calculations, for this system they plan 50 flights. From the second launch, no such system will pay off.
    
    Well, the missiles are not decommissioned either.
    
    This one just flew away. It was her fifth and final flight.
    
    They could not return the stage of this mission to the floating platform Of Course I Still Love You in the Atlantic Ocean.
    
    https://news.liga.net/world/video/mask-vpervye-zapuskaet-raketu
    1. Offline Cyril
      
      Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 16: 03
      
      -1
      
      0
      
      1
      
      This one just flew away. It was her fifth and final flight.
      
      So this is not the only first step in SpaceX. If they remember me, they have at least 4 steps that have already flown 4 times.
      1. Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 4 May 2020 16: 11
        
        +3
        
        3
        
        0
        
        So this is not the only first step in SpaceX. If they remember me, they have at least 4 steps that have already flown 4 times.
        
        As it flies 10 times, it will be possible to talk about the success of the program. While she is in doubt.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 16: 18
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        In comparison with disposable rockets, this success already exists. Whether SpaceX's landing pattern will be more successful in comparison with the landing pattern chosen for Wing can be found only after the latter is put into operation.
        
        But even after its commissioning, it will be possible to compare only with reservations. Do not forget that the Flacon-9 is a heavy-class rocket that can carry up to 22 tons of cargo to LEO. Krylo-SV is a light-class missile. Whether this scheme can be advantageously applied on a heavy-class carrier is a big question.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 4 May 2020 16: 34
        
        +3
        
        3
        
        0
        
        In comparison with disposable rockets, this success already exists. Whether SpaceX's landing pattern will be more successful in comparison with the landing pattern chosen for Wing can be found only after the latter is put into operation.
        
        You can talk about success after passing the break-even threshold. If the program works and there is an economic effect, then yes. But so far I do not see such data. As for Krylo-SV, I do not oppose them, I just gave as an example how many flights the device is designed for. Obviously, this scheme is more expensive than Flacon, but the service life is longer.
        
        But even after its commissioning, it will be possible to compare only with reservations. Do not forget that the Flacon-9 is a heavy-class rocket that can carry up to 22 tons of cargo to LEO. Krylo-SV is a light-class missile. Whether this scheme can be advantageously applied on a heavy-class carrier is a big question.
        
        Here I have some doubts. I do not exclude the use of several devices at the same time, as on the Protons, the greater the load, the more upper stages. But it is too early to talk about it. Let's wait a couple of years.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 17: 36
        
        -1
        
        0
        
        1
        
        If the program works and there is an economic effect, then yes. But while I do not see such data.
        
        Here I have nothing to cover, that's right - there is no open and accurate data. Although I doubt that with constant losses, the company would have successfully launched its missiles within 10 years, moreover, the number of launches is growing steadily. It could be attributed to government orders and frantic foreign investment, but we have another example - Orbital ATK, which was completely on government orders, but eventually accumulated debts, went bankrupt and was bought by Northrop / Grumman. There is no data on SpaceX's debts, the company's management also denies them. There are no particular reasons not to trust them either. You can also look at Boeing with their Delta 4 missile and ULA with their Atlas 5. Despite government orders and significant investments, the number of launches on these missiles remains consistently low, and the share of commercial demand for them is constantly decreasing.
        
        Here I have some doubts. I do not exclude the use of several devices at the same time, as on "Protons", the greater the load, the more booster blocks.
        
        Krylo-SV is also planned to be used, inter alia, as a booster for medium and heavy missiles. But there are 2 problems here:
        
        If you look at the design of such missiles, the booster blocks are attached to the second stage, which is much larger and remains disposable.
        
        The second problem is that by increasing the number of booster blocks, the number of wings, tail units, auxiliary engines (and fuel to them), and the chassis also automatically increase.
        
        In other words, to land Falcon after a flight to a higher orbit or launch a heavier load, on Falcon, you just need to increase the amount of fuel, and in the case of rockets with "Wing", additional wings, landing gear, engines, and tail assembly will have to be taken as an upper stage.
        
        But talking about it is premature. We’ll wait a couple of years.
        
        I agree.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 4 May 2020 18: 57
        
        +3
        
        3
        
        0
        
        Here I have nothing to cover, that's right - there is no open and accurate data. Although I doubt that with constant losses the company would successfully launch its missiles within 10 years, and the number of launches is growing steadily.
        
        Who knows, maybe they are not unprofitable, but I doubt that the profits are huge. The growth in the number of launches is quite understandable; launches from Russia were partially "redirected" there. More series, less price, this is how the whole industry works. Accordingly, the price fell, and the rest of the "doubters" followed. Mr. Trump could have helped the customers to make the right choice, he likes to pass interesting laws. This fits well with his program for the return of industry. And to say that you represent a great space power and send your astronauts on foreign rockets for a decade ... looks rather unconvincing.
        
        It could be attributed to government orders and frantic foreign investment, but we have another example - Orbital ATK, which was completely on government orders, but eventually accumulated debts, went bankrupt and was bought by Northrop / Grumman.
        
        It may very well be that Musk's company is more effective than Orbital ATK. He did not have such costs for the creation and maintenance of infrastructure. As far as I remember, a cosmodrome with a control center was provided to them. The engine was also not made from scratch. Building the rocket itself is not such a supernatural task. In general, he made the most of the existing "reserve", everything that was created before him. The same lattice, if I'm not mistaken, still Soviet development, I don't remember the name of the designer, we must look for it. And Orbital ATK got fat on government orders, in the absence of competition, companies become lazy, and inert thinking appears. Why do something new if everything works and makes a profit? Perhaps for the same reason, Baikal was closed.
        
        Krylo-SV "and they plan to use it, among other things, as a booster for medium and heavy missiles. But there are 2 problems here:
        If you look at the design of such missiles, the booster blocks are attached to the second stage, which is much larger and remains disposable.
        The second problem is that by increasing the number of booster blocks, the number of wings, tail units, auxiliary engines (and fuel to them), and the chassis also automatically increase.
        
        The second steps are now disposable. In addition, we do not yet know what they will be attached to. I see no reason to say that this will not be a fully returned device. Maybe not right away, but the prospect is very real.
        Weight from the chassis and other things, of course, is important, but as I understand it, the payback is supposed to be achieved through significantly longer use. Musk, speaking of efficiency, cited an airplane as an example, but he kept silent that airplanes have been flying for decades, and do not pay off in 2-3 flights. Perhaps there is a similar logic. It’s difficult to judge, there is practically no data for analysis. These are all assumptions.
        
        In other words, to land Falcon after a flight to a higher orbit or launch a heavier load on Falcon, you just need to increase the amount of fuel, and in the case of rockets with Wing, you will have to take additional wings, landing gear, engines, and tail assembly as an upper stage.
        
        Not quite so, the tank is not dimensionless, it will not work to increase the amount of fuel infinitely. I don’t think they are leaving half-empty now, I think the "reserve" is not that big, if at all. As for the weight of the "tails, wings", if their long-term operation is assumed, it is quite possible to use composite materials, although they are more expensive, the gain in weight is obvious. Again, these are all assumptions.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 20: 29
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        Who knows, maybe they are not unprofitable, but I doubt that the profits are huge.
        
        Nevertheless, they have money both for developing Falcon Heavy, and for developing Starship with BFR, and for Starlink (as far as I know, satellites are designed and manufactured by SpaceX itself). All these projects require money, and considerable money. Moreover, it is unlikely that anyone other than SpaceX itself invested a lot of money in the same Falcon Heavy or in the development of Starship with BFR - these are very specific projects.
        
        Mr. Trump could very well help customers make the right choice; he likes to accept interesting laws.
        
        Well, I have no evidence of administrative pressure from the US government on customers. In addition, the percentage of US customers of the total number of commercial customers SpaceX is not so great.
        
        It may very well be that Musk's company is more effective than Orbital ATK. He did not have such costs for the creation and maintenance of infrastructure. As far as I remember, a cosmodrome with a control center was provided to them. The engine was also not made from scratch. Building the rocket itself is not such a supernatural task. In general, he made the most of the existing "reserve", everything that was created before him. The same lattice, if I'm not mistaken, still Soviet development, I don't remember the name of the designer, we must look for it.
        
        Although they provided launch pads, SpaceX uses them for rent and, in addition, rebuilt them under its own media. ATK’s orbital also did not build its launch sites (although I could be wrong). Orbital also did not develop engines itself (though not completely by itself). As for the use of SpaceX developments - this does not contradict the efficiency and profitability. On the contrary, the competent use of existing solutions (the same lattice rudders) in addition to their own works on profitability. Less expense means more revenue.
        
        The second steps are now disposable. In addition, we do not yet know what they will be attached to.
        
        But the second stage of Falcon-9 has only 1 engine and is only 1/5 of the total rocket length. And the bundle of the heavy "Angara" with the "Wing" as accelerators has a second (non-returnable) stage - a huge tower the size of 1 stage of the Falcon-9.
        
        I see no reason to say that this will not be a fully returned device
        
        If we talk specifically about Krylo-SV (specifically about the current project), then in a fully recoverable version (that is, when all or most of the structure is returned) it will be a light-class rocket (such an application is provided, yes). But this is an easy class. It is still difficult to say how justifiably it is possible to scale additional equipment for landing (wings, additional engine, chassis, tail unit) on a fully reusable heavy-class rocket, similar to the Falcon-9. The Shuttle, putting a little more Falcon into orbit (25 tons versus 22), turned out to be too expensive, although it did not even have an additional engine for landing (it was planning from space).
        
        Musk, speaking of efficiency, cited an airplane as an example, but he kept silent that airplanes have been flying for decades and do not pay off in 2-3 flights.
        
        Good point, but there is one caveat. The cost of flying a passenger liner pays off the revenue from tickets. With rough calculations, the same Watermelon 320 pays off in about 10-12 years of use. Such a duration is due to the fact that users of the aircraft (passengers) are not ready to pay fabulous money for a ticket so that the aircraft pays off quickly. Therefore, air carriers buy several aircraft in different directions, thereby accelerating the payback due to the total effect.
        In space, the situation is different. Customers are quite ready to shell out a lot of money for delivering goods into orbit. Therefore, the launch operator may need less time (and the number of starts) for his rocket to pay off.
        
        Not quite so, the tank is not dimensionless, it will not work infinitely to increase the amount of fuel.
        
        And Falcon does not need to increase the volume of his tanks. Their current size is quite enough to bring 98% of the load that exists in the world to both IEO and GPO (GSO). Most satellites, scientific vehicles, space trucks and manned spacecraft weigh in the range of 9-10 tons.
        This, incidentally, is an important element of the SpaceX business model. The disadvantage of the rocket dynamic landing system is that additional fuel and supporting legs reduce the carrying capacity by 30-40%. That is a fact, yes. That is, in the returned version, the Falcon-9 at the DOE does not take out 22 tons, but about 14-15. However, if we analyze the statistics, on average, in practice, on average, modern rockets of a similar class (American, European, Russian, Chinese) are brought into orbit, then in the vast majority of cases this will be no more than 15 tons.
        
        In other words, the overwhelming majority of launches of heavy-class missiles are 30-40% idle. But while the rest of the missiles are lost in any case, SpaceX saves its stages at the expense of fuel, which is used to load these "idle" 30-40%.
        
        As for the weight of the "tails, wings" if their long-term operation is assumed, it is quite possible to use composite materials, although they are more expensive, the weight gain is obvious.
        
        As for composites, not everything is very obvious. Yes, they weigh less alloys, but they have problems with resistance to thermal and mechanical loads. By the way, this is exactly why Musk refused to use the composite BFR and Starship cases (as their early projects envisaged) in favor of heavier, but also more stable stainless steel.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 4 May 2020 22: 05
        
        +2
        
        2
        
        0
        
        Nevertheless, they have money both for developing Falcon Heavy, and for developing Starship with BFR, and for Starlink (as far as I know, satellites are designed and manufactured by SpaceX itself). All these projects require money, and considerable money.
        
        Quite right, a lot of money is required. Try putting yourself in the place of the Mask. What is your source of funding for km? You make satellites for the Internet, launch and collect payment for use, this is a long time, not so profitable, because in Russia and China you are definitely not welcome, Europeans are also not happy, they themselves are not averse to receiving money for the Internet, who is left? Naturally, except for the USA, Canada, Mexico, suppose all of South America. Who else? Africa? Near East? Australia? The solvency of the Africans is in question, besides there is a strong influence of China. In general, both America, Australia and Arab sheikhs. This is far from the global project covering the whole world. In general, you can gradually develop a project, like a bee, to collect nectar, flying from flower to flower, and the route goes past the beekeeper’s house, and there on the porch there is a budget bucket with honey. A bee will certainly fly to a bucket, it is only a matter of time. Satellites are a bit of a separate issue, but they also require huge costs. Costs of 30-50 billion per year are planned only to replenish the group. They should be competitive, not some whistle-blowers, but world-class technology. Only a few are capable of producing such a technique. There are not many companies like Huawei. This is a huge amount of money and technology available to not many. And then a brilliant Musk appears with his companions from nowhere to come. In general, this is a huge amount of money, and this is beyond the power of most states. Since miracles do not happen, there can only be one source, a budget.
        
        Well, I have no evidence of administrative pressure from the US government on customers. In addition, the percentage of US customers of the total number of commercial customers SpaceX is not so great.
        
        I have to admit, too, but it fits into the logic of events and corresponds to the style of behavior of the American state system. Try reading a boring document by reference, I don’t know if it is accepted or not, but the appearance of this or a similar document is almost inevitable.
        
        https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s893/text
        
        Although they provided launch pads, SpaceX uses them for rent and, in addition, rebuilt them under its own media. ATK’s orbital also did not build its launch sites (although I could be wrong). Orbital also did not develop engines itself (though not completely by itself). As for the use of SpaceX developments - this does not contradict the efficiency and profitability. On the contrary, the competent use of existing solutions (the same lattice rudders) in addition to their own works on profitability. Less expense means more revenue.
        
        It may very well be. The company is closed, it does not publish financial reports, one can only speculate. If you look at the rest of Musk's companies, they did not notice the appearance of an incomprehensible huge funding from where it came from, Tesla took loans from Chinese banks, Musk himself had a mortgage, SpaceX is different in this regard, it is there that the "wonderful pot" gives out money. Since I do not believe in miracles, I have only one version. Uncle Sam.
        
        But the second stage of Falcon-9 has only 1 engine and is only 1/5 of the total rocket length. And the bundle of the heavy "Angara" with the "Wing" as accelerators has a second (non-returnable) stage - a huge tower the size of 1 stage of the Falcon-9.
        
        I am not saying that Wing-SV is better than Falcon-9, it is difficult to judge about that. The device itself does not exist, it is too early to discuss its advantages or disadvantages. It is only clear that the economy there will be somewhat different, designed for a longer service life, and, accordingly, payback. It will be something between a rocket and an airplane.
        Until at least a prototype appears in iron, I don’t see the point of delving into the topic. I propose to be patient and just wait.
        
        As for composites, not everything is very obvious. Yes, they weigh less alloys, but they have problems with resistance to thermal and mechanical loads. By the way, this is exactly why Musk refused to use the composite BFR and Starship cases (as their early projects envisaged) in favor of heavier, but also more stable stainless steel.
        
        As for composites, this is just my guess, one of the directions in which designers can go, what will happen in the end is not clear, maybe there will be engines of different types for different stages, on the first one they work more efficiently in the atmosphere, on the second one they are better suited for work in a vacuum. Maybe cheaper fuel, why don't they fly on gas? It will simply be a device created according to a different "ideology", designed for a longer service life, the use of more expensive materials and more complex technical solutions is quite possible.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 5 May 2020 00: 15
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        it's long, not so profitable for in Russia and China you are definitely not welcome.
        
        Europeans are not happy either
        
        they themselves are not averse to receiving money for the Internet, who remains?
        
        Nuuu .... very controversial. Because Starlink will be used by the Pentagon? So GPS satellites are also used by the Pentagon (this is generally an initial military project) - nevertheless, they are used for navigation both in Europe and in Russia. I think it's also used in China (although I'm not sure). And this despite the presence of GLONASS and Baidu.
        
        In addition, by analyzing the market available to Starlink, you missed India and Southeast Asia (Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, South Korea. Japan, etc.). India alone is not much smaller than China in terms of population.
        
        As for the satellites themselves. The trick is that they are just very different from typical telecommunication satellites, including in terms of price (downward). Firstly, they are designed not for tens, but for only 5 years of use (after the expiration of the satellite's validity period, it is replaced by another one). This means that it uses a cheaper electronic filling. Secondly, SpaceX does not plan to withdraw the entire group at once - it will be a more extended process in time, which, accordingly, "stretches" the costs of it.
        
        Therefore, financing from the state is not so unequivocal here. Although, of course, SpaceX will take money from the Pentagon for using Starlink.
        
        If you look at the rest of Musk's companies, they did not notice the appearance of an incomprehensible huge funding from where it came from, Tesla took loans from Chinese banks, Musk himself had a mortgage, SpaceX is different in this regard, it is there that the "wonderful pot" gives out money. Since I don't believe in miracles, I have only one version. Uncle Sam.
        
        So Uncle Sam at SpaceX and was - no one denies this. At first, the company really lived off funding from NASA allocated under the COTS and CRS (ISS cargo support) programs. At state launches, the company also generated the necessary reliability statistics for its missiles. And then, in 2015, it entered the market of commercial launches. After that, the share of government orders in the total number of launches decreased, the share of commercial orders increased.
        
        On all other points - I agree, it remains only to wait for the launch of "Wing-SV" and further developments on this topic. I certainly also wish this project to be successful.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 5 May 2020 01: 21
        
        +2
        
        2
        
        0
        
        Nuuu .... very controversial. Because Starlink will be used by the Pentagon? So GPS satellites are also used by the Pentagon (this is generally an initial military project) - nevertheless, they are used for navigation both in Europe and in Russia. I think it's also used in China (although I'm not sure). And this despite the presence of GLONASS and Baidu.
        
        Not only. Gradually, information is transferred to servers within the country, especially in China. And here again access to everything comes off. Plus this is also a market, they are unlikely to want to give it back. In general, they will not be given frequencies for operation.
        
        In addition, by analyzing the market available to Starlink, you missed India and Southeast Asia (Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, South Korea. Japan, etc.). India alone is not much smaller than China in terms of population.
        
        That's right, missed hurried up, did not finish.
        
        As for the satellites themselves. The trick is that they are just very different from typical telecommunication satellites, including in terms of price (downward). Firstly, they are designed not for tens, but for only 5 years of use (after the expiration of the satellite's validity period, it is replaced by another one). This means that it uses a cheaper electronic filling. Secondly, SpaceX does not plan to withdraw the entire group at once - it will be a more extended process in time, which, accordingly, "stretches" the costs of it.
        
        It may very well be, but, firstly, as I understand it, the grouping is still not working, as of February 300 satellites were launched, this is not enough.
        
        providing minimum Internet coverage will require 360 satellites, and for the average - 720 devices.
        
        http://vesma.today/news/post/13532-ilon-mask-zapustil-v-kosmos
        
        The system does not work yet, but its costs are not small, the issue of financing again appears.
        
        Therefore, financing from the state is not so unequivocal here. Although, of course, SpaceX will take money from the Pentagon for using Starlink.
        
        Of course, not unambiguously, but quite likely. Perhaps indirect, for example, in the form of state guarantees for a loan or something like that. Under the existing financial system, these are almost interest-free loans.
        
        So Uncle Sam at SpaceX and was - no one denies this. At first, the company really lived off funding from NASA allocated under the COTS and CRS (ISS cargo support) programs. At state launches, the company also generated the necessary reliability statistics for its missiles. And then, in 2015, it entered the market of commercial launches. After that, the share of government orders in the total number of launches decreased, the share of commercial orders increased.
        
        I agree, but I believe that the increase in the number of commercial launches was not without the influence of the state.
        
        On all other points - I agree, it remains only to wait for the launch of "Wing-SV" and further developments on this topic. I certainly also wish this project to be successful.
        
        Let's hope.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 5 May 2020 23: 35
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        Gradually, information is transferred to servers within the country, especially in China.
        
        So, what does the satellite have to do with it? Satellites are a means of transmitting, not storing information. Data will also be stored on servers
        
        Plus this is also a market, they are unlikely to want to give it back. In general, they will not be given frequencies for operation.
        
        Why doesn’t this happen with conventional communications satellites? This is also a market with various players, but it seems I have not heard. so that someone puts obstacles to someone.
        
        The system does not work yet, but its costs are not small, the issue of financing again appears.
        
        The cost of 1 Starlink satellite is approximately 300 thousand dollars. That is, for the production of minimum 360 you need 108 million. For 1 time they launch 60 pieces, that is, to launch the minimum 360 satellites you need 6 launches. The weight of one satellite is 260 kg, therefore, the weight of 60 satellites is 15600 kg (plus the weight of the adapter). The cost of launching 1 kg on the DOE on the returned Falcon-9 is about $ 2000. Accordingly, the cost of launching 60 satellites is 31,2 million. We multiply this number (I remind you that this is a launch for your own needs, so there should be no extra charge) by 6 starts - 187 million. We add the costs of the satellites themselves - we get 287 million.
        
        Calculations, of course, are crude, but, like, the amount is more or less correct. And it’s not that it turned out to be big. Mask has a personal capital of $ 37 billion. I think, at least from my own pocket I can pay.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 6 May 2020 09: 55
        
        +3
        
        3
        
        0
        
        So, what does the satellite have to do with it? Satellites are a means of transmitting, not storing information. Data will also be stored on servers.
        
        The satellite system is not autonomous. There is a point of interfacing with ground infrastructure. It is wrong to isolate satellites from a common system. And servers in the USA.
        The result is a stateless communication system. For information security reasons, the mask frequency will not be allocated. Huawei, for example, in the United States is not happy, if you want, read their opinion on the Internet on this subject, than they justify it. Speaking of satellites, the Glonass base station, for example, refused to install in the United States. Do you think SpaceX will be treated differently? I see no reason for this.
        
        Why doesn’t this happen with conventional communications satellites? This is also a market with various players, but it seems I have not heard. To someone put obstacles to someone.
        
        Many countries have their own satellite communications and television broadcasting groups, who do not have them, use strangers on a commercial basis. He did not delve into the situation with them in detail, respectively, who does not know who puts any obstacles to whom. If there is a specific example, say, which foreign satellites are used for communication and broadcasting to the territory of Russia or China, let's see in more detail.
        
        About the cost, the payback of satellites and why the Mask needs a large series of launches, look at the link:
        
        https://www.popmech.ru/technologies/485382-60-sputnikov-ilona-maska-chto-takoe-globalnyy-internet-i-zachem-on-nuzhen/
        
        - in my opinion, quite sensible reasoning. I doubt that Mask’s plans to pull this entire market onto itself are causing enormous delight in China and Russia. Here he is not welcome.

Offline

steelmaker 3 May 2020 21: 22

-1

And I wait and hope when the Burana project or something of this will be resumed. Don't try to copy someone else's. We must create our own and let them copy us!

Offline Cyril

Cyril (Kirill) 3 May 2020 21: 43

+1

2

1
Burana project

The Buran was based on the American Shuttle. The "Spiral" was an authentic reusable system in the USSR, although it remained unrealized.

We must create our own and let us copy!

If a competitor has already found the best option, then why not use it? Why reinvent the wheel?
1. Offline Rum rum
  
  Rum rum (Rum rum) 3 May 2020 22: 36
  
  +2
  
  3
  
  1
  
  Optimal, which one?
  A parachute or wing is much more optimal, landing on the ass on the engine. And in the sense of mass saving, and ease of operation.
  1. Offline Cyril
    
    Cyril (Kirill) 3 May 2020 22: 58
    
    0
    
    1
    
    1
    
    A parachute or wing is much more optimal, landing on the ass on the engine. And in the sense of mass saving and ease of operation.
    
    I already wrote above - I will write again. For an airplane landing, you need a wing, a tail unit, an additional jet engine (and fuel for it), and a landing gear. It is not clear what kind of "mass saving" you are talking about.
    
    For landing "on the ass" you only need additional fuel and support legs.
    
    As for the parachute landing, it has the following disadvantages:
    
    - The parachute does not provide a completely soft landing - the step still hits the ground with a very decent speed. And the blow is decent there. Space Shuttle boosters and military hardware will confirm.
    
    - The parachute is very dependent on the wind.
    
    “The parachute needed to save the first stage of a heavy rocket (to which Falcon-9 belongs) must simply be of enormous size.” Plus, to mitigate the blow, either an air bag or additional brake engines should be attached.
    1. Offline Rum rum
      
      Rum rum (Rum rum) 3 May 2020 23: 23
      
      +2
      
      3
      
      1
      
      By airplane step:
      1. Planning (airplane) has already been canceled?
      2. The chassis, plumage, wing, weighs much less than the fuel that will have to be taken. And the fuel consumption of an airplane (or rather, a cruise missile) is much less than that of a missile.
      
      By parachute:
      Everything is so, but problems are solved much easier than rear-wheel drive landing.
      
      For rear wheel drive landing:
      Try to take an even stick and place it with one end on your fingertip. Hold it for a few seconds. Now imagine a column of several meters and weighing several tons. Again, the crosswind, the engine torch creates powerful upward flows, theoretically, these flows help, but only theoretically, the slightest breeze and you have more riser on one side and less on the other. The column falls to its side. And yet the mass is rapidly changing (because you are spending fuel and not liters). And also the difference in the density of the medium (height), humidity, temperature, natural ascending flows, etc.
      Oh, and landing on a water platform (which is not stable by definition), it's generally a circus.
      1. Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 00: 01
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        1. Planning (airplane) has already been canceled?
        
        Think - yes. In "Wing-SV" an additional air-jet engine is used for the return.
        
        Chassis, plumage, wing, weighs much less than the fuel that will have to be taken.
        
        Who told you this?
        
        By parachute:
        Everything is so, but problems are solved much easier than rear-wheel drive landing.
        
        And how is the dependence of the parachute on the wind, its enormous size for a heavy rocket and, most importantly, the impact on the surface, which it does not completely extinguish, be solved?
        
        Try to take an even stick and place it with one end on your fingertip. Hold it for a few seconds. Now imagine a column of several meters and weighing several tons.
        
        The stability of the planted step on the platform or ground platform is provided by the expanding supports. So your analogy is incorrect.
        
        Again, the crosswind, the engine torch creates powerful upward flows, theoretically, these flows help, but only theoretically, the slightest breeze and you have more riser on one side and less on the other. The column falls to its side.
        
        Since 2017, the Falcon-9, when landing on a barge, has not collapsed on it even once.
        
        And yet the mass is rapidly changing (because you are spending fuel and not liters).
        
        It is true that, at the moment of landing, the center of gravity shifts to the bottom of the step, which provides it with even greater stability.
        
        Oh, and landing on a water platform (which is not stable by definition), it's generally a circus.
        
        And once again - since 2017, when landing on a barge, there was not a single case that the step fell on its side.
        
        Offline Rum rum
        
        Rum rum (Rum rum) 5 May 2020 02: 00
        
        +2
        
        2
        
        0
        
        I didn’t want to continue the discussion, but apparently it would have to.
        
        And how is the dependence of the parachute on the wind, its enormous size for a heavy rocket and, most importantly, the impact on the surface, which it does not completely extinguish, be solved?
        
        1. Wind is the environment. If your parachute blows in five minutes 5 km to the side, then the feather will blow in the same time at the same distance (rough, but it will).
        Of course, the falling step will slip the wind stream much faster than the parachute, but the speed will pick up much more. Accordingly, you will need much more energy for the brake impulse, plus during free fall the device will gain additional parasitic moments (rotation, somersaults, etc.), because the stage is not symmetrical, they will have to be counterbalanced somehow (again, energy costs).
        2. Parachutes are different, for example, "Wing". The start takes place in a certain area, the height is high, it is quite possible to compensate for the drift (this also applies to the glider). Soften ..... this is where a reactive impulse can come in handy, but its power is much less.
        
        Regarding fuel and a low center of mass:
        The fuel is liquid, and the system is unstable, if not unstable.
        
        And the most important thing that should speak against reusability is the gigantic thermodynamic loads - you will never guess where a microcrack is formed or what kind of stress concentrator, and - goodbye, Motherland.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 5 May 2020 20: 59
        
        -1
        
        0
        
        1
        
        If your parachute blows in five minutes for 5 km to the side, then the feather will blow in the same time at the same distance (rough, but it will).
        
        Why did you suddenly decide so?
        
        Of course, the falling step will slip the wind stream much faster than the parachute, but the speed will pick up much more.
        
        To extinguish it, braking impulses are also used.
        
        plus during free fall the device will gain additional spurious moments (rotation, somersaults, etc.)
        
        To stabilize the stage during a controlled (and not free) fall, lattice rudders are used. Bombs do not tumble in flight, right?
        
        the stage is not symmetrical, they will have to be countered somehow (again, energy costs).
        
        The step has axial symmetry, and it stabilizes in the fall by lattice rudders.
        
        The fuel is liquid, and the system is unstable, if not unstable.
        
        I just can’t say how the rest of the fuel in the tanks behaves over the entire descent trajectory (I suspect that it’s not just splashing there like in a car’s tank, but I’m not sure), but SpaceX has shown in practice that landing their steps is a controlled process and stable. There was not a single case where the step would begin to rotate during the descent due to destabilization by fuel.
        
        And the most important thing that should speak against reusability is gigantic thermodynamic loads - you will never guess where a microcrack is formed or what stress concentrator
        
        Well, you will not guess, and material experts calculate all these stresses mathematically.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 5 May 2020 21: 43
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        Parachutes are different, for example, "Wing". The start takes place in a certain area, the height is high, it is quite possible to compensate for the drift (this also applies to the glider). Soften ..... this is where a reactive impulse can come in handy, but its power is much less.
        
        A wing parachute is just as dependent on the wind as a normal parachute. And the most important thing is the size of the parachute, which is needed to dampen the fall speed of the first stage with a mass of 25 tons, falling at a speed of 2 km / s (at the moment of entry into the atmosphere) from an altitude of about 100 km.
        
        For comparison. The 2,2-ton (that is, 10 times smaller in mass) descent vehicle of the Soyuz spacecraft has a main parachute size of 1000 square meters. m (and there is still a small brake parachute and a reserve one). Moreover, the parachute is deployed at an altitude of 9-10 km, when the speed of the descent vehicle due to aerodynamic braking (the capsule has a special shape for this) is reduced to 240 m / s. And immediately before touching the ground, due to the main parachute, it is extinguished to 9 m / s, and not to zero. To soften the impact, braking solid-propellant engines are installed on the Soyuz descent capsules.
        
        Now figure out what kind of parachute you need to save the 22-ton stage.
      2. Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 4 May 2020 00: 30
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        Here you can see the Falcon-9 launch and landing circuit.
Offline Rum rum

Rum rum (Rum rum) 3 May 2020 22: 49

+1

2

1
Quote: steel maker
And I wait and hope when the Burana project or something of this will be resumed.

Buran? Are you kidding? Most of the payload there was spent on the carcass of the largest Buran.
1. Offline NordUral
  
  NordUral (Eugene) 4 May 2020 21: 09
  
  0
  
  1
  
  1
  
  Do not lie, although you may not know the topic beyond the hill, Rum Rum, with your education.
  1. Offline Rum rum
    
    Rum rum (Rum rum) 5 May 2020 00: 54
    
    0
    
    1
    
    1
    
    Express your thoughts more accurately.
    What lies are you talking about? What mound, what topic are you talking about? And what do you know about my education?
    1. Offline NordUral
      
      NordUral (Eugene) 5 May 2020 17: 27
      
      -1
      
      0
      
      1
      
      Rum Rum! I don’t know, but I can assume that either lying or education is not enough to work with information.

Offline

Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 4 May 2020 14: 11

But in fact, most importantly, no one noticed, IMHO.

1) The text of "approval" is absolutely out of water, like "for all good versus all bad."
2) Does the approval of the Academy of Sciences solve anything at all? Maybe they will allocate money? Or will patents be disclosed closed? Or will the finished drawings of the solution betray? Academics will now be able to work on the problems of Roscosmos, and before it was forbidden ????

Offline

NordUral (Eugene) 4 May 2020 21: 07

Hollow Nuts, what else to say!

Offline

aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 5 May 2020 10: 29

Quote: Monster_Fat

Naturally, these are fairy tales. The main thing is to get funding, and then: "either donkey, or padishah ...." Russian, space "breakthroughs" of recent years, cause only laughter. By the way, I keep forgetting to ask - have you found "drillers", or are they still looking?

If you had a little understanding of the difference in the functioning of economies between penguins and ours, then you wouldn’t have written nonsense. Private production of complex and expensive equipment, without merging in a sexual embrace with the state budget, is impossible for birds, in principle.
In Russia, everything is different. State-owned company and government funding. What you said can be compared with the fact that one pocket requires you to transfer a pack of dough from another pocket of the same jacket. And here the jacket decides whether he needs such financial transactions.
You can still try to say that theft .....
Yes, in our country this is considered theft, and somehow (I, for example, am not happy with the results, I want to see blood and yushka from draconian pressure from law enforcement), those who have been prosecuted and punished.
But in birds, such an action is precisely called lobbying for interests, and suitcases with dough are not carried there. They appoint their representatives there ..... And all this is legal. That is, it is not prosecuted at all.
What, is it better?
Then a fair wind.

Offline

aleksandrmakedo (Dubovitsky Victor Kuzmich) 9 May 2020 23: 50

Quote: Cyril

Dear, did you study at school?

I am. And you?

To return 1 step to the ass, you need:
To take fuel into flight, to return the stage is the growth of useless mass (weaning it from the useful one).
To take extra fuel, you won’t believe it - you still need fuel (again minus the payload).

To return the stage in an airplane, you need:

- take in flight the landing gear, wing, tail, additional (in addition to the main rocket engine) air-jet engine for landing and fuel for its operation.

- To take additional fuel for the WFD, you will not believe it (c) - you still need fuel.

But that is not all. Return to the ass on the engine increases the thermodynamic loads on this engine by about 2,5 times (figures are not accurate), thereby greatly reducing its resource.

The numbers you have taken from the ceiling, and not "inaccurate". When returning the Falcon-9 stage, only 1 engine out of 9 installed on it is used for braking. Moreover, it "lights up" only twice during the landing for a couple of seconds. There is no trace of an increase in loads by 2,5 times.

As far as I understand, the USAM Challenger was not enough with Voyager.

As far as I understand, in space technology you are not a stranger. Firstly, the “Challenger” landed just according to the aircraft scheme, and not on its own engines. Secondly, Voyager is not a Shuttle, but a research interplanetary probe, which was successfully launched in the 70s and is currently located on the border of the solar system.

Based on all this, you can understand for yourself what real effectiveness these devices have.

Good performance, proven by repeated, repeated (and successful) launches of the Falcon-9.

We thought that there would be SUCH preparation for the next flight. BUT! It turned out SUCH

What do you think Mask has, otherwise this thing happens?
Yes, if this crook did not lie at every step, then he would not receive any funding. Did he build the launch complex? The design of the engine that was handed over to him after the closure of the lunar program for free, patents, design bureaus accelerated after the lunar programs? And you think that now the start price for the customer is NASA's real? And not a deal, a discount, for having received billions in the making? Debts need to be paid, and not only with us. They- it is much more cruel.