Cosmonaut delivery to the ISS: Americans offer Russia barter

116

SpaceX plans to launch a Dragon spaceship on May 27 with two US astronauts aboard at the International Space Station. If the flight completes successfully, this will confirm the ability of the United States to deliver people to the ISS, bypassing the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, Forbes writes.

According to NASA Deputy Program Manager Joel Montalbano, the agency is “looking forward to” the SpaceX mission, which will start from the Space Center. Kennedy in Florida. He noted that in order for the Roskosmos Corporation to be a full-fledged partner of American missions, Russia is invited to send astronauts on American ships.



The United States will use Russian aircraft to deliver astronauts to a space station.

We want to conclude a barter agreement. The plan is for the Russian cosmonauts to fly on American ships, and our astronauts will fly on Soyuz ships ... Thus, we will link the two space programs together. This will allow in case of problems of one of the parties with the manned spacecraft to successfully continue work on the ISS

- said Montalbano.
116 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. monman
    monman
    +6
    15 May 2020 16: 15
    Rogozin said that he would not send astronauts on a “not tested ship”. He insured normally. But he did not say how many flights he would give permission.
    1. Dear sofa expert.
      Dear sofa expert.
      +2
      16 May 2020 01: 35
      The shuttle exploded on the 135th flight. After how many flights is it better to give permission?
      1. Cyril
        Cyril
        0
        16 May 2020 17: 46
        The shuttle exploded on the 135th flight. After how many flights is it better to give permission?

        The shuttle did not explode on the 135th flight.
        1. Dear sofa expert.
          Dear sofa expert.
          +2
          16 May 2020 18: 12
          Oh, well, even on the 107th. Is that so important? Of the five shuttles, two died. This is 40%. Yes, they flew well, and no one disputes these machines as highly technological complexes. There is probably more distrust in the approach of the Americans themselves.

          ... As in the case of the Challenger disaster, NASA leadership was not able to adequately assess the concerns of specialists about a possible problem of damage to the shuttle and did not adequately respond to requests from engineers for a visual inspection of the site of the attack by astronauts. It is noted that technical experts sent a request to the US Department of Defense three times to obtain images of a shuttle in orbit to assess the damage received. NASA leadership did not facilitate requests, and in some cases intervened in the interaction, preventing the representatives of the military department from providing the necessary assistance.

          Wiki
          1. Cyril
            Cyril
            0
            16 May 2020 18: 25
            oh, well, even on the 107th. Is that so important?

            Important. Because many people think that the Shuttle program was closed precisely because of the Columbia disaster. In reality, it was closed due to the obsolescence of the shuttles, their technical deterioration, high cost and lack (after the completion of the ISS construction) of an adequate load.

            Of the five shuttles, two died. This is 40%.

            The reliability of spacecraft is considered by the ratio of successful and emergency launches, and not by the number of emergency and trouble-free vehicles.

            As for NASA's administrative mistakes, yes, that’s right.
            1. boriz
              boriz
              +3
              16 May 2020 19: 02
              The reliability of spacecraft is considered by the ratio of successful and emergency launches, and not by the number of emergency and trouble-free vehicles.

              Reliability is best assessed by the number of people killed over the same period of time. How many people have killed Soyuz during the shuttle flights? Americans simply would not have found crazy people to fly on them.

              Because many people think that the Shuttle program was closed precisely because of the Columbia disaster. In reality, it was closed due to the obsolescence of the shuttles, their technical wear and tear, high cost and lack (after the completion of the ISS construction) of an adequate load.

              You can write anything you want. Poker face. the Americans have driven themselves into a dead end. How long have the morally obsolete Soyuz been flying, performing their functions?
              If the design is morally obsolete, but the idea has justified itself, then it will be modernized in a timely manner and used further. And the Americans with the Shuttles failed, this is indicated by an 11-year break in flights. Plus, the design was organically unable to ensure the safety of the crews.
              And if there were no Unions, or ours would refuse to roll them?
              And these are not administrative mistakes, but the wretchedness of strategic planning.
              1. Cyril
                Cyril
                -3
                16 May 2020 19: 36
                Reliability is best assessed by the number of people killed in a similar period of time.

                You can evaluate it as you like, but experts evaluate the reliability of spacecraft precisely by the ratio of successful and unsuccessful launches.

                How many people have killed Soyuz during the shuttle flights?

                The total number of Soyuz spacecraft manned launches is 143 (from 1967 to 2020), of which 2 fatal accidents.

                The total number of space shuttle manned launches is 135 (from 1981 to 2011), of which 2 accidents with fatalities.

                The reliability of both ships is thus the same.

                As for the number of deaths - yes, more people died on the Shuttles, but they also delivered a number of people into orbit in 30 years of their use, significantly exceeding the number of people delivered by Soyuz in more than 50 years.

                How long have morally obsolete Soyuz been flying, performing their functions?

                Horse carts also successfully ride people on the roads, but this does not make them more advanced than cars. Russia has been using the Soyuz for so long not because it is the coolest ship in the world and you can't think of anything better, but because there are no alternatives to it in Russia itself. The Federation is in a very suspended state. The Americans, having closed the Shuttle program, can buy seats on the Soyuz, while they are developing a new ship, we have no such opportunity.

                And the Americans with the Shuttles failed, this is indicated by an 11-year break in flights.

                There was no "failure" with the Shuttles. They turned out to be much more expensive than planned, but they successfully completed their tasks. Actually, the Shuttles are more versatile in use, they were used both as autonomous space laboratories and for repairing satellites in orbit. Soyuz's capabilities are less broad.

                Plus, the design was organically unable to ensure the safety of the crews.

                Yes, it's true. The biggest drawback of the Shuttles is the lack of a rescue system.

                And if there were no Unions, or ours would refuse to roll them?

                The Americans would simply develop a new ship faster. Actually, already in 2014 they had the Orion spacecraft ready, it even successfully completed an unmanned orbital flight. But because they decided to modify it for lunar missions, and for the ISS in parallel to develop the "Cru Dragon" and "Starliner". There would be no Soyuz - the Americans would have adapted Orion for the ISS and that's it.
                1. boriz
                  boriz
                  +2
                  16 May 2020 20: 23
                  There was no "failure" with the shuttles. They turned out to be much more expensive than planned, but they successfully completed their tasks.

                  Do you yourself understand what you wrote? A good car, but we will not do such.
                  And how much money wasted, just so that you could write that they drove crowds of people there, it is not clear why?
                  And now exactly the same thing is happening. Experts say that the control of the Mask rockets after each mission will kill any savings, but no one hears them. And then they will quietly say: it was a good car, it performed its functions, but we will no longer do such things. It turns out a little expensive.
                  That Shuttles, that the Mask show - promotions that cover the wild cut of the budget.
                  And we will explain to everyone with a clever look: you are not specialists, you do not understand anything.
                  Who cares how many people died ... "Women still give birth ..." (C)
                  Like there is another classic:

                  We honor everyone with zeros
                  And in units - yourself.
                  We all look at Napoleon;
                  Biped creatures millions
                  One tool for us ...
                  1. Cyril
                    Cyril
                    -1
                    16 May 2020 20: 46
                    Did you yourself understand what you wrote?

                    I always understand what I am writing.

                    A good car, but we will not do such.

                    Right. A good car, but after 2011 (when the ISS was completed), there were no longer any tasks and costs corresponding to its capabilities. Plus, the natural wear and tear of structures in use by the Shuttles.

                    And how much money wasted, just so that you could write that they drove crowds of people there, it is not clear why?

                    Why is it not clear why? All the astronauts who flew the Shuttles had tasks assigned to them. Someone repaired satellites, someone conducted scientific experiments in orbit, someone serviced the ISS. Everyone was in business. In addition, in addition to people, the Shuttles were simultaneously transporting cargo into orbit. "Unions" could not do this; they had to launch "Progress" separately.

                    Experts say that the control of the Mask rockets after each mission will kill any savings, but no one hears them.

                    "Specialists" not so long ago argued that Musk would not be able to return and re-launch his missiles, then - that it would not be possible to make a manned spacecraft, etc. "Specialists" are sometimes such "specialists."

                    What shuttles, what Mask shows - promotions that cover the wild cut of the budget.

                    You can take it as you like, only the Shuttles and the Spacecraft Mask (rockets and spaceships) successfully complete the tasks assigned to them.

                    Who cares how many people died ... "Women still give birth ..." (C)

                    A lesson was learned from the Shuttle crashes - the new ships Orion, Dragon Crew and Starliner have rescue systems. Successfully tested recovery systems.

                    Like there is another classic:

                    Instead of quotes from classics, it would be better to understand at least a little bit in the topic.
                2. Alexander Poploukhin
                  Alexander Poploukhin
                  +1
                  16 May 2020 22: 23
                  Orion was originally built as a lunar ship, flying it on the ISS is very expensive.
                  1. Cyril
                    Cyril
                    -1
                    16 May 2020 22: 29
                    At first they wanted to make it universal (both for the ISS and for the Moon with Mars), then (yes, due to the high cost) they decided to specialize only for lunar and Martian missions. And for the ISS, develop others.
              2. radiootdel4
                radiootdel4
                +1
                19 May 2020 17: 24
                To your question, boriz

                How many people have killed the Soyuz during the shuttle flights? The Americans simply would not have found the crazy people to fly them any further.

                I answer - by August 2011 on the Shuttles of the dead 14 people (two shuttles) versus 4 on Soviet ships (2 Union). And what is noteworthy, the two disasters of the Soyuz, which led to the death of the crews, occurred at the dawn of the operation of this type of ship, or rather, during the first four years of its flights (the last in 1971). After this, by August 2011 there was not a single failure at the Soyuz that would jeopardize the life or health of the crew.
                But Columbia, died already during the “maturity” of the Space Shuttle program, when years of experience in ensuring the safety of shuttles would seem to have eliminated this kind of catastrophe.
                And what I want to pay attention to is the existence of an effective emergency rescue system at the Unions, which was proved by the incidents of carrier accidents in 1975 (Soyuz-18-1), 1983 (Soyuz T-10-1) and 2018 (Soyuz MS-10), where these rescue equipment saved the life of the astronauts in seemingly hopeless situations.
                The Space Shuttle program could not boast of this, because CAC is not there.

                I agree with the rest ..
        2. Nik2712
          Nik2712
          +1
          17 May 2020 11: 04
          Colombia ”crashed while returning from its 28th space voyage on February 1, 2003, upon entering the Earth’s atmosphere before landing.
          The ninth trip was marked by a record number of crew of 8 people. The tenth launch - January 28, 1986 was the last for the shuttle. The explosion of the external fuel tank at the 73rd second of the flight, led to the destruction of the shuttle and the death of all 7 crew members.
          1. Cyril
            Cyril
            -1
            17 May 2020 11: 43
            I know all this. AND?
            1. Nik2712
              Nik2712
              +2
              17 May 2020 12: 01
              During 30 years of operation, five Shuttles made 135 flights. 14 astronauts did not return from flight. Statistics do not scare ??
  2. 123
    123
    +2
    15 May 2020 16: 45
    We want to conclude a barter agreement. The plan is for the Russian cosmonauts to fly on American ships, and our astronauts will fly on Soyuz ships ... Thus, we will link the two space programs together. This will allow in case of problems of one of the parties with the manned spacecraft to successfully continue work on the ISS

    As for me, firstly, this is an attempt to lay straws in advance. feel Or do the Unions have any problems on the horizon?
    Secondly, an attempt to provide Dragon with a "payload", the ship is designed for 7 people, it is ineffective to drive "empty", and sending 7 people at once is costly. Yes
    1. monman
      monman
      -3
      15 May 2020 19: 43
      ... the ship is designed for 7 people, it is ineffective to drive "empty" ..

      Belts on chairs are used for astronauts or to hold bags of potatoes / seeds / canned goods ...
      In May 2 astronauts fly, the remaining seats will be filled with cargo (or instead of seats). NASA has already submitted an application for an astronaut’s flight in the fall on a Russian rocket and paid a couple of mil. $$ more, because Russia wanted to deliver a load instead of the 3rd seat.
      1. 123
        123
        +4
        15 May 2020 19: 48
        ... the ship is designed for 7 people, it is ineffective to drive "empty" .. "
        Belts on chairs are used for astronauts or to hold bags of potatoes / seeds / canned goods ...

        So they are going to plant potatoes or sell seeds?
        The ship is larger, respectively, heavy, shipping is more expensive. In most cases, the payload is redundant. On the ISS, you don’t need so much unless you fly less often.
    2. Cyril
      Cyril
      0
      16 May 2020 18: 36
      As for me, firstly, this is an attempt to lay straws in advance.

      Partly true. Until the Dragons have reached the necessary number of launches to be sure of their reliability, the Americans need a backup capability to get their astronauts into orbit.

      Or do the Unions have any problems on the horizon?

      Yes, obsolescence problem. This is certainly a good ship, but you will not fly on it endlessly.

      Quote: 123
      Secondly, an attempt to provide Dragon with a "payload", the ship is designed for 7 people, it is ineffective to drive "empty", and sending 7 people at once is costly.

      Instead of 3-4 people there, you can also transport payloads.
      1. 123
        123
        +2
        16 May 2020 18: 43
        Yes, obsolescence problem. This is certainly a good ship, but you will not fly on it endlessly.

        And is someone always going to fly on it? While coping, the equipment is reliable, proven, it will fly, but for now you can safely work on the next generation.

        Instead of 3-4 people there, you can also transport payloads.

        Is there a need for this?
        1. Cyril
          Cyril
          -1
          16 May 2020 19: 44
          Is there a need for this?

          Of course. You can reduce the number of cargo missions, they also cost money.
          1. 123
            123
            +2
            16 May 2020 21: 07
            Of course. You can reduce the number of cargo missions, they also cost money.

            You are absolutely right in one thing, they also cost money. And how do you think this reduction in cargo missions should go? Put Unions on a joke?
            Oh yeah. Yes Roscosmos will gladly refuse to launch, because you can just pay the Americans, they are great guys with a smile of 42 teeth, because they have such new, fashionable and shiny ships. laughing Why are these old-fashioned Unions needed? request Do you imagine that? belay
            Moreover, given the recent redistribution of the space launch market and the level of cooperation in the lunar program. sad
            In my opinion, you are an incorrigible romantic. feel
            1. Cyril
              Cyril
              +1
              16 May 2020 21: 16
              And how do you think this reduction in cargo missions should go? Put Unions on a joke?

              Unions do not deliver goods at all (more precisely, they do deliver, but a small amount). If you meant Progress, then I was not talking about them - I was talking about the launches of cargo Dragons and Signuses.

              What is more important, the reusable Dragon is capable not only of delivering cargo into orbit, but also of delivering it from orbit. Only 100 kg can be returned in a Soyuz capsule.
              1. 123
                123
                +2
                16 May 2020 21: 53
                Unions do not deliver goods at all (more precisely, they do deliver, but a small amount). If you meant Progress, then I was not talking about them - I was talking about the launches of cargo Dragons and Signuses.

                The people who created the Dragon should have thought about its exploitation.
                For the ISS, it is redundant, and the lunar base is not yet visible in orbit. With the synchronization of the development of programs, some problems, it's about the foresight of industry leaders.

                What is more important, the reusable Dragon is capable not only of delivering cargo into orbit, but also of delivering it from orbit. Only 100 kg can be returned in a Soyuz capsule.

                And what are you planning to carry from orbit? Is there production there?
                1. Cyril
                  Cyril
                  0
                  16 May 2020 22: 02
                  The people who created the Dragon should have thought about its exploitation.

                  So they thought. Once the Dragon Crew spacecraft are commissioned, SpaceX and NASA will no longer use the first (cargo) version of the Dragon. Cargo will now be delivered either in combination with a crew or in pure cargo launches without pilots. Due to the fact that some of the cargo can be sent in a manned launch, the number of purely cargo launches can be reduced. Well, or transport more cargo to the ISS, if need be.

                  So everything is fine with foresight.

                  And what are you planning to carry from orbit? Is there production there?

                  Since 2010, the ship has been launched 22 times; in total, about 43 tons of payload was delivered to the station by Dragon ships and about 33 tons were returned to Earth

                  That is, if we divide the total mass of cargo delivered by the Dragons from the ISS (33 tons) by the number of launches (22), then, on average, each Dragon returned one and a half tons of cargo to Earth. That is, there is something to return.
                  1. 123
                    123
                    +3
                    16 May 2020 22: 25
                    So they thought. Once the Dragon Crew spacecraft are commissioned, SpaceX and NASA will no longer use the first (cargo) version of the Dragon. Cargo will now be delivered either in combination with a crew or in pure cargo launches without pilots. Due to the fact that part of the cargo can be sent in a manned launch. the number of purely cargo launches can be reduced. Well, or transport more cargo to the ISS, if necessary.
                    So everything is fine with foresight.

                    Well, good luck with their work. Yes It remains only to provide the ship with a commercial load and ensure uninterrupted operation. Opportunities for delivering cargo into orbit have increased; I do not see an increase in needs.
                    The cooperation seems to be beneficial for them, it is far from a fact.
                    Try to find the answer to the question. Why not organize such cooperation in the market of commercial launches?

                    That is, if we divide the total mass of cargo delivered by the Dragons from the ISS (33 tons) by the number of launches (22), then, on average, each Dragon returned one and a half tons of cargo to Earth. That is, there is something to return.

                    They still return less than they send. If there is anything to return, let them carry it; I am only happy for them. We can handle it somehow.
                    1. Cyril
                      Cyril
                      +1
                      16 May 2020 22: 45
                      It remains only to provide the ship with a commercial load and ensure uninterrupted operation

                      The ISS is not a commercial, but a government project.

                      Opportunities for delivering cargo into orbit have increased; I do not see an increase in needs.

                      Firstly, you are not an expert. You may not see the needs, but they may be.
                      Secondly, with the advent of more load-bearing media, needs can also grow.

                      The cooperation seems to be beneficial for them, it is far from a fact.

                      Beneficial in the same way as it is for them. In particular, at least for the use of their technical developments in the design of their "Federation".

                      Why not organize such cooperation in the market of commercial launches?

                      First, there are examples of cooperation in the commercial launch market as well. For example, the Sea Launch project was precisely the commercial cooperation of American companies with Roscosmos. Second, commercial launches and government programs are different things. The main goal of commercial launches is to make a profit (which implies competition for clients), the main goal of government programs is to carry out scientific missions.

                      They still return less than they send.

                      Nevertheless, they also return a lot.

                      we ourselves will somehow manage.

                      Until we have our own returnable truck or manned ship with the possibility of returning large volumes of cargo - no, we will not cope. However, this is partly true - Russia conducts less experiments and research on the ISS, so we need to return less. But we are not talking about Russia, but about whether the Americans themselves need such a carrying capacity of the Cru Dragon. As shown by the above figures, it is quite necessary.
                      1. 123
                        123
                        +3
                        16 May 2020 23: 26
                        The ISS is not a commercial, but a government project.

                        Are you trying to cling to the wording again? laughing Let it be state. Yes What does it change? Let it be:

                        It remains only to provide the ship with a useful load and ensure uninterrupted operation

                        That's better? Without the word commercial, the essence of the matter has changed radically? Everything remains the same. You can carry more, but the needs remained the same.

                        Firstly, you are not an expert. You may not see the needs, but they may be.
                        Secondly, with the advent of more load-bearing media, needs can also grow.

                        Quite fair. Yes Only you are not a specialist, and there may not be any needs, and they may not grow. request Besides, I said "I don't see any needs," if you see, show me. Yes In my opinion, you just bicker pointlessly, except stubbornness, I see nothing here.

                        Beneficial in the same way as it is for them. In particular, at least for the use of their technical developments in the design of their "Federation".

                        You are joking? belay What are these developments? First of all, what developments can be used after the flight? Remember your example with Tu and Boeing? The pilot flew on a Boeing and then copied the design?
                        Secondly, not the fact that there is something worth copying.
                        Thirdly, they will cope with the Federation themselves, and then you will screech - ours can only copy.

                        First, there are examples of cooperation in the commercial launch market as well. For example, the Sea Launch project was precisely the commercial cooperation of American companies with Roscosmos.

                        Remarkably, there are precedents. Yes Why not organize such cooperation in the market of commercial launches now? We are waiting for offers from American partners. Yes

                        Secondly, commercial launches and government programs are two different things. The main goal of commercial launches is to make a profit (which implies competition for customers), the main goal of government programs is to carry out scientific missions.

                        Really? belay Well, let businessmen go about their business and do not meddle in government affairs. Or when sending to the ISS Mask the financial side of things ceases to interest?
                        The situation when the same person takes your bread with your left hand, holds out the right one with a smile for cooperation. This, at a minimum, should raise some suspicions. But you, as I said, are incorrigible romantic.

                        Nevertheless, they also return a lot.

                        Well, let them return. Build it up and let them play in and out. Do we have an additional need to return cargo from orbit? If yes, voice it and discuss.
                        It is at least stupid to agree to cooperation on the basis of the "suddenly needed in the future" calculations.

                        While we don’t have our own returning truck or manned spacecraft with the possibility of returning large volumes of cargo, we won’t cope. However, this is partly true - Russia conducts fewer experiments and studies on the ISS, so we need to return less.

                        You see, they themselves answered the question. Yes

                        But we are not talking about Russia, but about whether the Americans themselves need such a cargo capacity of the Cru Dragon. As shown by the above figures, it is quite necessary.

                        You are talking about the American need, I say that we do not have such a need. But you traditionally do not hear the interlocutor. request
                        Do they have a need? Let them fly, send, return. I have nothing against it.
                        I don’t see a need in Russia.
                        As before, nothing intelligible except "how cool it would be to fly on their beautiful ship and learn its design". request
                      2. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        17 May 2020 01: 12
                        Are you trying to cling to the wording again? laughing Let it be public. What does it change?

                        Of course I cling. Because there is a cardinal difference between commercial launches and state launches. Commerce is focused on making a profit, state-owned (mainly) on fulfilling goals, even if it means losses.

                        You can carry more, but the needs remained the same.

                        Who said they stayed the same?

                        Only you are not a specialist, and there may not be any needs, and they may not grow.

                        True, I'm not an expert either. But NASA and SpaceX have specialists. "Cru Dragon" was created according to a specific technical assignment, the development of which takes into account these needs.

                        In my opinion, you just bicker pointlessly, except stubbornness, I see nothing here.

                        I bicker really really pointless, but because of just your stubbornness, not mine.

                        You are joking? belay

                        No.

                        What are these developments?

                        Design.

                        First of all, what developments can be used after the flight? Remember your example with Tu and Boeing? The pilot flew on a Boeing and then copied the design?

                        Do you know what the profession "test pilot" or "test cosmonaut" means? Let me explain. He "runs in" the aircraft (space), and then consults the designers, who, on the basis of his advice, make the necessary changes to the design of the aircraft.

                        In the case under consideration, the Russian cosmonaut, having familiarized himself with the technical features of the Dragon, can then advise the designers of the Federation or the Soyuz, which developments of the Americans to use in the design of our ships. The opposite situation may also be true - having familiarized himself with Dragon, our cosmonaut can advise which of his design decisions should be avoided.

                        I will illustrate with a specific example. Until recently, Russian civil and military aviation used a steering wheel or central control stick (which is placed between the legs). After Russian pilots gained access to Western aircraft equipped with more comfortable and ergonomic side sticks (side sticks), this solution began to be used in our country.

                        Actually, it is full of examples when both Western pilots and designers adopted Russian technical solutions. This is called the exchange of experience.

                        not the fact that there is something worth copying.

                        But you can only find out after flying on this ship.

                        Thirdly, they will cope with the Federation themselves, but you will scream your sweats - ours can only copy.

                        I never "squealed" that ours can only copy. This time. Secondly, I see nothing wrong with copying someone else's good decision. Why reinvent the wheel when you already have one?

                        Why not organize such cooperation in the market of commercial launches now?

                        Because the choice between competition and cooperation is determined by what is profitable. If nothing is offered now, it means that they do not see the benefit. In addition, there is such cooperation, in fact, the purchase of Russian engines by Yula for its missiles.

                        Well, let businessmen go about their business and do not meddle in government affairs.

                        It’s NASA with commercial companies that somehow will decide without you who and where to climb.

                        Or when sending to the ISS Mask the financial side of things ceases to interest?

                        Not the Musk, but NASA is working with us on the ISS. And between Roscosmos and NASA there is no competition for the ISS.

                        The situation when the same person takes your bread with your left hand, holds out the right one with a smile for cooperation.

                        Again. On the ISS, NASA works with Roscosmos, not Musk. And in this program, NASA does not compete with Russia.

                        But you, as I said, are incorrigible romantic.

                        On the contrary, a realist. Unlike you, I understand perfectly well that competitors in one situation can cooperate quite successfully in another. But to unambiguously dismiss the proposed opportunity to cooperate only on the basis of the fact that in some other situation there was competition is really unfounded idealism and "black and white" thinking.
                        The USSR and the USA were on the brink of a nuclear war several times, but this did not prevent both countries from implementing the joint Soyuz-Apollo program.

                        We have an additional need for the return of goods from orbit? If yes, voice and discuss.

                        Firstly, it was initially not about Russia at all. Let me remind you how it all began:

                        Are you:

                        Secondly, an attempt to provide Dragon with a "payload", the ship is designed for 7 people, it is ineffective to drive "empty", and sending 7 people at once is costly. yes

                        To which they answered:

                        In May 2 astronauts fly, the remaining seats will be filled with cargo (or instead of seats).

                        Again you:

                        In most cases, the payload is redundant. On the ISS, you don’t need so much unless you fly less often.

                        Then I told you that the increased payload of the Dragon allows both to reduce the number of purely cargo missions, and to return a lot of cargo from the station to Earth. I spoke specifically about the Americans, I did not touch on Russia at all on this issue. And only then you (it was you) inserted a remark about staging "Unions" for fun. And now you say that, they say, "we don't need such opportunities." Typical substitution of theses.

                        It is at least silly to agree to cooperation on the basis of calculations "it will be necessary in the future"

                        Just not stupid. The situation is changing. For example, Roskosmos plans to launch an additional scientific module "Science" to the ISS. Accordingly, the number of results of Russian experiments in orbit will increase. They are planning to return them to the Federation. But it is not ready yet, and it is not a fact that it will be ready on time or at all. How then to return?
                        Situations happen different, no one is safe from them. And to have a backup opportunity for the future is just right.

                        But, I repeat once again, in the discussion of the Dragon's carrying capacity, the issue of Russia did not touch at all.

                        You see, they themselves answered the question.

                        Didn't really answer. I do not know exactly what the need for Roscosmos for the delivery of cargo from orbit. It is quite possible that some of the Russian cargoes are being returned by the cargo "Dragon".

                        You are talking about the American need, I say that we do not have such a need. But you traditionally do not hear the interlocutor

                        You yourself came up with this argument, saying that the Americans are offering barter in order to "load" the capacities of the new Dragon with Russian tasks. NASA hasn't said anything about this. You were objected (and proved) that even without barter, the Americans have something to spend on purely their own tasks. But you continue to talk about the fact that "we don't need this." It’s just you don’t hear what you are told.

                        I still don’t hear anything intelligible except “how cool it would be to fly on their beautiful ship and learn its design”.

                        Which once again proves that just you and not me are not able to hear the interlocutor.
                      3. isofat
                        isofat
                        +1
                        17 May 2020 01: 38
                        CyrilWho makes you pray in the USA? Take care of your forehead. smile
                      4. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        17 May 2020 01: 52
                        who makes you pray in the USA?

                        I do not pray in the USA.

                        Take care of your forehead.

                        Your? What for? Under it is a solid bone.
                      5. isofat
                        isofat
                        0
                        17 May 2020 01: 56
                        Cyril What? Can you write a more comment? I do not believe. smile
                      6. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        17 May 2020 02: 31
                        What? Can you write a more comment?

                        Why, since you cannot even master this?

                        I do not believe

                        So this is your problem, not mine.
                      7. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        17 May 2020 08: 09
                        Of course I cling. Because there is a cardinal difference between commercial launches and state launches. Commerce is focused on making a profit, state-owned (mainly) on fulfilling goals, even if it means losses.

                        The Mask company is private, profit is all that interests him.

                        Who said they stayed the same?

                        I said. I’ll explain now.

                        True, I'm not an expert either. But NASA and SpaceX have specialists. "Cru Dragon" was created according to a specific technical assignment, the development of which takes into account these needs.

                        Oh yeah, Yes this is your blind faith in the infallibility of the Mask and his colleagues, I'm sorry, I almost forgot about it. winked Let me tell you a little about the balance of opportunities and needs.
                        Exactly ten days later, a manned launch will take place, in any case, I hope everything goes well, Mr. Trump will puff out his cheeks and tweet about the achievements of the great and exceptional American nation. All of America will applaud and rejoice at getting rid of this gas station addiction. And the whole world will giggle, the allies quietly behind their backs, the rest just in the face. Fireworks will die off, confetti will settle and champagne will stop flowing like a river, the time will come to exploit the "beauty and pride" of the nation, the wonderful Dragon. In general, working days will begin.
                        For a long time, the ISS cost delivery to the Unions in order not to delve into the calculations, we simplify everything to a primitive extreme, take the Union capacity - 3 people. The US share is 1,5 (do not find fault with the numbers, this is all very approximate). Dragon's capacity is 7 people, therefore, the possibility of delivery increased by 5 times. This means that in one flight you can deliver five times more people or cargo, or make flights 5 times less. But the question is, is this necessary?
                        You see, the ISS does not have the ability to increase in volume, it is not designed for a larger number of people and cargo and simply does not physically accommodate them, unless the Americans set up a campground on its outer skin. There is another option to send the ship 5 times less often, say, not once every six months, but once every 2,5 years. Surely astronauts will like this prospect. For a complete triumph, the commissioning of Starliner is not enough, these are 7 more people, and it will be possible to fly once every 5 years.
                        To better understand the loading efficiency, so to speak, the scale of the change, imagine the Nord Stream, 10% full or Gazelle with one driver without passengers. Evaluated the prospect?
                        In order to somehow rectify the situation, a proposal was received for the use of two ships, Dragon and the Union.
                        Roscosmos faces the prospect of losing half of the load, and if the Americans accept the "barter" offer, the launch of the Unions will decrease by 4 times. In fact, this is a program stop. I do not see any sane reason to go for it.
                        Consequently, American partners will be expressed admiration for the achievements and the desire to enjoy the result in splendid isolation.

                        Not the Musk, but NASA is working with us on the ISS. And between Roscosmos and NASA there is no competition for the ISS.

                        Do you think this changes things? The rocket and ship Mask, but the stupid Rogozin will not understand this? And it's not just the Mask. Roscosmos has just gotten rid of the commercial launches, and not quite in a gentlemanly way (at least Rogozin is sure of this), squeezed out of the Lunar program and now with innocent eyes they offer to understand, get into position and support partners by reducing the load on their company.
                        A good option can be considered only by a naive boy who is blindly in love with American demigods.

                        You yourself came up with this argument, saying that the Americans are proposing barter in order to "load" the capacity of the new Dragon with Russian tasks. NASA hasn't said anything about this. You were objected (and proved), that and without barter these Americans have power to spend on purely their tasks... But you continue to talk about the fact that "we don't need this." It’s just you don’t hear what they tell you.

                        Really? belay Am I missing something? Where is this evidence?
                      8. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        17 May 2020 10: 06
                        The mask company is private, profit is all that interests him

                        First, no, not all. Otherwise I would not have developed such a risky project as Starship.
                        Secondly, Musk does not interact with Roskosmos. NASA interacts with Roscosmos. And between NASA and Roscosmos there is practically no competition now.

                        this is your blind faith in the infallibility of the Mask and his colleagues, I'm sorry, I almost forgot about it.

                        Again ascribing to me some conjectures and "faith".

                        You see, the ISS does not have the ability to increase in volume, it is not designed for a larger number of people and cargo and simply does not physically accommodate them, unless the Americans set up a campground on its outer skin.

                        Here is another example of the fact that you absolutely do not understand what you are talking about))

                        Estimate - yes, you can place equipment (scientific, auxiliary, etc.) not only inside the station, but also on it. On space trucks, scientific devices are constantly sent to the ISS, which are installed at the station, and not INSIDE it. Also at the station docking adapters and a bunch of other mechanisms, components and assemblies are installed. This is the time.

                        Secondly, the equipment at the station is constantly being replaced. Often, scientific equipment is brought in as part of one mission and returned to Earth as part of the next.

                        Thirdly, constant replacement and replenishment is required: computers and accessories, spacesuits for crews, food, tools, consumables, household supplies, household supplies, etc.

                        Roscosmos faces the prospect of losing half of the load, and if the Americans accept the "barter" offer, the launch of the Unions will decrease by 4 times. In fact, this is a program stop. I do not see any sane reason to go for it.

                        Soyuz launches will be cut in any case - whether our cosmonauts fly by barter or not. Because some of the Soyuz launches are being made precisely because they are ordered by NASA to deliver their astronauts. If NASA starts flying its own ships, then regardless of whether there will be "swapping" of places on ships or each country will fly only on its own, Soyuz launches will be reduced.

                        Do you think this changes things? The rocket and ship Mask, but the stupid Rogozin will not understand this?

                        It changes. In the ISS program, the interaction is between Roscosmos and NASA, and not between Roscosmos and Mask. Musk in this case is a simple contractor who fulfills the order of NASA. NASA determines the number of launches for its part of the ISS program, and is guided by the achievement of the goal, not profit.

                        Musk interacts with Roskosmos in the field of commercial launches. This is a completely different area where other principles apply.

                        Roscosmos has just got rid of commercial launches, and not quite in a gentlemanly way (at least Rogozin is sure of this)

                        Well, these are his problems, of which he is sure. Roscosmos is not to blame for the fact that he is engaged in commercial launches and therefore is forced to participate in commercial competition. In the USA, NASA is engaged exclusively in scientific government programs, private entrepreneurs are engaged in commercial launches. In Russia, Roskosmos does everything. Therefore, Roscosmos does not compete in scientific programs with NASA; in commercial launches, it competes with private American companies. What I was talking about.

                        ... and support partners by reducing the load on their company.

                        Once again, the number of Soyuz launches will decrease after the Dragon and Starliner are commissioned in any case, regardless of whether the countries of the country exchange astronauts or not. Barter does not affect the number of launches of "Unions" at all. Absolutely nothing.

                        A good option can be considered only by a naive boy who is blindly in love with American demigods.

                        That is, Rogozin and the rest of the leadership of Roscosmos - boys who are naive and blindly in love with American gods, since they are quite benevolent (I quoted a quote) regarding the idea of ​​barter?

                        Truth? Am I missing something? Where is this evidence?

                        I gave you statistics on the cargo that I took to the ISS and returned from it the Dragon. Specific figures, specific facts. Forgot?
                      9. 123
                        123
                        +4
                        17 May 2020 11: 45
                        First, no, not all. Otherwise I would not have developed such a risky project as Starship.
                        Secondly, Musk does not interact with Roskosmos. NASA interacts with Roscosmos. And between NASA and Roscosmos there is practically no competition now.

                        Drop the bustle. Does he develop the Starship within the framework of fundamental science? Not intended for commercial use?
                        Well, of course, Musk doesn't interact, he just provides ships and a rocket. Are you seriously? Presumably, the money for them is not suitable for him either, and he is not at all interested in this.

                        Here is another example of the fact that you absolutely do not understand what you are talking about))
                        Estimate - yes, you can place equipment (scientific, auxiliary, etc.) not only inside the station, but also on it. On space trucks, scientific devices are constantly sent to the ISS, which are installed at the station, and not INSIDE it. Also at the station docking adapters and a bunch of other mechanisms, components and assemblies are installed. This is the time.
                        Secondly, the equipment at the station is constantly being replaced. Often, scientific equipment is brought in as part of one mission and returned to Earth as part of the next.
                        Thirdly, constant replacement and replenishment is required: computers and accessories, spacesuits for crews, food, tools, consumables, household supplies, household supplies, etc.

                        You pretended not to notice a decent amount of text? Or are we skipping an inconvenient statement of the question, pretending that it is not essential?
                        With the launch of new ships, NASA’s ability to deliver people and cargo expands by about 10 times (this is pretty approximate). Let the equipment be shoved into their pockets and sleep in turns, the capacities are extremely excessive and will not be in demand.

                        Soyuz launches will be cut in any case - whether our cosmonauts fly by barter or not. Because some of the Soyuz launches are being made precisely because they are ordered by NASA to deliver their astronauts. If NASA starts flying its own ships, then regardless of whether there will be "swapping" of places on ships or each country will fly only on its own, Soyuz launches will be reduced.

                        That’s what I told you, 4 launches occur annually, they plan 2020 for 2. Next, there’s simply nowhere to cut. We must cope ourselves, and let the partners solve their own problems.

                        Russia will send only two manned Soyuz spacecraft to the International Space Station in 2020, in contrast to four launches in previous years, it follows from the materials at the disposal of RIA Novosti of one of the state corporation's enterprises - the insurance broker RK-Insurance.
                        Since 2009, Russia has annually sent four Soyuz spacecraft with crews to the station. The number of launches will be reduced, since from 2020 American ships should begin to fly to the ISS.

                        https://ria.ru/20191001/1559298826.html

                        It changes. In the ISS program, the interaction is between Roscosmos and NASA, and not between Roscosmos and Mask. Musk in this case is a simple contractor who fulfills the order of NASA. NASA determines the number of launches for its part of the ISS program, and is guided by the achievement of the goal, not profit.

                        It makes no difference who the management is there and who the contractor is, Rogozin needs to save his program, not feed the Mask.

                        Well, these are his problems, of which he is sure. Roscosmos is not to blame for the fact that he is engaged in commercial launches and therefore is forced to participate in commercial competition. In the USA, NASA is engaged exclusively in scientific government programs, private entrepreneurs are engaged in commercial launches. In Russia, Roskosmos does everything. Therefore, Roscosmos does not compete in scientific programs with NASA; in commercial launches, it competes with private American companies. What I was talking about.

                        Well then, these are the problems of the Americans, they built up useless ships, now let them think for themselves where to put them.

                        That is, Rogozin and the rest of the leadership of Roscosmos - boys who are naive and blindly in love with American gods, since they are quite benevolent (I quoted a quote) regarding the idea of ​​barter?

                        "Quite benevolently" - this is your value judgment, maybe he "was forced to strain through his teeth." The usual polite neutral answer.

                        I gave you statistics on the cargo that I took to the ISS and returned from it the Dragon. Specific figures, specific facts. Forgot?

                        Yes, they did, only they missed the ears about increasing the ability to deliver goods 10 times.
                      10. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        0
                        17 May 2020 12: 50
                        Does he develop the Starship within the framework of fundamental science? Not intended for commercial use?

                        In the commercial plan, this project is very risky - no one knows for sure whether there will be a suitable load for a ship with a carrying capacity of 100 tons. If Musk was only concerned about making money, he would not have taken up this project.

                        Well, of course, Musk doesn't interact, he just provides ships and a rocket. Are you seriously? We must assume that the money for them is also not suitable for him, and he is not at all interested in this.

                        Does he offer them to Roskosmos? No. He offers them to NASA. And NASA is already deciding who to run on them.

                        Understand one simple thing - Musk is not fighting Roscosmos for NASA launches. The United States, represented by NASA, needs its own spacecraft, they would develop it, even if Roskosmos did not exist at all. This is not a market. NASA does not choose which of the ships it will then send astronauts on - it will send them on Dragon anyway.

                        You pretended not to notice a decent amount of text? Or are we skipping an inconvenient statement of the question, pretending that it is not essential?

                        I noticed and missed, because this sheet is meaningless. I focused on the bottom line that you brought up - that the ISS is not rubber. And he answered.

                        With the launch of new ships, NASA's ability to deliver people and cargo expands by about 10 times (which is pretty approximate).

                        Okay, let's use the contradictory method.

                        Let's say there is no need for such an increase in capacity. The question then arises - why did NASA, in addition to the manned Dragon and Starliner launches, also order purely cargo launches of the Cru Dragon?

                        That's what I told you, 4 launches occur annually, 2020 are planned for 2.

                        That's just barter does not affect it.

                        Rogozin needs to save his program, and not to feed the Mask.

                        It seems that you are still not aware of the definition of the word "barter". Otherwise, it's not clear what kind of "feeding the Mask" you are talking about.

                        Again. SpaceX is being bought by NASA, not Roskosmos, in Dragons. When bartering, NASA and Roscosmos exchange places on their ships. Roscosmos does not pay for this - accordingly, no money from it falls to Mask. Not a penny.

                        Well then, these are the problems of the Americans, they built up useless ships, now let them think for themselves where to put them.

                        Twenty five again. I chew again. The barter exchange of astronauts and astronauts does not affect the workload of American spacecraft at all.

                        "Quite benevolently" - this is your value judgment, maybe he "was forced to strain through his teeth."

                        Rogozin agreed with the barter exchange of seats on ships. This is not a "neutral answer". This is consent. And consent is just "quite benevolent". If they didn't want to barter, they would refuse.

                        Yes, they cited, only words about increasing the ability to deliver goods 10 times missed the ears.

                        So what? The shuttle could throw 1 people (8 times more than Dragon) and 2 tons (24 times more than Dragon) of cargo into the ISS or in orbit. And for the entire time the ISS has existed, dozens of flights have flown. And somehow his capabilities were somehow redundant.
                      11. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        17 May 2020 13: 24
                        In the commercial plan, this project is very risky - no one knows for sure whether there will be a suitable load for a ship with a carrying capacity of 100 tons. If Musk was only concerned about making money, he would not have taken up this project.

                        Maybe stop making an altruist out of him? I do not know what he is concerned about there, but when a private company develops new products, it implies commercial use. Car manufacturers launching a new model are also at risk, suddenly they will not take root in the market, but in general they may not go into series. The usual bourgeois. Yes Invested, developed, produced, sold, earned. Not sold, then not earned. Total and business. You can at least pray for it, only preferably at home, do not impose your selfless love on people.

                        Does he offer them to Roskosmos? No. He offers them to NASA. And NASA is already deciding who to run on them.

                        Are you stupid again? These are your petty nitpicking and attempts to unscrew the order fed up. Taldychit the same thing 5-6 times frivolously. Or are you completely far from the economy?
                        Everything is extremely simple. Two rockets claim to be launched to the ISS. If the first one flies, then the second one does not fly. The first producer will make a profit, the second producer will not receive it. This is the competition.

                        Understand one simple thing - Musk is not fighting Roscosmos for NASA launches. The United States, represented by NASA, needs its own spacecraft, they would develop it, even if Roskosmos did not exist at all. This is not a market. NASA does not choose which of the ships it will then send astronauts on - it will send them on Dragon anyway.

                        Honestly, I already lack patience. Do you think tight? I am talking about the competition of manufacturers.

                        It seems that you are still not aware of the definition of the word "barter". Otherwise, it's not clear what kind of "feeding the Mask" you are talking about.

                        I see that you do not understand quite a lot, more precisely, you "cast the anchor" and pretend that you do not understand.
                        I do not remember what time, the ninth or tenth, I repeat. If they fly on Russian missiles, Roscosmos will receive the money, if the Americans send it, the money will go to Mask as a producer. In my opinion, quite affordable and uncomplicated design. Or is it beyond your control?

                        Rogozin agreed with the barter exchange of seats on ships. This is not a "neutral answer". This is consent. And consent is just "quite benevolent". If they didn't want to barter, they would refuse.

                        Again a pointless argument?
                        You simply have no arguments and you stubbornly repeat the same thing.
                        I repeat, this is your interpretation and no more. Consent may be forced.

                        So what? The shuttle could throw 1 people (8 times more than Dragon) and 2 tons (24 times more than Dragon) of cargo into the ISS or in orbit. And for the entire time the ISS has existed, dozens of flights have flown. And somehow his capabilities were somehow redundant.

                        I don’t know about the orbit, there they had a separate program, what they did was their business. Expeditions to the ISS, where 8 cosmonauts were delivered immediately, I do not remember.
                        Let me remind you that their "limit" is two launches per year. The crew of the ISS is usually no more than 6 people, the recent record of 9 is an exception. Bottom line: Americans create 2 ships with a capacity of 7 people each. Do they plan to send them once a year? Or will they launch a regular flight? Spend the night home, in the morning into orbit?
                      12. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        17 May 2020 14: 15
                        Maybe stop making an altruist out of him?

                        And here is altruism? None of him makes an altruist.

                        but when a private company develops new products, commercial use is implied.

                        Starships are being developed for flights to Mars. This is their main task - hence such a carrying capacity. Do you see a commercial prospect for Mars missions for the foreseeable future?

                        To make money, he has a proven, reliable and uniquely commercially demanded Falcon-9.

                        Taldychit the same thing 5-6 times frivolously.

                        I absolutely agree, I'm tired of it too. It’s not my fault that you rested on a ram’s horn and again and again refuse to accept the obvious.

                        Or are you completely far from the economy?

                        Closer than you.

                        Two rockets claim to be launched to the ISS. If the first one flies, then the second one does not fly. The first producer will make a profit, the second producer will not receive it. This is the competition.

                        It would be a competition if NASA, as the customer of launches to the ISS, would freely choose between Russian ships / missiles and Maskesky.

                        But NASA doesn't choose. NASA is obliged to use Dragon to provide access to space for American astronauts independent of Russia. This is a requirement of the state, and NASA is obliged to comply with it. Even if Roskosmos offers a warp-powered super-ship for $ 1, NASA will still be obliged to use Dragon. Because he's American.

                        Honestly, I already lack patience. Do you think tight? I am talking about the competition of manufacturers.

                        There is no manufacturer competition. NASA will use Dragons even if Roscosmos offers a thousand times cooler and cheaper ship.

                        Again a pointless argument?

                        You do it like that, not me. On yourself and complain.

                        You simply have no arguments and you stubbornly repeat the same thing.

                        From what? I just have an argument - a direct quote from Rogozin, in which he confirms his consent to barter. There is no interpretation of mine here.

                        And this:

                        Consent may be forced.

                        - yes, interpretation. Or rather, your speculation, as the model verb "may" unambiguously hints at.

                        For some reason, when Roscosmos (and Rogozin in particular) did not like the terms of Russia's participation in the Lunar Station program, he bluntly gave the Americans a turn from the gate, and then suddenly "he was forced to agree."

                        Expeditions to the ISS, where 8 cosmonauts were delivered immediately, I do not remember.


                        Well let's see.

                        STS-133 - 6 people.
                        STS-134 - 6 people.
                        STS-132 - 6 people
                        STS-131 - 7 people
                        STS-130 - 6 people.

                        I went over the rest of the Shuttle missions to the ISS - most with crews of 6-7 people (maximum 7 people were able to fit the Shuttles).

                        Every year from 2 to 5 Shuttles were sent to the ISS. Considering the workload of the shuttles, it turns out that from 14 to 35 people were sent to the ISS per year.

                        Crew "Cru Dragon" - 4 people + cargo (for the same flight).

                        The crew of the "Starliner" - up to 7 people (due to the reduction of the crew, cargo can be delivered).

                        It is quite comparable to the Shuttle.

                        Bottom line: Americans create 2 ships with a capacity of 7 people each. Do they plan to send them once a year? Or will they launch a regular flight? Sleep home in the morning in orbit?

                        What for? They will launch as many people as needed, the rest of the free volume is used for the simultaneous delivery of goods.
                      13. Borisych1973
                        Borisych1973
                        0
                        19 May 2020 08: 31
                        I don’t see a need in Russia.

                        Eagle / Federation, so Russia does not need?
                      14. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        19 May 2020 09: 12
                        Eagle / Federation, so Russia does not need?

                        In the near future, no, while there are simply no tasks for him. This is a job for the future. Or can you justify the urgent need for it?
                      15. Borisych1973
                        Borisych1973
                        0
                        19 May 2020 21: 12
                        Or can you justify the urgent need for it?

                        In no case. For if there is no development, there is no need.
  3. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha
    +4
    15 May 2020 16: 55
    Well, no, gentlemen Merikana, we will fly on our own, it will be calmer and we will observe decency.
  4. Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev
    0
    15 May 2020 17: 21
    IMHO, Rogozin breaks down for a look, breaks down for a long time, and then he agrees.
  5. Cyril
    Cyril
    -3
    15 May 2020 19: 53
    A good opportunity to get acquainted with new technology. At one time, Russian cosmonauts flew on Shuttles.
    1. Dear sofa expert.
      Dear sofa expert.
      +2
      16 May 2020 01: 31
      Thank God not at the last.
      1. Cyril
        Cyril
        -3
        16 May 2020 03: 17
        Why? The last shuttle flight in 2011 was successful.
        1. Dear sofa expert.
          Dear sofa expert.
          -1
          16 May 2020 03: 21
          Well, yes, Atlantis was still flying.
          1. Cyril
            Cyril
            -2
            16 May 2020 10: 19
            After the Columbia disaster, the Shuttles managed to fly more than 10 times. I don't remember exactly how long.
    2. 123
      123
      +1
      16 May 2020 18: 46
      A good opportunity to get acquainted with new technology. At one time, Russian cosmonauts flew on Shuttles.

      And what is there to get to know? what With the interior? We sat down, flew, looked along the road. Do you see a lot of new things there? winked
      1. Cyril
        Cyril
        -1
        16 May 2020 19: 46
        The specialist, of course, will see a lot, even just having been inside. Plus, before flying on their ships, our astronauts will undergo training, which again implies obtaining technical information.
        1. 123
          123
          +2
          16 May 2020 21: 14
          The specialist, of course, will see a lot, even just having been inside. Plus, before flying on their ships, our astronauts will undergo training, which again implies obtaining technical information.

          $ 80 million, or how much will it be there, not a little expensive for the tour? Oh yes, more training - Yes they will learn to sit in a chair, go in, go out, maybe press buttons. winked What technical information can they get and how to apply it?
          With such views on the world around me, I hope you will never become a leader.
          1. Cyril
            Cyril
            0
            16 May 2020 21: 30
            $ 80 million, or how much will it be there, not a little expensive for the tour?

            The article writes about barter. You do not know what it is?

            learn to sit in a chair, go in, go out, maybe push buttons

            Mdeeee ... Actually, the cosmonaut training course includes the study of technical features, on-board systems, spacecraft controls. Because using any vehicle without knowing its technical device is impossible. Even aircraft pilots take the necessary technical course. During a space flight, in case of emergency, you cannot call the after-sales service, and you will have to repair it yourself. Can you repair a spacecraft without knowing its technical device?

            We look at what is written on the website of the Russian Cosmonaut Training Center -

            http://www.gctc.ru/main.php?id=117

            Quote:

            At the third stage of preparation - as part of the crews, the astronauts develop stable skills for the implementation of the program for the upcoming space flight. In preparation are being studied specific features of PKA and its operation rules, flight program, airborne documentation.

            Cosmonaut training includes the following types:

            technical training on avionics systems and equipment;
            preparation of astronauts for scientific and applied research, experiments and applied work;
            comprehensive training for the crew of the PKA;
            preparation for extra-ship activity (ACV);
            biomedical training;
            preparation for actions during landing in extreme conditions of various climatogeographic zones;
            flight and special parachute training of astronauts;
            psychological preparation;
            humanitarian training.
            1. 123
              123
              +1
              16 May 2020 22: 03
              The article writes about barter. You do not know what it is?

              Still would. laughing In the 90s, when he arrived at the airport, he immediately recognized the northerners, they were in the same tracksuits received by barter winked (I'm talking about associations, if that, the essence of the definition, I know, do not bother with explanations). I am afraid that barter will not determine decision making. You need to think about loading your ships. Cooperation, if any, is to a very limited extent.

              Mdeeee ... Actually, the cosmonaut training course includes the study of technical features, on-board systems, spacecraft controls. Because using any vehicle without knowing its technical device is impossible. Even aircraft pilots take the necessary technical course. During a space flight, in case of emergency, you cannot call the after-sales service, and you will have to repair it yourself. Can you repair a spacecraft without knowing its technical device?

              Why do we need foreign ship control skills? Moreover, its repair? Do you think there is something fundamentally new in his device?
              A long list of the skills you cited may well be taught on your own. Or is American humanitarian training so important for Russian space?
              1. Cyril
                Cyril
                -1
                16 May 2020 22: 22
                Cooperation, if any, is to a very limited extent.

                Why suddenly? Many of our cosmonauts flew in American Shuttles.

                Why do we need foreign ship control skills? Moreover, its repair?

                Think it over to be able to manage and repair it. Because all kinds of situations can happen in space. For example, an American flight engineer may "fail" for any reason. Let me remind you that there are only 4 people in the carriage.

                Do you think there is something fundamentally new in his device?

                There are even fewer fundamental differences between the Tu-154 and the "Watermelon" A320. Nevertheless, the pilot who had previously piloted the "Carcass" must be retrained to fly the "Watermelon". And the differences between "Dragon" and "Union" are much, much more.
                At first, I also thought that when flying on someone else's spacecraft, the guest cosmonaut or astronaut is a passive passenger. To be convinced of this, I looked at the crews of the Russian Soyuz after 2011 - and this is what I saw:

                The crew of the mission Union M-09:

                Sergey Prokopiev (Russia) - Commander of the Soyuz MS TPK
                Alexander Gerst (Germany) - Flight Engineer 1 TPK Soyuz MS
                Serina Aunion-Chancellor (USA) - Flight Engineer 2 TPK Soyuz MS

                You do not need to explain what tasks the flight engineer faces and, accordingly, what competencies should he have?

                A long list of the skills you cited may well be taught on your own.

                Can not. To learn the skill of controlling someone else's spacecraft, you need to have access to it. That is why the American astronauts who are part of the crews of the Russian Soyuz undergo training at the Russian Training Center (along with training in Houston).

                Or is American humanitarian training so important for Russian space?

                I highlighted the key point in bold in the context of our discussion. Humanitarian preparation has nothing to do with the issue under consideration.
                1. 123
                  123
                  +2
                  16 May 2020 22: 52
                  Why suddenly? Many of our cosmonauts flew in American Shuttles.

                  At least with the fact that the United States systematically curbs cooperation in space. I do not see benefits for us. Conscience does not allow suspecting Americans of altruism.

                  Think it over to be able to manage and repair it. Because all kinds of situations can happen in space. For example, an American flight engineer may "fail" for any reason. Let me remind you that there are only 4 people in the carriage.

                  I figured it out. If you don’t fly on it, then you should not worry about the flight engineer.

                  There are even fewer fundamental differences between the Tu-154 and the "Watermelon" A320. Nevertheless, the pilot who had previously piloted the "Carcass" must be retrained to fly the "Watermelon". And the differences between "Dragon" and "Union" are much, much more.

                  So let their retrain.

                  You do not need to explain what tasks the flight engineer faces and, accordingly, what competencies should he have?

                  Do not. No. And by whom was Serine Aunion-Chancellor to be designated? Flight attendant? What do you think, what are the chances to participate in the management of the second flight engineer?

                  I highlighted the key point in bold in the context of our discussion. Humanitarian preparation has nothing to do with the issue under consideration.

                  A key point in our discussion is the desirability of sending our astronauts on American ships. So far, nothing has been heard - except how cool it would be to fly on a new ship and study in America;
                  What is the benefit for Russia?
                  1. Cyril
                    Cyril
                    -1
                    16 May 2020 23: 07
                    At least with the fact that the United States systematically curbs cooperation in space.

                    Under the ISS program do not collapse. Moreover, they offer cooperation on the future Lunar Station.

                    Conscience does not allow suspecting Americans of altruism.

                    And no one suspects them of altruism. By bartering on spacecraft, they provide themselves with another backup delivery system to the ISS. We - gain access to the American design experience.

                    If you don’t fly on it, then you should not worry about the flight engineer.

                    It was an answer to your objection that supposedly the invited astronauts or astronauts would not know anything about the alien ship. Once recognized, it means they have a deep understanding of the technical features of its design. Therefore, this information can be used in the development of their own ships.

                    So let their retrain.

                    The conversation was not about this, do not replace theses.

                    And by whom was Serine Aunion-Chancellor to be designated? Stewardess

                    Do you see a difference between a flight engineer and a flight attendant? Um ...

                    What do you think, what are the chances to participate in the management of the second flight engineer?

                    Whatever his chances are, he undergoes the same training - therefore, he has a deep understanding of the technical features of the ship.

                    What is the benefit for Russia?

                    In the completely legitimate adoption of the design experience of the country, which is one of the few space powers. And in the use of their advanced technologies already in their spaceships. No need to spend money on the purchase of samples, no need to take risks with industrial espionage, etc. etc.
                    1. 123
                      123
                      +3
                      16 May 2020 23: 39
                      Under the ISS program do not collapse. Moreover, they offer cooperation on the future Lunar Station.

                      According to the ISS, they have not yet collapsed, the contract has not yet ended. We have already discussed about cooperation on the Lunar Station; there is no cooperation there. Let's not stupid.

                      And no one suspects them of altruism. By bartering on spacecraft, they provide themselves with another backup delivery system to the ISS. We - gain access to the American design experience.

                      We do not get access to any design experience, and it is not needed.

                      The conversation was not about this, do not replace theses.

                      Am I substituting this? First, why did you decide that we are interested in their design experience? Secondly, to consider that if you ride on a car and look under the hood, then this will help you create an analog, outright stupidity.

                      Whatever his chances are, he undergoes the same training - therefore, he has a deep understanding of the technical features of the ship.

                      How much can you talk about the same thing? If the ship is not used, "a deep understanding of its technical features" is not required. I still don’t see the rationale for its use, except for "ride" and "learn the device". I'm tired of this pointless bickering.

                      In the completely legitimate adoption of the design experience of the country, which is one of the few space powers. And in the use of their advanced technologies already in their spaceships. No need to spend money on the purchase of samples, no need to take risks with industrial espionage, etc. etc.

                      Again? Tired of discussing the same nonsense. Yes
                      1. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        17 May 2020 02: 14
                        According to the ISS, they have not yet collapsed, the contract has not yet ended.

                        So the presence of this agreement and the fact that both parties strictly observe it are the example of positive cooperation between the two countries in space.

                        We have already discussed about cooperation on the Lunar Station; there is no cooperation there.

                        But the management of Roskosmos, which recently returned to discussing this project with NASA, disagrees with you.

                        Let's not stupid.

                        So don’t be stupid, I’m only for it.

                        We do not get access to any design experience

                        We gain access to study the design of this ship. And the design of this ship - this is the design experience.

                        Yes, he is not needed.

                        Well, you may not need it. Designers need it.

                        Am I substituting this?

                        Yes you.

                        First, why did you decide that we are interested in their design experience?

                        Because "Dragon" is an already developed, designed and tested reusable spacecraft of a new generation. Our analogue called "Federation" is still at the development stage.

                        Secondly, to consider that if you ride on a car and look under the hood, then this will help you create an analog, outright stupidity.

                        If you use this particular analogy, then it’s not necessary to look even under the hood to learn something useful and applicable in your developments from a trip by car. For example, you can appreciate the ergonomics and comfort of the seats, steering wheel, dashboard. And then he applied a similar solution in his car. And having looked under the hood of someone else's car, the specialist will find a lot of new and useful information for himself.

                        In the case of astronauts, the extent to which spacecraft is studied is much deeper than just "looking under the hood."

                        But to neglect such an opportunity is really stupid.

                        How much can you do about the same thing?

                        So I don’t know why you deny the obvious again and again.

                        If the ship is not used, "a deep understanding of its technical features" is not required.

                        A deep understanding of its technical features is extremely useful when developing your ship. Will we use our ship or not? Why do I have to explain such simple truths like an adult?

                        I still don’t see the rationale for its use, except for "ride" and "learn the device".

                        Well, these are your problems. It was patiently chewed and put into your mouth several times, but you could not even swallow it.

                        Again? Tired of discussing the same nonsense.

                        It’s not my fault that you deny the obvious again and again.
                      2. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        17 May 2020 08: 41
                        So the presence of this treaty and the fact that both parties strictly observe it - is an example of positive cooperation between the two countries in space

                        We also have 2 examples of lack of cooperation, the lunar program and commercial launches. The score 2: 1 is not in favor of the positive.

                        But the management of Roskosmos, which recently returned to discussing this project with NASA, disagrees with you.

                        We returned to the discussion, it is difficult to call it cooperation, but this may be the reason why they agree to "barter", apparently, they are bargaining.

                        Because "Dragon" is already a developed, designed and tested reusable spacecraft of a new generation. Our analogue called "Federation" is still at the development stage.

                        It is far from a fact that technical solutions from one ship will fit another. Besides, I never heard what exactly they can borrow there? This is no more than your conviction that Russian designers are spying on the Americans, but they themselves can’t do anything.

                        If you use this particular analogy, then it’s not necessary to look even under the hood to learn something useful and applicable in your developments from a trip by car. For example, you can appreciate the ergonomics and comfort of the seats, steering wheel, dashboard. And then he applied a similar solution in his car.

                        Are you seriously? belay I directly introduced Russian spies hunting for the design of American armchairs. laughing The main thing is that the color of the skin is not forgotten to copy. winked

                        A deep understanding of its technical features is extremely useful when developing your ship. Will we use our ship or not? Why do I have to explain such simple truths like an adult?

                        You have to explain because the truth is only in your imagination. To use your ship and have an idea of ​​the technical features of another, the advantage is rather controversial and not obvious.

                        Well, these are your problems. It was patiently chewed and put into your mouth several times, but you could not even swallow it.

                        Firstly, I'm not used to eating any nasty things. Secondly, I heard nothing but a "wonderful opportunity" to get an idea of ​​technical features such as seat design. Sorry, but this is not convincing to me.

                        It’s not my fault that you deny the obvious again and again.

                        This is a conversation about nothing, you also deny the obvious, I do not see the point of deepening further. hi
                      3. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -3
                        17 May 2020 09: 37
                        We also have 2 examples of lack of cooperation, the lunar program and commercial launches. The score 2: 1 is not in favor of the positive.

                        Why then? There are many other examples of cooperation between Russia and the United States in space exploration. For example, Russia supplies the Americans with engines for Atlases, which are used to launch research probes. Russia manufactures some scientific instruments for American AMS - for example, such instruments are on American Mars rovers. Etc.

                        It’s just that you want to see only competition - therefore, you only see it.

                        Returned to the discussion, it is difficult to call cooperation

                        Discussion is the first step towards cooperation. The ISS also began with a discussion. And it was also not easy.

                        It is far from a fact that technical solutions from one ship will fit another.

                        Is not a fact. But to make sure that they will fit or not fit, you can only get acquainted with them.

                        This is no more than your conviction that Russian designers everybody spies on the Americans, but I myself can’t do anythingso

                        You again attribute to me some of your speculations, which I have never said anywhere. It seems to me that this is exactly what you think so, but because of a moral contradiction with your beliefs, such a psychological mechanism as a projection works and you begin to attribute your own thoughts to me.

                        In fact, the adoption of someone else's successful design solutions and their adaptation on their own equipment is a common practice in all countries. Korolev developed his first missiles, adopting von Braun's design experience. The Germans, developing the Panther, adopted the design experience of the Soviet T-34 designers (by testing captured tanks). The Americans, developing the F-35, adopted the experience of the designers of the Soviet Yak-141. And so on - there are plenty of examples.

                        Because, I repeat again, if someone already has a successful design solution, it is more rational to adopt it, rather than spend a lot of effort, money and time on development from scratch.

                        I directly introduced Russian spies hunting for the design of American armchairs

                        And here are the spies? This is just about a legitimate acquaintance with other people's design developments.
                        And in another comment I already wrote how important the design (form, design) of chairs is in a spaceship.

                        You have to explain, because the truth is only in your imagination.

                        No, I have to explain it because, obviously, you have no idea how designers and engineers work.

                        To use your ship and have an idea of ​​the technical features of another, the advantage is rather controversial and not obvious.

                        Only now Russia does not have its own ship (Federation) yet. And the Americans already have the Dragon.

                        Secondly, I heard nothing but a "wonderful opportunity" to get an idea of ​​technical features such as seat design. Sorry, but this is not convincing to me.

                        Well, if for you a spaceship consists only of an armchair, then it’s clear. In reality, a spaceship is a complex engineering structure with hundreds of nodes, systems and assemblies. And the cosmonauts learn information about most of them (if not all) at preflight training.

                        You also deny the obvious

                        No, I do not deny the obvious. I deny your amateurish understanding of the process of developing technically complex products, the process of training astronauts, the role of astronauts in the development of spacecraft.

                        I don’t see any further deeper meaning

                        And it will not exist if you raise your competency level at least in the topic that you are trying to discuss.
                      4. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        17 May 2020 11: 05
                        It’s just that you want to see only competition - therefore, you only see it.

                        And you see everything in pink, all around one cooperation, and where not, the Russians themselves are to blame.

                        No, I do not deny the obvious. I deny your amateurish understanding of the process of developing technically complex products, the process of training astronauts, the role of astronauts in the development of spacecraft.

                        I need to admire your professional understanding of the development process. Spying - copied.
                        Let me ask, who did the Americans spy on? Or do you think our designers are not capable of anything?

                        And he will not be, if you raise your competence in the topic that you are trying to discuss at least a little.

                        Trying to make yourself a cool pro in your performance looks pretty funny. winked
                      5. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        17 May 2020 11: 40
                        And you see everything in pink, all around one cooperation, and where not, the Russians themselves are to blame.

                        No, I see competition too. That's just NASA and Roskosmos now do not compete. Mask with Roscosmos - yes, NASA - no.

                        I need to admire your professional understanding of the development process.

                        I do not call myself a professional. But my level of awareness in the topic under discussion is clearly higher than yours. In addition, unlike you, I appeal not to my opinion, but to the experience of world (including Soviet) design thought and confirm this with concrete examples.

                        Spying - copied.

                        - Yes, as one of the options using someone else's design experience is quite acceptable. The R-1 missile, which was a copy of the V-2, or Tu-4, which was a copy of the B-29, are vivid examples of this.

                        Full copying allows you to quickly create an analogue, which is very important in some situations. For example, if you urgently need to acquire your own rocket weapons or strategic bomber.

                        Let me ask, who did the Americans spy on? Or do you think our designers are not capable of anything?

                        The Americans are also full of examples when they either completely copied other people's designs, or took them and adapted them in their designs. The first American cruise missiles were a copy of the Fau-1, the first ballistic missiles were a copy of the Fau-2.

                        And such examples in any country are a wagon and a small cart. Because the use of other people's developments is a generally accepted world practice.

                        Trying to make yourself a cool pro in your performance looks pretty funny

                        Nowhere do I make myself a cool pro. All the information that I use in my argument (examples, quotes) is publicly available. If you are not able to get acquainted with it - your trouble.
                      6. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        17 May 2020 12: 13
                        No, I see competition too. That's just NASA and Roskosmos now do not compete. Mask with Roscosmos - yes, NASA - no.

                        Sly and hide behind formalities. winked There are two manufacturers of rockets, Roskosmos and Space X. Their products claim to be used in the same launches. The fact that NASA is the operator in this case does not change the essence of the matter. If the number of Roscosmos rockets decreases, the proportion of Space X increases and vice versa. In this case, Space X products have squeezed the Roskosmos market.

                        I do not call myself a professional. But my level of awareness in the topic under discussion is clearly higher than yours.

                        This is a subjective opinion, people often tend to overestimate their abilities and knowledge. laughing

                        In addition, unlike you, I appeal not to my opinion, but to the experience of world (including Soviet) design thought and confirm this with concrete examples.

                        Do you need to look for examples of design developments where you didn’t resort to using someone else’s experience, but built it yourself?
                        If you think copying is almost mandatory, then who and what did the Americans copy when constructing the Dragon?

                        Nowhere do I make myself a cool pro. All the information that I use in my argument (examples, quotes) is publicly available. If you are not able to get acquainted with it - your trouble.

                        It so happened even more fun. Yes I did not accuse you of using classified information. In addition to the mass of cargo delivered to the ISS and vice versa and a rather free interpretation of the quoted quote from Rogozin, I do not recall anything similar to the above.
                      7. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        17 May 2020 13: 34
                        There are two manufacturers of rockets, Roskosmos and Space X. Their products claim to be used in the same launches. The fact that NASA is the operator in this case does not change the essence of the matter. If the number of Roscosmos rockets decreases, the proportion of Space X increases and vice versa. In this case, Space X products have squeezed the Roskosmos market.

                        There is no market. NASA as a national (state) organization needs its own American spacecraft, which would allow astronauts to be launched into space independently of other countries. SpaceX did not come to NASA with the words - we muddied the ship with the rocket, choose us, not Soyuz. Namely, NASA approached SpaceX with a proposal to create a spacecraft. NASA does not choose between Dragon and Soyuz, as a customer in the market would choose. NASA will use Dragon anyway. This is absolutely not a market situation.

                        This is a subjective opinion, people often tend to overestimate their abilities and knowledge.

                        At least I know that a spaceship does not consist of just one chair and buttons. Unlike you.

                        Do you need to look for examples of design developments where you didn’t resort to using someone else’s experience, but built it yourself?

                        And what, I bet that the original developments were and are? Not on your nelly. God forbid.

                        If you consider copying almost mandatory

                        I have not said anywhere that copying is a must. I said that if there is an opportunity to freely familiarize yourself with other people's developments, this must be done. And how exactly these developments are used - whether they copy, adapt or refuse at all - is secondary.

                        I did not accuse you of using classified information.

                        And I'm not talking about secrecy. I’m talking about your inability to read publicly available information.

                        and quite a free interpretation of the cited Rogozin quote

                        There was a direct quote, I did not change a word in it.

                        I don’t remember anything like that mentioned.

                        Does memory fail you? Old age is not joy ...
                      8. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        17 May 2020 13: 39
                        There is no market. NASA as a national (state) organization needs its own American spacecraft, which would allow astronauts to be launched into space independently of other countries. SpaceX did not come to NASA with the words - we muddied the ship with the rocket, choose us, not Soyuz. Namely, NASA approached SpaceX with a proposal to create a spacecraft. NASA does not choose between Dragon and Soyuz, as a customer in the market would choose. NASA will use Dragon anyway. This is absolutely not a market situation.

                        Are you able to give the wording of competition between the two companies?
                        Your reasoning is rather strange. Following your logic, there is no competition between Samsung and Sony, because they are sold in different stores.
                        Your further considerations do not even deserve a comment. These are the words of a stubborn boy.
                      9. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        17 May 2020 14: 42
                        Are you able to give the wording of competition between the two companies?

                        Certainly can:

                        In accordance with the Law of the Russian Federation of July 26.07.2006, 135 No. XNUMX-ФЗ “On the Protection of Competition”, competition is the rivalry of business entities in which the independent actions of each of them exclude or limit the ability of each of them to unilaterally influence general conditions for the circulation of goods in the relevant product market

                        Signs of an ideal market (market of perfect competition) are:

                        unity of rules for all participants;
                        lack of entry and exit barriers in a particular industry;
                        lack of restrictions on the number of market participants;
                        homogeneity of products of the same name on the market;
                        free prices;
                        lack of pressure, coercion on the part of some participants in relation to others

                        So here. NASA (as well as the US state as a whole) makes a requirement - the delivery of American astronauts to the ISS should be carried out on an American ship and not depend on any other country.

                        This requirement directly contradicts the first two points. First, the need for an American ship immediately excludes the unity of the rules for all participants (priority will be given to "Dragon", because it is American). Secondly, it creates an entry barrier for Russian ships.

                        Which, accordingly, makes this whole situation non-market.

                        But in commercial launches there is competition because commercial customers do not have the nationality of the ship (that is, the rules are the same for all participants), which, accordingly, does not create an entry barrier for any of these participants.

                        Following your logic, there is no competition between Samsung and Sony, because they are sold in different stores.

                        This analogy does not follow from my logic. In this analogy, the buyer can freely visit the store of both companies and make a free choice.

                        It would be correct and follow my logic if the buyer purposefully came, for example, to the Sony company and said - develop a phone for me, because I need a Japanese phone and this is not discussed.

                        There is no choice in the situation with NASA. The American ship should deliver the Americans to the ISS, and that’s the point. This cuts off any competition.
                      10. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        17 May 2020 22: 32
                        So here. NASA (as well as the US state as a whole) makes a requirement - the delivery of American astronauts to the ISS should be carried out on an American ship and not depend on any other country.
                        This requirement directly contradicts the first two points. First, the need for an American ship immediately excludes the unity of the rules for all participants (priority will be given to "Dragon", because it is American). Secondly, it creates an entry barrier for Russian ships.
                        Which, accordingly, makes this whole situation non-market.

                        And you advised to learn logic? belay

                        Competition - rivalry, the struggle to achieve the highest benefits, advantages.

                        Do you really think that the Mask and Roscosmos rockets do not compete with each other?
                        Try to read more slowly, you can syllable. Everything is very simple.
                        1. There are two rocket manufacturers, Roscosmos and SpaceX.
                        2. The products of both manufacturers can be used to deliver people and cargo to the ISS.
                        3. The number of launches is limited, an increase in the share of one of the manufacturers automatically leads to a decrease in the share of another manufacturer.
                        Do you think this is not a competition?
                        By what means it is conducted, another question.
                        And here you are trying to give me lectures on the market economy, turn around like a pan, come up with excuses, try to reduce everything to an auction. The concept of competition is much broader. In biology, for example, there is the concept of competition of species; you will not believe it; there are no auctions or market mechanisms.
                        You dispute this simple truth the second day. Your ignorance and stubbornness is simply amazing. belay

                        There is no choice in the situation with NASA. The American ship should deliver the Americans to the ISS, and that’s the point. This cuts off any competition.

                        Oh yes, with one blow they cut off competitors. Apparently, with this wonderful decision, Roscosmos and SpaceX turned competitors into best friends. laughing
                        Aren't you ashamed to write such nonsense?
                      11. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        18 May 2020 04: 07
                        And you advised to learn logic?

                        Yes I. Because everything is fine with logic, you don’t.

                        Do you really think that the Mask and Roscosmos rockets do not compete with each other?
                        Try to read more slowly, you can syllable. Everything is very simple.
                        1. There are two rocket manufacturers, Roscosmos and SpaceX.
                        2. The products of both manufacturers can be used to deliver people and cargo to the ISS.
                        3. The number of launches is limited, an increase in the share of one of the manufacturers automatically leads to a decrease in the share of another manufacturer.
                        Do you think this is not a competition?

                        Based on your logic (an increase in the share of one of the manufacturers automatically leads to a decrease in the share of another manufacturer.), The opposite is also obtained - a decrease in the share of one of the participants automatically leads to an increase in the share of the other participant.

                        That is, according to your logic, after the Shuttle program was closed and the United States lost the ability to send astronauts to the ISS on its own spacecraft, the number of manned launches on the Soyuz should have automatically increased.

                        Let's turn to practice - let's compare the number of Soyuz launches to the ISS before and after the Shuttle program is closed:

                        2009 - 4 launches, 2010 - 4 launches, 2011 (the last year of the Shuttles) - 4 launches, 2012 - 4 launches, 2013 - 4 launches, 2014 - 4 launches.

                        As you can see, the number of Soyuz flights has not changed. Doesn't fit a little with your logic, doesn't it?

                        One can object to this - they say, after the shuttle was closed, the number of Soyuz flights did not change, but they began to carry the Americans at the cost of replacing our cosmonaut with their astronaut. Thus, Roskosmos increased its share not in the form of flights, but in the form of the number of astronauts transported on the Soyuz.

                        Let's turn to practice again. Compare the number of Americans sent to the ISS before the shuttles were canceled and after.

                        year 2009. - 3, 2010 - 5, 2011 (the last year of the Shuttle) - 4, 2012 - 4, 2013 - 4, 2014 - 4.

                        So, we again see that after the cancellation of the Shuttles, Roscosmos carried the same number of Americans into orbit as before the closure of the American manned Shuttle program. Which again goes against your logic.

                        Now I explain why this happens.

                        The American ISS manned flight program consists of two parts:

                        1. Sending astronauts on their own ships. This is the main US manned program.

                        2. Sending American astronauts in mixed crews on the Soyuz. This program began in 2004 (after the Columbia disaster) as a backup option, providing the United States with access to the ISS in the event that its own manned program does not go well.

                        What is most important in these two programs is money is allocated to them separately... NASA pays Roscosmos money to send astronauts on the Soyuz, regardless of whether or not the Americans fly their own ships. That is why the end of the Shuttle flights did not affect the number of Soyuz flights and the number of astronauts sent to them.

                        So, SpaceX is making a manned spacecraft for NASA as part of the first part of the American manned program. In fact, the Dragon will simply replace the closed Shuttle and that's it. Payment for SpaceX's services does not depend on funding American astronaut flights on Russian ships. In other words, SpaceX does not claim the money that NASA gives to Roscosmos for astronaut flights on Soyuz. And if so, then it does not compete with Roscosmos for launches to the ISS.

                        As I said, this is not a market situation, and there is no competition here. SpaceX and Roskosmos work with NASA for two parallel programs with independent funding.

                        And that is why NASA will continue to buy seats on the Soyuz even after the US spacecraft enter service.

                        Therefore, instead of trying to poke fun at my supposedly stubbornness and rassusolit about competition in the wild, it would be better to study the topic in which you are trying to argue.

                        Oh yes, with one blow they cut off competitors. Apparently, with this wonderful decision, Roscosmos and SpaceX turned competitors into best friends

                        In the ISS program, SpaceX and Roscosmos have never been competitors - for the reasons I wrote above.
                        The only moment resembling a consequence of the competition (in fact, not it) of this whole situation is connected with the prices for flights of astronauts on Russian "Soyuz".

                        Prior to the termination of the Shuttle program (from 2004 to 2011), NASA paid Roscosmos 20-30 million for 1 seat on the Soyuz. After shutting down the Shuttles, when Roskosmos became the de facto monopoly on manned launches, the rates increased first to 50 million and then to 80 million for 1 seat. The Americans, who had temporarily lost the ability to fly independently, had nowhere to go - they agreed to such prices.

                        Here you could cry out joyfully - here it is, competition !! SpaceX will launch its spacecraft, and NASA, given an alternative to Soyuz, can either abandon them or bring down the price. Thus, SpaceX will take all or part of the money from Roscosmos. Competition? Competition!

                        Not really. Not competition. NASA, having received Dragon, will indeed be able to refuse to pay Roscosmos or bring down the price. But the money saved in this way is not automatically redirected to Mask - he, I remind you, is working on a parallel and independently funded program. And by saving on Soyuz, the costs of NASA itself are reduced.
                      12. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        18 May 2020 16: 03
                        Stubbornness and stubbornness, that’s your motto. winked
                      13. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        18 May 2020 20: 51
                        Stubbornness and stubbornness, backed up by logic and facts - this is my motto, yes.
                        Yours - amateurism and inability to understand the topic.
                      14. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        18 May 2020 23: 16
                        You wrote a whole report in order to substantiate your opinion on competition winked

                        That is, according to your logic, after the Shuttle program was closed and the United States lost the ability to send astronauts to the ISS on its own spacecraft, the number of manned launches on the Soyuz should have automatically increased.

                        Let's turn to practice - let's compare the number of Soyuz launches to the ISS before and after the Shuttle program is closed:

                        2009 - 4 launches, 2010 - 4 launches, 2011 (the last year of the Shuttles) - 4 launches, 2012 - 4 launches, 2013 - 4 launches, 2014 - 4 launches.

                        As you can see, the number of Soyuz flights has not changed. Doesn't fit a little with your logic, doesn't it?

                        You are right, not true. smile Your first mistake is that they took up the calculations, but did not delve into the details, ran through the tops, hence the incorrect conclusions. A simple calculation of the number of flights will not work.

                        Firstly, the number of crews changed, by May 2009 it consisted of 3 people, delivery, as a rule, was carried out in this order - the commander and flight engineer on the Union, the second flight engineer on the Chatelet.
                        Since May 2009, the ISS full-time crew, as a rule, has 6 people (it reached 9), but it happened less. In 2019, for example, out of 4 launches of the union, 1 is unmanned (i.e., cargo).

                        Secondly, the length of stay on the ISS was different, the crew changed in different ways, for example, one flew away, another arrived in its place, 2 arrived, 3 flew away, in general, there were many options. 2009 people were delivered to the Unions in 12, 8 returned.

                        Thirdly, the comparison with the Shuttle is incorrect and has no practical meaning, it differed from the Union and Dragon, it had a cargo compartment and a manipulator, its mission was not only to deliver the crew. They could be combined and be independent, for example, the flight on May 11, 2009 (STS-125), the mission is maintenance and modernization of the Hubble space telescope. He was not at the ISS at all. Shuttle launches were planned differently, delivery to the ISS was only part of the program, with Dragon it is impossible. Dragon, like the Union, is just a capsule in its functionality, the difference is only in capacity (reusability does not play a role in this case). Their function is to deliver the crew and cargo from point A (spaceport) to point B (ISS). So we will compare them.
                        Now let's move on to needs. As practice has shown, staying on the ISS for 2-3 cosmonauts is quite enough for Russia. In the Russian segment there is a star life support module, designed for 3 people. Opportunities for delivery and stay on the ISS are balanced.
                        In the case of American astronauts, not everything is so obvious. Do they plan to sharply increase the intensity of scientific research and send 5-7 people at a time and live in laboratory modules? Otherwise, it will be difficult to load the Dragon. With the advent of Starliner, the situation will become more strange. If they plan 2020 launches for 2, what will happen next? They fly once a year and that’s all? The American ability to deliver people and cargo into orbit is clearly redundant.

                        So, SpaceX is making a manned spacecraft for NASA as part of the first part of the American manned program. In fact, the Dragon will simply replace the closed Shuttle and that's it. SpaceX's payment for services does not depend on funding American astronaut flights on Russian ships.

                        It is wrong to regard Dragon as a full-fledged replacement for the Shuttle, the reasons are stated above, the Shuttle could in fact bring a "fellow traveler" to the ISS and go about its business, Dragon's flight can only be planned on the ISS.
                        Will the Dragon just replace the Shuttle and all? The shuttle is not 10 years old, with its departure the Union occupied a niche, now the Dragon is squeezing it out of there. What you say, in fact, is the justification of the Americans' correctness, they say, they are returning their own. Yes, they have a right to it, everything is quite logical and pragmatic. But this does not refute the fact of the loss of part of the market by Roscosmos with the advent of Dragon.

                        In other words, SpaceX does not claim the money that NASA gives to Roskosmos for astronaut flights on Soyuz. And if so, then it does not compete with Roscosmos for launches to the ISS.

                        That money, this money, they are all the same. SpaceX will now receive more money for launches, Roscosmos will receive less, SpaceX took its place in the market.
                        Again, you bring everything down to the auction and hide behind procedures and formalities from the "market economy". Competition has a broader meaning.
                      15. isofat
                        isofat
                        0
                        17 May 2020 22: 45
                        Quote: 123
                        These are the words of a stubborn boy.

                        Harmful.
                      16. 123
                        123
                        0
                        17 May 2020 22: 49
                        I do not know, but stubborn - that's for sure. Yes
          2. Cyril
            Cyril
            -1
            16 May 2020 21: 43
            With such views on the world around me, I hope you will never become a leader.

            Strange, but for some reason the leadership of the Cosmonaut Training Center agrees with me. Also, probably, "the wrong views" have.
            1. 123
              123
              0
              16 May 2020 22: 05
              Strange, but for some reason the leadership of the Cosmonaut Training Center agrees with me. Also, probably, "the wrong views" have

              It could even be. Yes Perhaps they should have retired long ago. what
              And what exactly, if not a secret, do your views coincide with the leadership of the MCC?
              1. Cyril
                Cyril
                -1
                16 May 2020 22: 26
                Perhaps they should have retired long ago.

                Or you need to delve deeper into the subject of cosmonaut training.

                And what exactly, if not a secret, do your views coincide with the leadership of the MCC?

                The fact that the crew of a spacecraft (one's own or another's) is required to know its technical structure well.
                1. 123
                  123
                  +2
                  16 May 2020 22: 55
                  The fact that the crew of a spacecraft (one's own or another's) is required to know its technical structure well.

                  Well, if so, then they are too early to retire. But I don’t see their opinion, which coincides with yours, that it is necessary to send astronauts on the Dragon. request So this is not a coincidence of opinions, but the presence of elementary common sense. Do not ignoramus to send into space. request
                  1. Cyril
                    Cyril
                    -2
                    16 May 2020 23: 17
                    But I don’t see their opinion, which coincides with yours, that it is necessary to send astronauts on the Dragon.

                    Replacing theses again. In this particular case, I answered your specific question:

                    And what exactly, if not a secret, do your views coincide with the leadership of the MCC?

                    - and not to the question "Do you need to send astronauts on" Dragon? "

                    As for this very question, Russia gave an affirmative answer to it even before the Dragons and Starliners, when Roskosmos sent its cosmonauts on the American Shuttles. And with regard to the Dragons, the Roscosmos leadership is not at all opposed to barter - with the proviso that Russian cosmonauts will fly on them after they prove their reliability.

                    So this is not a coincidence of opinions, but the presence of elementary common sense.

                    It is in common sense that my opinion coincides with the opinion of the Cosmonaut Training Center.
                    1. 123
                      123
                      +2
                      16 May 2020 23: 51
                      Replacing theses again. In this particular case, I answered your specific question:

                      My question was - what does your opinion coincide with the opinion of the leaders of the MCC? Sorry, but people who believe that a person flying on a ship should be able to control it can hardly be called like-minded people. It is just the presence of common sense and no more. This has nothing to do with justifying the need for flights on an American ship. request

                      As for this very question, Russia gave an affirmative answer to it even before the Dragons and Starliners, when Roskosmos sent its cosmonauts on the American Shuttles.

                      Roscosmos could not give an affirmative answer before the appearance of Dragon himself, as for the Shuttles, this is a long time ago, a lot of things have changed since then. Sorry, but it sounds childishly naive.

                      And with regard to the Dragons, the Roscosmos leadership is not at all opposed to barter - with the proviso that Russian cosmonauts will fly on them after they prove their reliability.

                      Really? belay Can I quote? The refusal to send astronauts on an untested ship, considered automatic consent to its use in the future, is a big stretch, to say the least. winked

                      It is in common sense that my opinion coincides with the opinion of the Cosmonaut Training Center.

                      To be honest, I'm tired of rewriting the same thing three times.
                      1. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        17 May 2020 01: 43
                        This has nothing to do with justifying the need for flights on an American ship

                        The need for flights on American ships was justified to you by the fact that Russian cosmonauts (and through them, of course, Russian designers) get access to study the design of someone else's spacecraft. They can use this information in the construction of already Russian ships.

                        You replied to this - they say, some kind of information about the device of another ship can get the Russian astronaut, if he is there only "enters, sits down, exits and presses the buttons". In other words, you think that the astronaut does not receive any valuable information about someone else’s ship that could be used in the development of the Russian ship.

                        To which you were given a reasoned (excerpt from the website of the Russian Cosmonaut Training Center) answer that astronauts study the device of the spacecraft, its technical features, characteristics, control mechanisms, etc. before flying. That is, they get a lot of useful information about a foreign ship that can be It would be used in the development or refinement of their own.

                        If for you the free acquisition of new technical knowledge and engineering solutions is not valuable, then these words:

                        With such views on the world around me, I hope you will never become a leader.

                        Address yourself.

                        Truth? Can I quote? The refusal to send astronauts on an untested ship, considered automatic consent to its use in the future, is a big stretch, to say the least.

                        Yes, as easy as shelling pears:

                        https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=504628&lang=RU

                        Quote:

                        Our cosmonauts and NASA astronauts will continue to fly in mixed crews even after the launch of American manned spacecraft. It will be non-financial barter, when we exchange seats on each other's ships, "said the head of Roscosmos.

                        To be honest, I'm tired of rewriting the same thing three times.

                        And I don’t know why you are doing this.
                      2. isofat
                        isofat
                        +1
                        17 May 2020 01: 52
                        Cyril, don't you think that flying on US ships can be called "American Roulette"?
                      3. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        17 May 2020 02: 19
                        ... that flying on US ships can be called "American Roulette"?

                        Exactly the same as flying on a Russian ship.
                      4. 123
                        123
                        +3
                        17 May 2020 08: 22
                        The need for flights on American ships was justified to you by the fact that Russian cosmonauts (and through them, of course, Russian designers) get access to study the design of someone else's spacecraft. They can use this information in the construction of already Russian ships.

                        Oh yes, the plan is just wonderful. good Astronauts fly on their ship, then tell the designers how it works and those happy laughing run to build a copy.
                        Untold stupidity, besides, it is not clear what is so "revolutionary" they can spy on there? Chair designs and button colors?

                        To this you answered - they say that a Russian cosmonaut can get some kind of information about the structure of a foreign spacecraft if he only "enters, sits down, goes out and presses the buttons" there. In other words, you think that the cosmonaut does not receive any valuable information about someone else's ship that could be used in the development of a Russian ship.

                        What makes you think that you are generally interested in obtaining this information?

                        Thanks, I read the link. Yes Apparently, we do not know the information and the reasons for making such a decision. I don’t see such a thing.
                      5. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -3
                        17 May 2020 09: 11
                        The astronauts fly on their ship, then tell the designers how it works and those happy ones run to build a copy.

                        Nearly. They tell designers about the design of the ship or its individual units, share their opinions, as a pilot and on-board technician, which of the design solutions of this ship were successful, which are not. And the designers use in the design of our ship already successful solutions of foreign colleagues and refuse unsuccessful.

                        I have already cited as an example the situation with the side control knobs on civilian and military aircraft. The principle is absolutely the same.

                        Stupidity is utter

                        Ignore the opportunity to get acquainted with other people's developments? Of course, stupidity is utter. That is why the leadership and designers of Roscosmos do not ignore such an opportunity.

                        besides, it is not clear what is so "revolutionary" they can spy on there? Chair designs and button colors?

                        First, it is not necessary to look out for the "revolutionary" - it is enough to look out for the successfully realized.
                        Secondly, familiarity with the spacecraft for astronauts is much deeper than "the design of the seats and the color of the buttons."
                        Thirdly. Armchairs - one of the most important structural elements of the ship. Since it is its design, position and shape that decides what loads the astronaut will experience, how he will carry the flight, what loads he will experience from hitting the surface during landing, etc. And yes, even in the plane and spacecraft, the shape, resistance when pressed and the color of the buttons are also of great importance. For example, when in flight the astronaut is affected by such a negative overload that he can barely tear his hand away from the armrest, the convenient location of the control buttons is very important.
                        Therefore, even in these, in your amateurish opinion, minor technical features, the specialist will find a lot of useful things.

                        What makes you think that you are generally interested in obtaining this information?

                        Since the Americans already have a ready-made reusable manned ship that has passed all the tests (except for the first manned flight), but ours is only being designed. And successful solutions of Western designers are much easier to implement in our ship, while it is still being designed than after its creation.

                        I don’t see such a thing.

                        Therefore, you do not work in the space sector.
                      6. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        17 May 2020 10: 58
                        Nearly. They tell designers about the design of the ship or its individual units, share their opinions as a pilot and on-board technician, which of the design solutions of this ship were successful, which are not. And the designers use in the design of our ship already successful solutions of foreign colleagues and refuse unsuccessful.

                        Here we will not agree, you consider our designers to be complete mediocrity, only capable of spying the design of armchairs, handles, buttons on the Americans.
                        Then I will give you the opposite opinion, the Americans are not capable of anything, all of these chairs, buttons are spied by them on our technology.
                        I suppose we will calm down on this?

                        Therefore, you do not work in the space sector.

                        You must be working? I understand that you don’t work there because you think - you have to go and peek, we yourself can’t do anything. With this point of view, who will take you there?
                      7. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        17 May 2020 11: 28
                        Here we will not agree, you consider our designers to be complete mediocrity, only capable of spying the design of armchairs, handles, buttons on the Americans.

                        Again attributing to me some of my hidden fantasies and conjectures.

                        Nowhere have I even said a word that our designers are mediocrity.

                        If for you the adoption of someone else's useful experience is a synonym for "mediocrity", then yes, we will not agree.

                        If for you using someone else's successful design solutions is identical to copying - again, we will not agree.

                        Presumably you work? I understand that you don’t work there because you think - you have to go and peek, we yourself can’t do anything. With this point of view, who will take you there?

                        Me not. I do not work. But those who work constantly turn to other people's design experience. Korolyov turned to the experience of Wernher von Braun, Lozino-Lozinsky and his team - to the experience of the Shuttle designers, the Dream Chaser developers - to the experience of the Bor rocket plane designers. The Chinese used the developments of Soviet and Russian designers, the Japanese - American ones, etc. etc.

                        In some cases, they did not shy away from full copying (for example, the Russian Tu-4 bomber copied from the B-29), in other cases they adapted other people's designs, in the third, they made a start from other people's unsuccessful decisions and created successful ones.

                        Really talented designers do not consider it shameful to use the successful developments of other designers. Because to find and adapt such developments - you also need to be able to.

                        But mediocrity will ignore other people's experience and consider it shameful, spending a bunch of money, effort, time on what has already been developed and successfully used by others.
                      8. 123
                        123
                        +4
                        17 May 2020 11: 55
                        Again attributing to me some of my hidden fantasies and conjectures.
                        Nowhere have I even said a word that our designers are mediocrity.
                        If for you the adoption of someone else's useful experience is a synonym for "mediocrity", then yes, we will not agree.
                        If for you using someone else's successful design solutions is identical to copying - again, we will not agree.

                        Why are you so sure that there are design solutions that must be adopted? From whom did the Americans, while constructing the Dragon, "adopted the experience"?

                        Really talented designers do not consider it shameful to use the successful developments of other designers. Because to find and adapt such developments - you also need to be able to.
                        But mediocrity will ignore other people's experience and consider it shameful, spending a bunch of money, effort, time on what has already been developed and successfully used by others.

                        Talented designers are primarily engaged in independent development. Moreover, you have not voiced anything worthy of copying. The design of the handles and chairs, I'm sorry, but that sounds frivolous. We are able to do chairs ourselves.
                      9. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        17 May 2020 12: 18
                        Why are you so sure that there are design solutions that must be adopted

                        Firstly, I’ve never said that such design decisions that need to be adopted are there necessarily there is. It is possible that they will not be there. But to be convinced of this, one must first familiarize oneself with these ships.

                        Secondly, you can familiarize yourself with other people's design decisions not only in order to adopt them (if they are successful), but also to avoid repeating them in your ships (if they are unsuccessful).

                        Our "Federation" is still being developed, and its designers may well come to some design solutions, similar to those used in "Dragons". Since "Dragon" will fly earlier, our designers will be able to analyze similar design solutions using its example, determine which of them are successful and which are not, and exclude unsuccessful ones at the development stage. It's easier and cheaper than stepping on the same rake.

                        From whom did the Americans, while constructing the Dragon, "adopted the experience"?

                        Probably, SpaceX engineers took into account the experience of Soviet designers who developed the Zarya spacecraft, similar in characteristics. They also clearly used the experience of the Apollo developers.

                        Talented designers are primarily engaged in independent development.

                        That is, Korolev (R-1), Tupolev (Tu-4), Koshkin (whose T-34 used the Christie suspension) are not talented designers? Well, OK.

                        Once again I am convinced that it is best to cheat the outstanding people of their country with those who call themselves its patriot.

                        The design of the handles and chairs, I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound serious. We are able to do chairs ourselves.

                        About chairs - this is your song, actually. It’s not my fault that your spaceship consists only of a chair and a keypad.

                        About the pen. You first bother to find out what is the difference between a sidestick from a traditional helm or central control stick. I give a hint - the differences there are not only (and not so much) in the arrangement and form.
                      10. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        17 May 2020 12: 45
                        Firstly, I never said that such design decisions that need to be adopted are always there. It is possible that they will not be there. But to be convinced of this, one must first familiarize oneself with these ships.

                        If there is something really worthy of attention, nobody will give you a detailed look at the innovations.

                        Secondly, you can familiarize yourself with other people's design decisions not only in order to adopt them (if they are successful), but also to avoid repeating them in your ships (if they are unsuccessful).
                        Our "Federation" is still being developed, and its designers may well come to some design solutions, similar to those used in "Dragons". Since it will fly earlier, our designers will be able to analyze similar design solutions using his example, determine which of them are successful, which are not, and exclude unsuccessful ones at the development stage. It's easier and cheaper than stepping on the same rake.

                        The situation can develop according to the opposite scenario, under the influence of "someone else's experience" they can refuse their design solutions in favor of, perhaps, less successful, but already tested ones.

                        That is, Korolev (R-1), Tupolev (Tu-4), Koshkin (whose T-34 used the Christie suspension) are not talented designers? Well, OK.
                        Once again I am convinced that it is best to cheat the outstanding people of their country with those who call themselves its patriot.

                        You are right, you should not touch the names of great designers with the little hands.
                        Why do you ascribe to me what I did not say?
                        Tupolev and Korolev, in addition to the R-1 and Tu-4, did a lot of wonderful things.
                        The vehicles cited as an example were rather an exception, military equipment, made under the threat of a war and severe time constraints on development, which is due to the almost complete copying or maximum use of the "backlog" that fell into the hands of designers. The example with Koshkin, by the way, is not entirely successful, he, unfortunately, did not have much time, he died. As for Christie's suspension, it was fairly widespread and not copied from any particular tank. You also say that he copied the caterpillars.
                      11. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        17 May 2020 13: 19
                        If there is something really worthy of attention, nobody will give you a detailed look at the innovations.

                        They will give and give. Because without knowledge of these innovations, the crew (including "foreign" members) will not be able to fully control the ship, and even more so, save themselves in the event of a breakdown in flight.

                        The situation can develop according to the opposite scenario, under the influence of "someone else's experience" they can refuse their design solutions in favor of, perhaps, less successful, but already tested ones.

                        Maybe it depends on the level of competence of designers who adopt other people's experience. It also depends on the situation. Often the priority is just proven and reliable solutions, and not more successful, but untested.

                        You are right, you should not touch the names of great designers with the little hands.

                        So you called them untalented, not me. Well, they cleanly copied some of their products from other people's samples. By your logic, this makes them untalented.

                        The vehicles cited as an example were rather an exception, military equipment, made under the threat of a war and severe time constraints on development, which is due to the almost complete copying or maximum use of the "backlog" that fell into the hands of designers.

                        Good. "Buran" was developed without the threat of war, which did not prevent the Soviet designers from partially copying the solutions used in the "Shuttle".

                        "Zhiguli" is generally a peaceful technique, which did not prevent the developers of this car from developing it on the basis of "Fiat".

                        The first Soviet integrated circuits were generally a complete copy of Western ones purchased from American companies.

                        Some models of Soviet PCs were exact copies of Western ones.

                        And such "exceptions" will be typed by a carriage and a small cart. Of course, in addition to copies, there were adaptations, as well as completely original samples of equipment.

                        As for Christie's suspension, it was quite widespread, and not copied from any particular tank.

                        Let it be known to you that Christie sold the two chassis of the tank he developed to two countries - Britain and .... oh god! ... to the Soviet Union.

                        Yes, yes, I quote:

                        However, in June 1930, designer W. Christie and representatives of the UMM RKKA agreed, without signing any papers and without acquiring any production licenses, on the supply of two tanks in full, with design and engineering documentation and the right to manufacture them in the USSR.

                        On November 21, 1930, the Revolutionary Military Council of the USSR decided on the production of Christie tanks in the USSR. Around the same time, the tank got its name - BT.

                        And from BT-shek, Christie's suspension switched to the T-34.

                        So no, Christie’s suspension in the USSR was precisely copied from a specific tank, which was bought from Christie himself.
                      12. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        17 May 2020 13: 34
                        Again, everything is the same in a circle. I do not see the point of furthering the conversation. hi
                        As for Christie’s pendant, you’ll decide whether it was bought or copied.

                        Let it be known to you that Christie sold the two chassis of the tank he developed to two countries - Britain and .... oh god! ... to the Soviet Union.

                        And from BT-shek, Christie's suspension switched to the T-34.
                        So no, Christie’s suspension in the USSR was precisely copied from a specific tank, which was bought from Christie himself.
                      13. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -2
                        17 May 2020 14: 48
                        Again, everything is the same in a circle

                        Your problem, that does not reach you in any way.

                        As for Christie’s pendant, you’ll decide whether it was bought or copied.

                        She was copied from purchased samples of Christie's tanks.

                        Are you seriously so desperate because of the lack of any arguments that you oppose the concepts of "buy" and "copy"? The first refers to the way the item is appropriated, and the second is the way to create the item?

                        Go learn the logic. Seriously.
                      14. isofat
                        isofat
                        +1
                        17 May 2020 15: 21
                        Quote: Cyril
                        ... contrasting the concepts of "buy" and "copy"? The first refers to the way the item is assigned and the second refers to the way the item is created.

                        CyrilI wonder at patience 123that he has the patience to argue with you.
                        Verbs indicate an action or condition. smile
                      15. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        17 May 2020 21: 16
                        I am surprised at the patience of 123 that he has the patience to argue with you.

                        He would not have needed it, had he bothered to delve into what he was trying to reason about.

                        Verbs indicate an action or condition.

                        Good. Contrast the concepts of "buying" and "copying"? The first refers to the way the item is appropriated, and the second refers to the way the item is created. Has the meaning of what has been said changed a lot? Not at all
                      16. 123
                        123
                        +2
                        17 May 2020 22: 07
                        Your problem, that does not reach you in any way.

                        This is because you enter and exit, but it doesn’t help. If you simply repeat your mantras, nothing will change.

                        She was copied from purchased samples of Christie's tanks.

                        It was based on the BT-series tanks that are in service.

                        Are you seriously so desperate because of the lack of any arguments that you oppose the concepts of "buy" and "copy"? The first refers to the way the item is appropriated, and the second is the way to create the item?

                        It is generally difficult to attribute to the arguments. To buy means to acquire, that is, to obtain ownership, and to copy means to recreate, make a copy. Koshkin did not need to look for Christie's tanks and copy. The suspension was purchased and mass-produced in the USSR.

                        https://litportal.ru/avtory/maksim-kolomiec/kniga-legkie-tanki-bt-letayuschiy-tank-1930-h-704875.html

                        Go learn the logic. Seriously.

                        Interesting advice, I believe, we will return to this. Yes
                      17. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        17 May 2020 22: 56
                        It was based on the BT-series tanks that are in service.

                        And on them Christie was copied from the tank.

                        To buy means to acquire, that is, to obtain ownership, and copying means to recreate, make a copy.

                        It is true that these concepts are not mutually exclusive and do not contradict each other. Read in the textbook of logic which concepts are mutually exclusive and contradictory.

                        I explain.

                        Christie bought 2 (in words - two) tanks. If the USSR used only these two copies, then there really would have been no copying, because they were not made in the USSR. However, having bought 2 copies of Christie's tank made by Christy himself (his company), the USSR became issue copies these tanks under the name BT-2.

                        Accordingly, using Christie's suspension in tanks manufactured already at their facilities (in the same BT and T-34), the USSR copied her.

                        Interesting advice, I think we’ll come back to this

                        The advice is really practical, I suggest using it.
                      18. 123
                        123
                        +1
                        17 May 2020 23: 39
                        And on them Christie was copied from the tank.

                        What does it mean copied? It was bought in order to produce.
                        Poland wanted to buy a license for the production of the tank, terminated the contract, returned the deposit, sold the tank to the USSR.

                        The cost of two tanks was estimated at $ 60000, including a set of spare parts supplied by US Wheel Track Layer Corporation. For the sale of production rights, transfer of patents and services in relation to technical assistance, W. Christie was paid another $ 100000. The agreement was signed from the American side by J. Walter Christie, the president of the corporation, from the Soviet side - A. V. Petrov, the president of Amtorg, in the presence of I. A. Khalepsky (USSR), J. Michael, J. Raymond and Tiffany (all - USA). That is, the entire Soviet Union had to pay the sum of 160 dollars.

                        The tanks were mass-produced, the suspension was improved. Koshkin did not need to "refer to the primary sources" and copy something there.
                      19. Cyril
                        Cyril
                        -1
                        18 May 2020 05: 25
                        What does it mean copied?

                        That means - copied.

                        Let's look at the dictionary (Wikipedia):

                        Copy constructive - creation, by copying the design of the sample (prototype) of a certain device / apparatus that completely repeats the design of the original (clone, replica, pirated copy). May be complete or partial (see reverse engineering) be made both with and without patent infringement original manufacturer.

                        Did the BT-2 recreate the design of Christie's original tank? Recreated. Consequently, he was a copy. And the fact that it was bought along with the license and patents makes it simply licensed copy. But still a copy.

                        Subsequent models of the BT tank were no longer a complete copy of Christy's tank itself, although it was repeated in basic design decisions. Therefore, in their case, we should talk about incomplete copying or adaptation of other people's technological solutions.

                        The tanks were mass-produced, the suspension was improved. Koshkin did not need to "refer to the primary sources" and copy something there.

                        Koshkin, while developing the T-34, did not copy Christie's tank - but he took the mechanism of its suspension. Yes, I finalized, improved, but the concept was the one that Christie developed. That is, based on borrowed Christie's development, he developed the chassis of the T-34.
  6. Observer2014
    Observer2014
    -2
    15 May 2020 21: 37
    It is interesting to know the opinion of the same Sergey Pavlovich Korolev. hi The same Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev. That after nearly 60 years, such an industry will be managed ... laughing We all, of course, find out. But ... Then what?
    1. Rum rum
      Rum rum
      +3
      15 May 2020 22: 18
      Respected.
      You again have problems with a distinct expression of your thoughts, in Russian.
      Could you explain what you meant:

      It is interesting to know the opinion ...... That after nearly 60 years, such an industry will be managed .... We are all. Naturally, we find out.
      But ... Then what?
      1. Observer2014
        Observer2014
        0
        15 May 2020 22: 20
        Quote: Rum Rum
        Respected.
        You again have problems with a distinct expression of your thoughts, in Russian.
        Could you explain what you meant:

        It is interesting to know the opinion ...... That after nearly 60 years, such an industry will be managed .... laughing We all, of course, will find out. But ... Then what?

        Yes, typing Rogozin forgot to mention. feel I thought about the wording for so long that I forgot about the most interesting character. lol
        1. Rum rum
          Rum rum
          +3
          15 May 2020 22: 22
          I agree, the "figure" is, to put it mildly, controversial.
  7. Potapov
    Potapov
    +2
    16 May 2020 09: 10
    Shit on the head 2 times a day. Roscosmos cuts money. Treason in the form of a supply of modern technology to a hostile country ...
  8. Anatoly Melnikov
    Anatoly Melnikov
    +1
    16 May 2020 18: 50
    Two "things" are curious: do American citizens guarantee "viral" safety to our astronauts? And were there any similar proposals from the Chinese "comrades" to "fly" on their means of delivering specialists to orbit?
  9. BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine
    BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine
    +1
    16 May 2020 19: 12
    So let the Americans carry amers, Russia - Russian. I don’t see any problems!
  10. tol100v
    tol100v
    +2
    16 May 2020 20: 13
    Quote: Anchonsha
    Well, no, gentlemen Merikana, we will fly on our own, it will be calmer and we will observe decency.

    And no one will drill the walls of the spacecraft! But in general, it looks like Nasruddin: Or donkey or emir!
  11. Vlad Ieden
    Vlad Ieden
    0
    16 May 2020 21: 00
    And for some reason, we need it, let them die, they don’t have a single full-fledged start, even if they don’t fly further, they are engaged in chatter.
  12. paramidon tablets
    paramidon tablets
    +1
    16 May 2020 23: 01
    There will be no Dragon-o launches with astronauts, because Musk is a crook who creates illusions in video editing studios ... real people are not his style ....
    1. The comment was deleted.
  13. mss001
    mss001
    +2
    17 May 2020 00: 11
    Let their astronauts first fly on Space-X for 3-4 years, debug all the elements of the system for delivering people to the ISS, making this system reliable with a 100% guarantee, and after that it will be possible to TALK about the scheme proposed by that side now. I think that's ONLY so. No options. To risk our astronauts, mastering the American NOVODIK - they offer us to play the role of experimental monkeys or American Indians of the 19th century, on which they tested the infection of people with smallpox? !!!
    1. Cyril
      Cyril
      -2
      17 May 2020 02: 20
      NASA does not offer Roskosmos a place for Russian cosmonauts on the first few launches of its spacecraft.
  14. Observer2014
    Observer2014
    -1
    17 May 2020 08: 51
    The test score for the article. Only vague doubts torment me. When launched into space by landing engines ... No, no. No complaints to the editors and the author of the article. I’m just watching after all. wink laughing
    1. Cyril
      Cyril
      -3
      17 May 2020 15: 01
      The picture shows the moment of separation of "Dragon" from the rocket in the test of the rescue system. Landing thrusters are used on this ship to deflect it away from an emergency missile when a launch is interrupted.
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Alexander Kulish
    Alexander Kulish
    +2
    17 May 2020 11: 41
    I am surprised at the following: a country that was able to fly to the moon and return back has been flying into space on other people's ships for more than 20 years .... Nonsense!
    1. Cyril
      Cyril
      -2
      17 May 2020 15: 00
      For more than 20 years, flies into space on foreign ships ....

      Has it been 2011 years from 2020 to 20? Math classes at school did not skip, no?
      As for your surprise, Russia (USSR) in the 60-70s sent dozens of spacecraft to the moon, including the "Lunokhod", but for some reason it has not been able to repeat this again for 20 years. Nonsense? She also developed the super-heavy "Energy", but for 25 years she has not been able to develop the "Angara". Nonsense? Doesn't surprise, no?
  17. radiootdel4
    radiootdel4
    +2
    19 May 2020 16: 59
    The plan is for Russian astronauts to fly on American ships, and our astronauts will fly on Soyuz ships

    - Wow plan, incredible impudence. Let them first prove the high quality and reliability of their ships by accident-free launches, and then we'll see what's what.