The US press invited the Russians to fly into space on a trampoline, instead of the expensive "Angara"


Roscosmos intends to implement the Angara-A5 heavy missile project, which is designed to replace the obsolete Proton-M. However, the new launch vehicle will be so expensive that it will not be able to compete with Western developments. About this writes the American magazine Ars Technica. Judging by the financial report of the Khrunichev Center, which is part of Roskosmos, the cost of the Angara is about 7 billion rubles, which is three times higher than the cost of Proton-M.


Perhaps they will use something like a trampoline to get cheaper to orbit

- says the publication’s website.

Apparently, a trampoline was said in the context of the words of Dmitry Rogozin. In 2014, he ironically advised NASA to use a trampoline to deliver astronauts to the ISS. At the end of May this year, the SpaceX American Dragon Crew delivered the first crew to the station. Elon Musk then answered Rogozin that "the trampoline is working."

US experts also note that the plans of the Russian authorities to create a super-heavy launch vehicle Yenisei, as well as Soyuz-5 and Soyuz-7 missiles, are “paper projects”. The only purpose of the Russians in this regard is to maintain the inflated image of a cosmic superpower.
Used photos: http://mil.ru/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

24 comments
Information

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

  1. Cyril Offline
    Cyril (Kirill) 1 July 2020 12: 20
    -1
    • 6
    • 7
    US experts also note that the plans of the Russian authorities to create a super-heavy launch vehicle Yenisei, as well as Soyuz-5 and Soyuz-7 missiles, are “paper projects”.

    Unfortunately, they are right in this.

    However, the new launch vehicle will be so expensive that it will not be able to compete with Western earnings. About this writes the American magazine Ars Technica.

    In this too.

    Perhaps they will use something like a trampoline to get cheaper to orbit

    And this is the answer. To the credit of the Americans, we must admit that they have such statements come from the media, and not from the head of NASA.
  2. 123 Online
    123 (123) 1 July 2020 13: 03
    0
    • 5
    • 5
    However, the new launch vehicle will be so expensive that it will not be able to compete with Western earnings. About this writes the American magazine Ars Technica. Judging by the financial report of the Khrunichev Center, which is part of Roskosmos, the cost of the Angara is about 7 billion rubles, which is three times higher than the cost of Proton-M.

    In the Center to them. Khrunichev must be put in order with reporting and immediately the cost of the hangar is much lower. The real value will appear.
    Consider the Angara dear? Let them announce how much money taxpayers have invested in Falcon, then we can compare it.

    US experts also note that the plans of the Russian authorities to create a super-heavy launch vehicle Yenisei, as well as Soyuz-5 and Soyuz-7 missiles, are “paper projects”.

    All space projects go through the "paper" stage. Let them get out of the office and see how local rocket scientists in the desert blow up barrels, and after all, the money of “American pensioners” has been leaving the Lunar program since the time of Bush Jr.

    The only purpose of the Russians in this regard is to maintain the inflated image of a cosmic superpower.

    Could you fly to orbit yourself and feel the wings behind your back? lol Exaggerated conceit is characteristic of Americans. laughing

    Perhaps they will use something like a trampoline to get cheaper to orbit

    Well, what a touchy. belay One joke cost the Americans at least $ 7 billion. repeat
    Perhaps for the American "experts" the news, but we have something to get to orbit.

    The purpose of the article is to divert readers' attention from internal problems.
    From fresh:

    1. Natan bruk Offline
      Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 2 July 2020 10: 41
      -1
      • 1
      • 2
      What, in fact, the first time they got to orbit? And, I realized - there were no "Gemini", "Apollo", "Shuttles." All this is Hollywood. In fact, their astronauts just now flew into space for the first time. Here it is, tearing the covers!
      1. 123 Online
        123 (123) 2 July 2020 14: 35
        0
        • 1
        • 1
        What, in fact, the first time they got to orbit? And, I realized - there were no "Gemini", "Apollo", "Shuttles." All this is Hollywood. In fact, their astronauts just now flew into space for the first time.

        Here's how to show the quote, where I said it, then we'll discuss. It is a quote, not your speculation. yes

        Here it is, tearing the covers!

        Rather, you managed to knock out the bottom. winked
        1. Natan bruk Offline
          Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 2 July 2020 19: 30
          -3
          • 0
          • 3
          They were able to fly to orbit themselves and felt the wings behind them.

          - this is your quote, no? Or were all these flights not orbital?
          1. 123 Online
            123 (123) 2 July 2020 21: 42
            +1
            • 2
            • 1
            They were able to fly to orbit themselves and felt the wings behind them.

            - this is your quote, no? Or were all these flights not orbital?

            My yes And where does it say about the first flight and further in the text?

            What, in fact, the first time they got to orbit? And, I realized - there were no "Gemini", "Apollo", "Shuttles." All this is Hollywood. In fact, their astronauts just now flew into space for the first time.

            Your imagination has run wild. winked Rewrite non-existent statements, and then expose. sad
            1. Natan bruk Offline
              Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 2 July 2020 22: 08
              -2
              • 1
              • 3
              Well, yes, I'm not me :))) So, you say that the United States made its first orbital flight? Or how then to understand - “the first time we reached the orbit”?
              1. 123 Online
                123 (123) 2 July 2020 22: 16
                +2
                • 2
                • 0
                Well, yes, I'm not me :))) So, you say that the United States made its first orbital flight? Or how then to understand - “the first time we reached the orbit”?

                Do me a favor, indicate where it says "the first time we got to orbit" ??? Especially first. Do you have problems with reading?
                1. Natan bruk Offline
                  Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 3 July 2020 06: 09
                  -2
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  Well, not “first,” but “they could fly to orbit themselves.” This phrase implies what they previously wanted, but could not get to orbit. The meaning is the same. By the way, in what place did they lose 7 billion? They have a new modern ship, and Russia lost billions just because potential orders sailed to Mask, but Rogozin was disgraced with his jokes and even more embarrassed when he tells how the Americans were afraid of his jokes.
                  1. 123 Online
                    123 (123) 3 July 2020 09: 00
                    +2
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    Well, not “first,” but “they could fly to orbit themselves.” This phrase implies what they previously wanted, but could not get to orbit.

                    It was like that for 10 years. yes Or is it different in your reality? laughing
                    I am glad that it took you only two days to comprehend this phrase. hi
                    1. Natan bruk Offline
                      Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 3 July 2020 09: 08
                      -2
                      • 0
                      • 2
                      How exactly did it happen? So, before these 10 years, they still flew into orbit, and regularly? And by the way, without people over these 10 years, satellites also entered orbit quite regularly. I’m not talking about deep space, here Russia generally has a failure. And soon, competitors will launch the Mask of people. It only remained for the patriots to console themselves with the fact that the Americans had a break for 10 years. :))) I imagine how they hoped that something would go wrong with the Dragon and how upset they were when their hopes collapsed. :)))
                      1. 123 Online
                        123 (123) 3 July 2020 09: 10
                        0
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        Apparently I hurried what two days is not enough. winked
    2. Cyril Offline
      Cyril (Kirill) 2 July 2020 15: 16
      0
      • 2
      • 2
      In the Center to them. Khrunichev must be put in order with reporting and immediately the cost of the hangar is much lower. The real value will appear.

      And why exactly there, and not in Roskosmos?

      Consider the Angara dear? Let them announce how much money taxpayers have invested in Falcon, then we can compare it.

      Invested in the development of Falcon-9 $ 396 million from NASA and $ 450 million of the company's own funds. And the rocket flies. Successfully and a lot.

      All space projects go through the "paper" stage.

      All. But some remain on it.

      Let them get out of the office and see how local rocket scientists in the desert blow up barrels, and after all, the money of "American pensioners" has been leaving the Lunar program since the time of Bush Jr.

      Prototypes Starships SpaceX explodes for its money. At one time, the company also exploded the Grasshopper prototype in the same way - some also laughed. After only 3-4 years, SpaceX uses reusable steps, and “some” are no longer laughing — they want to make the “Angara” reusable too.

      Could you fly to orbit yourself and feel the wings behind your back? Exaggerated conceit is typical of Americans.

      Created a new reusable ship. And not one. It’s quite a legitimate conceit.

      Perhaps for the American "experts" the news, but we have something to get to orbit.

      Well, at least we have it.
      1. 123 Online
        123 (123) 2 July 2020 16: 21
        +1
        • 3
        • 2
        And why exactly there, and not in Roskosmos?

        Because the cost data are given in the Center. Khrunicheva.

        $ 9 million from NASA and $ 396 million of the company's own funds were invested in the development of Falcon-450.

        And how much is the DARPA funds invested in the project? Their project, it is logical to assume that the main financing is also on them.

        And the rocket flies. Successfully and a lot.

        Apparently, they pay more attention to projects related to the Ministry of Defense and more funding, however, as we do.

        All. But some remain on it.

        Quite right, many remain unfulfilled. Both with us and with them.

        Prototypes Starships SpaceX explodes for its money. At one time, the company also exploded the Grasshopper prototype in the same way - some also laughed. After only 3-4 years, SpaceX uses reusable steps, and “some” are no longer laughing — they want to make the “Angara” reusable too.

        How do you know that they "blow at their own"? SpaceX is still a closed company, it is embarrassing to publish information on financing from "civilian philanthropists".
        Do not worry, everything will be fine with the Hangar. Who is "not laughing"? Not everyone, like you, is worried about the activities of Americans.

        Created a new reusable ship. And not one. It’s quite a legitimate conceit.

        Well, let them create a dozen more and go "with watermelons under the arm." If they have free money printed, what for them to throw 7 billion? Let them continue. "Orion" also did, how to use? In 2014, they flew to the garage. But in 2018 they were going to fly to the moon, now they promise to go to the 2021st.

        Well, at least we have it.

        Well, they now have "at least it is." But for them, this is the basis for "conceit," and for some reason you consider it a tragedy.
        1. Cyril Offline
          Cyril (Kirill) 2 July 2020 19: 19
          0
          • 2
          • 2
          Because the cost data are given in the Center. Khrunicheva.

          And why did you decide that they do not reflect the real situation?

          And how much money has been invested in the DARPA project

          laughing Falcon-9 was never their project)) Those 8 million (very many) that were mentioned in one of our correspondence were issued by SpaceX not for development, but for launching Falcon-1.

          Funding for the Falcon-9 came from NASA.

          Apparently, they pay more attention to projects related to the Ministry of Defense and more funding, however, as we do.

          Where did you get that the Falcon-9 was funded by the military?) Is there evidence?

          Quite right, many remain unfulfilled. Both with us and with them.

          But they have much more coming out of the paper stage.

          How do you know that they "blow at their own"? SpaceX is still a closed company, it is shy to publish information on financing from "patrons of civilian clothes".

          Because while there is no evidence of something, the existence of this something cannot be argued. Is there evidence of state funding for the Starship trials? Not. What are we talking about?

          SpaceX is still a closed company, it is shy to publish information on financing from "patrons of civilian clothes".

          Ummm ... who said hes shy? Maybe he just doesn’t see the need for this? This is a private company, not a public company, it is not required to report.

          Do not worry, everything will be fine with the Hangar.

          Sure sure.

          Who is "not laughing"? Not everything is how you worry about the activities of Americans.

          That's what Dmitry Olegovich broadcasts about the “dumping Mask” and “unfair competition”)) Well, he’s not at all worried)

          In 2014, they flew to the garage. But in 2018 they were going to fly to the moon, now they promise to go to the 2021st.

          Flying to the moon is so much more complicated than developing a launch vehicle.

          Well, they now have "at least it is." But for them, this is the basis for "conceit," and for some reason you consider it a tragedy.

          Because they have it "at least have" more perfect than ours.
          You see, you can get from point A to point B both on a horse-drawn cart and on an SUV. But for some reason they choose an SUV, and not a cart. If possible, of course.
          1. 123 Online
            123 (123) 2 July 2020 21: 37
            +3
            • 3
            • 0
            And why did you decide that they do not reflect the real situation?

            Because the indicated value of the hangar of 7 billion is unclear which reflects.
            Is this the cost of a rocket actually under construction? As far as I know, no. What can we talk about in this case. We will wait for the construction of the rocket, then we will find out the real value.

            Falcon-9 was never their project)) Those 8 million (very many) that were mentioned in one of our correspondence were issued by SpaceX not for development, but for launching Falcon-1.

            8 million, "about which was discussed in one of our correspondence," have nothing to do with this. If you remember, I said that I had not yet looked at the document. The conclusion about 8 million you made yourself. yes We got our hands around, looked, as far as I understood - we are talking about the Falcon HTV-2 (Hypersonic Test Vehicle) project. In general, hypersound. By the way, another unrealized project. And 17 years have passed. repeat

            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project

            But they have much more coming out of the paper stage.

            Much more - does that mean - much more or a little more, or more in percentage terms? Or do you just think that more? Somehow, not at all specific. no You like to demand evidence. Do you have them? What data are guided by? smile

            Ummm ... who said hes shy? Maybe he just doesn’t see the need for this? This is a private company, not a public company, it is not required to report.

            So, still stand on the position - there is no data, so - did not finance?
            Then the question on Zircon remains open, there is no data on financing, do you think the military did not finance it?
            By the way, Musk beta test of the satellite system promised to be held soon, while the military component of the project was tested at least twice. Isn't that a good example of what's the priority?

            Sure sure.

            Why not? Since the days of Bush Jr., Americans have been lulling the lunar program, but do you have any doubts about its implementation? And do not believe in the Angara? But she already flew, the point is the organization of production in a new place and the completion of the launch pad. In this case, your opinion is based on fanaticism?

            Flying to the moon is so much more complicated than developing a launch vehicle.

            Indeed, it’s easier to send people into orbit and it took 10 years .... They’ve been trying to fly to the moon for 20 years. This is about these people say that everything is fine with them? Musk, of course, will walk on the Moon and Mars soon? winked

            You see, you can get from point A to point B both on a horse-drawn cart and on an SUV. But for some reason they choose an SUV, and not a cart. If possible, of course.

            Horse .... SUV .... I can offer another analogy. Instead of a compact gig, they made a huge arba decorated in the "Afghan" style, harnessed by camels.
            1. Cyril Offline
              Cyril (Kirill) 3 July 2020 00: 03
              -2
              • 0
              • 2
              Because the indicated value of the hangar of 7 billion is unclear which reflects.
              Is this the cost of a rocket actually under construction? As far as I know, no. What can we talk about in this case. We will wait for the construction of the rocket, then we will find out the real value.

              It clearly says - the cost of the Angara rocket is 7 billion rubles.

              The conclusion about 8 million you made yourself.

              Because this is the only number linking DARPA with SpaceX.

              We got our hands around, looked, as far as I understood - we are talking about the Falcon HTV-2 (Hypersonic Test Vehicle) project.

              Fine, that is, it has nothing to do with SpaceX at all. This moment can be completely taken away.

              Much more - does that mean - much more or a little more, or more in percentage terms?

              In every way. Both in absolute and in percentage.

              You like to demand evidence. Do you have them? What data are guided by?

              And everything is very simple. Take all the US comic projects and see how many of them are implemented. Then you take all the space projects in Russia - see how many of them have been implemented. And voila.

              So, still stand on the position - there is no data, so - did not finance?

              At the very least, it cannot be said that they financed. And use this statement as an argument.

              Then the question on Zircon remains open, there is no data on financing, do you think the military did not finance it?

              There is no data, HOW MUCH military have invested in Zircon, but there is data that they invested in principle.

              In addition, simple logic says that combat the missile is made precisely in the interests of the military. She’s also fighting.

              But is the Starship combat?)

              By the way, Musk beta test of the satellite system promised to be held soon, while the military component of the project was tested at least twice. Isn't that a good example of what's the priority?

              And we were not talking about Starlink, if that)

              Why not? Since the days of Bush Jr., Americans have been lulling the lunar program, but do you have any doubts about its implementation? And do not believe in the Angara? But she already flew, the point is the organization of production in a new place and the completion of the launch pad. In this case, your opinion is based on fanaticism?

              You see, if the goal of the Angara project was to simply create and launch a rocket, I would not doubt it.

              But the goal of the Angara project is to create a commercially successful and competitive rocket on the international market. And here - yes, I doubt it.

              And the analogy with the American Lunar program is incorrect, because these are two different in complexity and in terms of the tasks of the project.

              Indeed, it’s easier to send people into orbit and it took 10 years ....

              Creating a manned spacecraft for a DOE is still more difficult than creating a launch vehicle))

              Once again, when making an analogy - compare the right things. A booster rocket with a booster rocket, a ship for the DOE with a ship for the DOE, a ship for the Moon with a ship for the Moon.

              And yet, yes, Musk developed a new missile in a heavy version in 5 years, in a super-heavy version - in 8. Russia has not yet done so, although 25 years have passed.

              This is about these people say that everything is fine with them? Musk, of course, will walk on the Moon and Mars soon?

              I did not say that they all wonderful. I said that they have business betterthan ours.

              I can offer another analogy. Instead of a compact gig, they made a huge arba decorated in the "Afghan" style, harnessed by camels.

              Well, your "ability" to give analogies has long been known).
              1. 123 Online
                123 (123) 3 July 2020 01: 18
                +2
                • 3
                • 1
                It clearly says - the cost of the Angara rocket is 7 billion rubles.

                How clear? Build a rocket for 7 billion? Or built for this price?
                How much can you say, it is not clear what is written in the report.

                And everything is very simple. Take all the US comic projects and see how many of them are implemented. Then you take all the space projects in Russia - see how many of them have been implemented. And voila.

                Magician. laughing I looked, I got the exact opposite result. smile

                At the very least, it cannot be said that they financed. And use this statement as an argument.

                Not without logic yes but then without information it cannot be argued that they have rocket development and launches are cheaper.

                You see, if the goal of the Angara project was to simply create and launch a rocket, I would not doubt it.
                But the goal of the Angara project is to create a commercially successful and competitive rocket on the international market. And here - yes, I doubt it.
                And the analogy with the American Lunar program is incorrect, because these are two different in complexity and in terms of the tasks of the project.

                Are you sure that the market for commercial launches will be based on purely market conditions? Remember, gave a link to the bill? The law didyes

                https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ129/PLAW-116publ129.pdf

                The wording was smoothed out, everything is not as open as in the project, but there is no doubt about how this will work. Allies will be pressured like everywhere else (approximately like along the Nord Stream), all launches are drawn to themselves.

                Creating a manned spacecraft for a DOE is still more difficult than creating a launch vehicle))
                Once again, when making an analogy - compare the right things. A booster rocket with a booster rocket, a ship for the DOE with a ship for the DOE, a ship for the Moon with a ship for the Moon.
                And yet, yes, Musk developed a new missile in a heavy version in 5 years, in a super-heavy version - in 8. Russia has not yet done so, although 25 years have passed.

                Here you are difficult. belay The rocket is created, it flew. How much can be repeated, the transfer of production, finish the spaceport. And you compare with the American missile, pretending that the Angara has not yet been created.

                I did not say that everything is wonderful with them. I said that they’re doing better than ours.

                Why should they be worse? Their country did not fall apart, there was no devastation of the 90s, enterprises did not remain abroad. What is so surprising about this? Is this news for you?

                well, your "ability" to give analogies has long been known)

                In this art you are not far gone. winked
  3. steelmaker Offline
    steelmaker 1 July 2020 13: 34
    -1
    • 4
    • 5
    While Rogozin will lead our space, the Americans will constantly pin us on us with this trampoline. I have already spoken here more than once about the lack of education of our government. Now they will poke us with this constantly. And space is an expensive pleasure in general. Therefore, the result and goals are important for what this pleasure is spent.
    1. 123 Online
      123 (123) 1 July 2020 15: 31
      +2
      • 4
      • 2
      While Rogozin will lead our space, the Americans will constantly pin us on us with this trampoline.

      I’m not going to defend Rogozin, but to remove him, because the Americans are “pinning”, the argument is extremely weak.

      I have already spoken here more than once about the lack of education of our government.

      Quite rightly said and repeatedly. yes That's just what this statement is based on, it is not clear. request

      Now they will poke us with this constantly.

      This is not necessary, you do it yourself, voluntarily and regularly. winked

      And space is an expensive pleasure in general. Therefore, the result and goals are important for what this pleasure is spent.

      Quite a reasonable formulation of the question. yes And what, in your opinion, are the goals in space with us and the Americans?
  4. steelmaker Offline
    steelmaker 2 July 2020 12: 32
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    To write comments on an article, you must first read this article, then draw a conclusion, and write a comment based on the conclusion. But when do they write comments on the four lines of the comment? For this education it is not necessary, it is necessary to spoil a person, offend, humiliate and at the same time rejoice that you will not get into a lobeshnik. For me, such communication is disgusting. But for some, I will make an exception and will communicate in their language.

    I’m not going to defend Rogozin, but to remove him, because the Americans are “pinning”, the argument is extremely weak.

    And this, like, is not protection? The Americans just like that, why did Rogozin write about the trampoline? And it hurt you so much that they decided to insert their "three pieces of silver?"

    Quite rightly said and repeatedly. That's just what this statement is based on, it is not clear.

    But if so educated - refute. And if education is not enough, petty frivolity is not paid here. Or work out your three pieces of silver?

    This is not necessary, you do it yourself, voluntarily and regularly.

    Did, do, and will do! Because Putin’s team and his fans show a lack of education in everything that they won’t take. Some openly sell the interests of the motherland, others protect them. At the same time, both of them make the right speech, but the result is the opposite. Therefore, they increasingly remind us of the 90s, while threatening us, and you can only brag about if you compare the results with the 90s.

    Quite a reasonable formulation of the question. yes And what, in your opinion, are the goals in space for us and the Americans?

    And this is the level of your education. I ask a question, I hope that someone will think - this is the time, and if someone is smarter than me, he will answer my question. But to answer a question - a question? - as per Dostoevsky!
  5. Bulanov Offline
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 2 July 2020 13: 48
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    The idea of ​​a "trampoline" is already being used when launching small satellites from high-altitude aircraft to nearby orbits. The idea of ​​a “Space Elevator” is also an idea of ​​a trampoline, and only people without a healthy imagination can laugh at it, as some people once laughed at Tsiolkovsky, considering him “city crazy” ...
  6. novice Offline
    novice (Andrei) 5 July 2020 22: 10
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    You can’t argue here, the States are great!
    As for the leadership of Roscosmos, everything is already visible (unfortunately, we can’t call Mr. Rogozin to answer. But "we are almost on the moon and we have almost our own orbital station and much more! The budget is used correctly!" (Change Mask on Rogozin, that would be a diversion)))))
  7. novice Offline
    novice (Andrei) 5 July 2020 22: 14
    +1
    • 1
    • 0
    In general, about the trampoline - this is laughter through tears! How?!?? How are such people allowed to such things?! ??!?!
    Perhaps this is like with Serdyukov, a cunning plan. Sorry to disclose, without me would have guessed ....