Only Falcon 9 is behind: Angara-A5 named one of the best in the world

July 8 2020

Former Director General of the Khrunichev Center Vladimir Nesterov in a recent interview with the agency RIA News stated that the domestic carrier of the heavy class Angara-A5 surpasses almost all the world's missiles in technical specifications, second only to the American Falcon 9.

A specialist with 48 years of design experience stressed that he knows firsthand about foreign missiles and can confidently say that the Angara is the best missile and space complex in the world. The Russian carrier at the moment has only one drawback - the lack of a return first stage. It was in this component that the Ilona Mask rocket was able to surpass the Angara-A5.

However, according to Nesterov, the domestic carrier has advantages that the Falcon 9 cannot boast of. In particular, the RD-191 first-stage engine. The designer is sure that no one has done this in the world and will not do it for another 10 years.

In addition, the second-stage aggregate RD-0124 has superior performance. Its specific impulse is equal to 359 units. This indicator is currently not available to any foreign counterpart.

Additionally, Vladimir Nesterov noted a completely new control system, a composite head fairing and a unique launch complex capable of launching light, medium and heavy class missiles from one point.

Recall that earlier we wrote about the intention of Roskosmos to make one of the heavy versions of the Angara reusable. Thus, our carrier has every chance to get around its last competitor and become the best rocket in the world without any reservations.

Used photos: http://mil.ru/

Reporterin Yandex News

Reporterin Yandex Zen

39 comments

Information

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

Offline Cyril

Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 12: 57

-1

2

3
However, according to Nesterov, the domestic carrier has advantages that the Falcon 9 cannot boast of. In particular, the RD-191 first-stage engine.

The engine is not an end in itself or a "thing in itself". The engine is needed to launch the rocket and the payload into orbit. The 9 Merlins are doing this job quite well. Therefore, although technically the Angara engine is more powerful than the Falcon engines, there is no particular sense from this power - the rocket load is approximately the same.
1. Offline 123
  
  123 (123) 8 July 2020 13: 22
  
  +2
  
  3
  
  1
  
  The engine is not an end in itself or a "thing in itself". The engine is needed to launch the rocket and the payload into orbit. The 9 Merlins are doing this job quite well. Therefore, although technically the Angara engine is more powerful than the Falcon engines, there is no particular sense from this power - the rocket load is approximately the same.
  
  Exactly the same thing can be said about the returning stage, it is not an end in itself, economic efficiency is important.
  1. Offline Cyril
    
    Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 14: 38
    
    0
    
    1
    
    1
    
    Everything is correct, it is for this that the return stage is done.
    1. Offline 123
      
      123 (123) 8 July 2020 15: 30
      
      +1
      
      2
      
      1
      
      And the engine with the best performance, in your opinion, for what? For self-affirmation?
      1. Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 17: 07
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        And what is the meaning of the greater power of the RD-191? A heavy Angara will take into orbit as much as Falcon-9.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 8 July 2020 19: 12
        
        -1
        
        1
        
        2
        
        And what is the meaning of the greater power of the RD-191? A heavy Angara will take into orbit as much as Falcon-9.
        
        Do you need to explain why you are working to improve engine performance?
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 19: 31
        
        -1
        
        0
        
        1
        
        No, I need to explain what the value of the greater power of the RD-191 engines is, if, in the end, the launch vehicle equipped with them will launch into orbit as much as the launch vehicle equipped with Merlin.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 8 July 2020 20: 43
        
        +1
        
        2
        
        1
        
        No, I need to explain what the value of the greater power of the RD-191 engines is, if, in the end, the launch vehicle equipped with them will launch into orbit as much as the launch vehicle equipped with Merlin.
        
        Try to ask your "friends" in the sect why Musk is developing the Raptor, because you can certainly add a few more Merlins to the "grape bunch".
        
        https://www.forbes.ru/tehnologii/372203-ilon-mask-protiv-rossii-dvigatel-spacex-pobil-rekord-otechestvennogo-rd-180
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 21: 09
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        Try to ask your "friends" in the sect why Musk is developing the Raptor, because for sure you can add a few more Merlins to the "grape bunch"
        
        To output the loads for which Starship is planned, it is no longer advisable to add "bunches of merlin". Therefore, for a new ship with a completely different payload compared to Falcon-9, a different engine is needed.
        
        In addition, the Raptor has another important advantage over the Merlins in addition to greater power - the use of methane as fuel. This is important because the Starships are planned to be used for the colonization of Mars, where you can get methane and not kerosene.
        
        But the great power of the RD-191 in comparison with the Merlin does not give Angara any advantages over the Falcons.
        
        As I said, learn to analyze the characteristics of a technique based on the purpose of this technique.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 8 July 2020 22: 02
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        To output the loads for which Starship is planned, it is no longer advisable to add "bunches of merlin". Therefore, for a new ship with a completely different payload compared to Falcon-9, a different engine is needed.
        
        Why so? They would add everything. Why suffer? If you think that improving engine performance is no use.
        
        In addition, the Raptor has another important advantage over the Merlins in addition to greater power - the use of methane as fuel. This is important because the Starships are planned to be used for the colonization of Mars, where you can get methane and not kerosene.
        
        That is, the Americans fly to Mars, get methane there, refuel and fly back? Is that the whole point? Thank you, mocked to tears.
        And stupid Russians are going to make a methane rocket and refuel on the ground. Here are naive people, they just think it’s cheaper.
        
        But the great power of the RD-191 in comparison with the Merlin does not give Angara any advantages over the Falcons.
        
        The new engine with better performance allows you to throw more weight into orbit. Why do you think that this is not worth doing, is not clear? What does the comparison with the Merlins have to do with it? It all comes down to Mask.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 22: 45
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        Why so? They would add everything. Why suffer? If you think that improving engine performance is no use
        
        Because the number of Merlins required for the Starship will cost much more than the required number of Raptors.
        
        But the total cost of the "Merlins" for Falcon is less than the total cost of the RD-180 for the version of the "Angara" of the same carrying capacity. Moreover, both rockets launch approximately the same load into orbit.
        
        That is, the Americans fly to Mars, get methane there, refuel and fly back? Is that the whole point? Thank you, made fun of to tears.
        
        Including for this reason. I don’t know what is so funny.
        
        And stupid Russians are going to make a methane rocket and refuel on the ground. Here are naive people, they just think it's cheaper
        
        And where are the Russians here? You gave me a link to "SpaceX", there was nothing about the Russians. Oh, these your substitutions of theses.
        
        The new engine with better performance allows you to throw more weight into orbit.
        
        True, for some reason the "new engine with better performance" allows the weight to be thrown into orbit, which the engine with lower performance throws. The benefits of this "more power" in the context of the drop load are still unclear.
        
        What does the comparison with the Merlins have to do with it? It all comes down to Mask.
        
        So this is not me comparing the Angara with the Falcons - this comparison is made in the article. You did not read it, or what? The trouble is ....
Offline Cyril

Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 12: 59

+1

3

2
Recall that earlier we wrote about the intention of Roskosmos to make one of the heavy versions of the Angara reusable. Thus, our carrier has every chance to get around its last competitor and become the best rocket in the world without any reservations.

It must first be done in general, and not reusable. And then think about how to "bypass the competitor and make the best one without reservations."
1. Offline 123
  
  123 (123) 8 July 2020 13: 32
  
  +1
  
  3
  
  2
  
  It must first be done in general, and not reusable. And then think about how to "bypass the competitor and make the best one without reservations."
  
  When will the Americans make Orion - can you tell me? Do you think that its characteristics and prospects are also not worth talking about?
  The man expressed his opinion about the characteristics of the rocket and its prospects. Your opinion of what to think about is no more important.
  1. Offline Cyril
    
    Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 14: 43
    
    +1
    
    2
    
    1
    
    The Americans have already made Orion. The delay is not with the ship itself, but with the carrier - SLS. This time.
    
    Two - "Orion" is made especially for lunar (scientific) missions. "Angara" is being made to put the payload into orbit, including for commercial launches. These are two projects that are different in their purpose. In other words, Orion and SLS do not require urgent implementation, but Angara does, because Russia will not have a heavy-class launch vehicle after the closure of Proton.
    1. Offline 123
      
      123 (123) 8 July 2020 15: 41
      
      +3
      
      3
      
      0
      
      The Americans have already made Orion. The delay is not with the ship itself, but with the carrier - SLS. This time.
      
      You won’t believe it, but the Angara was also created, a problem with the transfer of production to Omsk and the completion of the cosmodrome. And I already told you about it. Is information contrary to faith?
      
      Two - "Orion" is made especially for lunar (scientific) missions. "Angara" is being made to put the payload into orbit, including for commercial launches. These are two projects that are different in their purpose. In other words, Orion and SLS do not require urgent implementation, but Angara does, because Russia will not have a heavy-class launch vehicle after the closure of Proton.
      
      We have two projects, in both cases finished products were manufactured and flew into space. For similar reasons, they are not used at the moment, but with regard to Angara, it turns out that "it was not made", and it is so needed. If the conversation comes about Americans, then, of course, they did, and does not fly simply because they do not really need it ...
      
      Hello to the sectarians.
      1. Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 16: 58
        
        -1
        
        2
        
        3
        
        You won’t believe it, but the Angara was also created, a problem with the transfer of production to Omsk and the completion of the cosmodrome.
        
        Before writing this, bother to get a little deeper into the topic:
        
        https://ria.ru/20180326/1517286585.html
        
        Quote:
        
        The conventional version of the Angara-A5 heavy rocket does not meet the originally laid down technical requirements and needs to be improved, said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.
        
        One could say - it was in 2018, now everything is ok, the whole thing is only in the organization of production and other subtleties that are not related to the rocket itself.
        
        But look further:
        
        October 23, 2019 General Designer of Design Bureau Salyut of the Center named after M. Khrunicheva Sergey Kuznetsov told the media that "Angara-A5M", which will replace inadequate requirements of the Ministry of Defense RF "Angaru-A5", will be first launched at the end of 2024 from the Vostochny Cosmodrome, however, if necessary, launches can also be carried out from Plesetsk.
        
        On January 31, 2020, a source in the rocket and space industry told the media that Roscosmos and the Russian Ministry of Defense approved the modified Angara-A5M with increased carrying capacity in relation to the original "five" and meeting the requirements of the military department. A5M is expected to appear in 2024. and will launch a payload weighing 27,5 tons from Vostochny to low Earth orbit
        
        30 June 2020 year the state corporation Roscosmos announced amendments to the state contract for development work “Amur” with the inclusion in it work on modernization and further development of the family (development of a modernized version of the Angara-A5 missiles - Angara-A5M")
        
        6 2019 October, the General Designer of Salyut Design Bureau Sergey Kuznetsov told the media that the date of the first launch of the Angara-A5V with an oxygen-hydrogen stage has not yet been determined, since the requirements for the appearance of the rocket are not formed
        
        We have two projects, in both cases, finished products were manufactured and flew into space. For similar reasons, they are not used at the moment, but with regard to Angara, it turns out that "it was not made", and it is so needed. If the conversation comes about Americans, then, of course, they did, and does not fly simply because they do not really need ...
        
        1. We have two different in purpose and complexity of the project. Creating a manned transport system for the Moon and Mars is much more difficult, and at the same time less urgent, than creating a heavy carrier to replace the obsolete.
        
        2. So yes, the Americans without SLS and Orion at least do not lose the market for commercial launches and the possibility of launching heavy vehicles in general (for any purpose). They have at least the Falcon, Atlas-5 and Delta launch vehicles. But Russia, with the abandonment of the Proton and without the adoption of the Angara, is losing the commercial market and the ability to launch heavy vehicles (for various purposes) in general.
        
        So send your very witty (no) vidosiki, for example, Shadows - this is exactly its level. And you’d better go deep into the topic under discussion, otherwise it’s ridiculous.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 8 July 2020 18: 44
        
        +4
        
        4
        
        0
        
        Before you write this, take the trouble to get a little deeper into the topic.
        
        Let's try. The conversation is about the "Angara - A5" rocket, if you take the trouble to look at how you put it, "vidosik" will probably understand that "Angara - A5" is a "constructor", the "Angara" blocks that have already flown into space are assembled.
        As for "Angara-A5M", the customer (MO) is not satisfied with the characteristics, another modification is being created. If you take the trouble to read the link provided by you, then the new rocket will receive:
        
        rocket engines with increased by 10% thrust, onboard systems based on the domestic element base, as well as a number of design differences aimed at reducing the mass of the rocket and the cost of its manufacture
        
        Other characteristics, domestic components, etc. A5 and A5M are not the same thing.
        
        work on modernization and further development of the family (development of a modernized version of the Angara-A5 - Angara-A5M missiles
        
        "Angara-A5M" is even less relevant to the conversation. You quoted yourself:
        
        with an oxygen-hydrogen stage is still not defined, since missile appearance requirements not formed
        
        This will be another modification that runs on an oxygen-hydrogen mixture, for which requirements have not yet been formed.
        
        Want precision? Here's the launch of Angara-A5. Brush off the "dew of God" from your face and say - EVERYTHING, this is not.
        
        1. We have two different in purpose and complexity of the project. Creating a manned transport system for the Moon and Mars is much more difficult, and at the same time less urgent, than creating a heavy carrier to replace the obsolete.
        
        What are these double standards? Is it customary in your sect to judge the degree of product readiness by the level of project complexity? Review the second video again, apparently, its essence from one viewing was not understood.
        
        2. So yes, the Americans without SLS and Orion at least do not lose the market for commercial launches and the possibility of launching heavy vehicles in general (for any purpose). They have at least the Falcon, Atlas-5 and Delta launch vehicles. But Russia, with the abandonment of the Proton and without the adoption of the Angara, is losing the commercial market and the ability to launch heavy vehicles (for various purposes) in general.
        
        It makes no difference to me who and what is losing. Do not come up with childish excuses. The conversation was about the readiness of the product. Turn around, like in a frying pan. Not ashamed?
        You say Russia "is losing the ability to launch heavy vehicles at all"?
        In July it is planned to send the Nauka model to the ISS, which is more than 20 tons. Do you think foreign companies will do this? And it was you who suggested delving into the topic?
        
        So send your very witty (no) vidosiki, for example, Shadows - this is exactly its level. And you’d better go deep into the topic under discussion, otherwise it’s ridiculous.
        
        Behave like a child, show your tongue. Think you are better and smarter than others? Up to the level of "Shadow" you are like to Beijing sideways. "Vidosiki" is really too early for you to watch, your level is comics Kindergarten pants with straps
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 19: 25
        
        -1
        
        1
        
        2
        
        The conversation is about the "Angara - A5" rocket, if you take the trouble to look at how you put it, "vidosik" will probably understand that "Angara - A5" is a "constructor", the "Angara" blocks that have already flown into space are assembled.
        
        The Angara-A5 modification will not be used. Instead, the Angara-A5M is being developed.
        
        As for "Angara-A5M", the customer (MO) is not satisfied with the characteristics, another modification is being created. If you take the trouble to read the link provided by you, then the new rocket will receive:
        
        "Angara-A5M" is the "other modification" of Angara-A5, the characteristics of which did not suit the customer.
        
        This will be another modification that runs on an oxygen-hydrogen mixture, for which requirements have not yet been formed.
        
        This will not be "another modification", it will be just a replacement for the Angara-A5, which did not satisfy the customer.
        
        Want precision? Here's the launch of Angara-A5. Brush the "dew of God" from your face and say - EVERYTHING, this is not
        
        Where did I deny the launch of the Angara-A5? Why do you ascribe to me what I did not say?
        
        The launch of Angara-A5 was just there. But this modification did not satisfy the customer, which led to the continuation of design work, which should end with the appearance of the Angara-A5M, which will be used in the future. I repeat this already 4 or 5 times - maybe it will finally reach you.
        
        Once again - carefully study the issue, and only after that take up the discussion.
        
        What are these double standards? Is it customary in your sect to judge the degree of product readiness by the level of project complexity?
        
        Of course. The more complex the project, the longer it takes to complete it. This is not even accepted in "our sect" - it is accepted by all people who think logically.
        
        It makes no difference to me who and what is losing. Do not come up with childish excuses. The conversation was about the readiness of the product. Turn around, like in a frying pan. Not ashamed?
        
        It is impossible to evaluate the product and its degree of readiness without evaluating the goals for which this project is being implemented. And just you turn around, inventing inappropriate analogies. To compare the implementation of the Falcon family missiles and the Angara family missiles is correct, because both projects are implemented for the same purposes. That's just a comparison will not be in favor of the Angara, which will somewhat ruin your picture of the world.
        
        You say Russia "is losing the ability to launch heavy vehicles at all"?
        In July it is planned to send the Nauka model to the ISS, which is more than 20 tons. Do you think foreign companies will do this? And it was you who suggested delving into the topic?
        
        "Science" will be sent (if they are, of course) on the "Proton", which are still ordered by "Roskosmos" in some quantity.
        After the Protons are decommissioned, Russia will launch a heavy load on the Angara. The only question is whether or not she will have time to finish this "Angara" by that time.
        
        Behave like a child, show another language. Think you're better and smarter than others?
        
        Smarter than some. At least I can search and analyze information.
        
        To the level of "Shadow" you are as to Beijing sideways.
        
        And thank God. I would not like to be on the same level with the person squealing about the "lunar conspiracy". But, apparently, for you he is an indisputable authority))
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 8 July 2020 20: 38
        
        +3
        
        3
        
        0
        
        The Angra-A5 modification will not be used. Instead, Angara-A5M is being developed.
        "Angara-A5M" is the "other modification" of Angara-A5, the characteristics of which did not suit the customer.
        This will not be "another modification", it will be just a replacement for the Angara-A5, which did not satisfy the customer.
        
        This is quite reasonable, time is running, performance is improving.
        Back to Orion, what's wrong with it? When will he fly? What about its characteristics? Will it be improved or will the Starship fly instead?
        There I had a typo, I meant 2 modifications of the A5M and A5B (therefore, it seems, the repetition turned out).
        
        Where did I deny the launch of the Angara-A5? Why do you ascribe to me what I did not say?
        
        You said - "It first needs to be done in general", have we already argued on this topic before? Are you having memory problems? Find a chat?
        
        The launch of Angara-A5 was just there. But this modification did not satisfy the customer, which led to the continuation of design work, which should end with the appearance of the Angara-A5M, which will be used in the future. I repeat this already 4 or 5 times - maybe it will finally reach you.
        
        Finally. Already better, she still is. Not even half a year has passed, but already such progress.
        Back to Orion, if you think correctly. So, also 5 repeat. What about its characteristics? Was it "written off"? Will improve performance?
        
        It is impossible to evaluate the product and its degree of readiness without evaluating the goals for which this project is being implemented.
        
        Good idea. After all, you can, if you want.
        That Angara, that Orion does not exist in a vacuum. These are parts of the complex. If simplified, the starting infrastructure, a rocket, a ship, someone and some equipment should do them. By themselves, they do not work individually.
        
        To compare the implementation of the Falcon family missiles and the Angara family missiles is correct, because both projects are implemented for the same purposes. That's just a comparison will not be in favor of the Angara, which will somewhat ruin your picture of the world.
        
        If you compare not primitive rocket with rocket, but abstract equipment, do you have any brain activity? We are talking about evaluation criteria and double standards, and not how it should be used. I will try to help you and simplify everything as much as possible.
        In both cases, we have "equipment".
        In the United States built equipment (Orion), launched into space, now it does not fly due to the unavailability of other parts of the complex (rocket).
        Equipment built in Russia (Angara) launched into space, now it does not fly due to the unavailability of other parts of the complex (launcher).
        In the first case, you say that the product is ready, in the second not.
        Try to move aside the pink visor that falls from you at the words "American space" and honestly answer, guided by what criteria do you get such opposite conclusions?
        
        "Science" will be sent (if they are, of course) on the "Proton", which are still ordered by "Roskosmos" in some quantity.
        After the Protons are decommissioned, Russia will launch a heavy load on the Angara. The only question is whether or not she will have time to finish this "Angara" by that time.
        
        Again your double standards, if the Americans are going to launch it, if Russia is going to do it, then surely "if they will." Are you a hard-core mattress topper? Faith does not allow you to do without it?
        And where did you get the idea that Russia will stop producing Protons before the Angara appears? Did you come up with it yourself, on the basis of this, they made a conclusion about the "dementia" of Roscosmos?
        
        Smarter than some. At least I can search and analyze information.
        
        True? Who told you that? Do not believe, they are flattering, for sure they want to get something from you.
        
        And thank God. I would not like to be on the same level with the person squealing about the "lunar conspiracy". But, apparently, for you he is an indisputable authority))
        
        Shouldn't you be sprayed or are you trying to "jump off the hook"?
        He believes in the "Lunar Conspiracy", you are in the "divine Mask", I am not going to assess this, it is just not clear why you consider yourself better?
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 21: 01
        
        0
        
        1
        
        1
        
        This is quite reasonable, time is running, performance is improving.
        
        Great, you just agreed with my thesis that the heavy version of the Angara has not yet been developed. Already progress.
        
        Back to Orion, what's wrong with it? When will he fly? What about its characteristics? Will it be improved or will the Starship fly instead?
        
        Why come back to him if he, as an analogy, is incorrect?
        
        You said, "You first need to do it at all", have we already argued on this topic before? Are you having memory problems? Find a chat?
        
        You already repeat 6 times that a heavy Angara does not yet exist, is it under development? Drop the option that flew at the start of 2014, it will not be used.
        
        That Angara, that Orion does not exist in a vacuum. These are parts of the complex. If simplified, the starting infrastructure, a rocket, a ship, someone and some equipment should do them. By themselves, they do not work individually.
        
        Again twenty-five.
        
        If one compares a rocket with a rocket not primitively, rather abstract equipment, your brain activity stops?
        
        Abstract equipment?)) I wonder how soon you get to comparing Platonic ideas and all that.
        
        In the USA they built equipment (Orion), launched into space, now it does not fly due to the unavailability of other parts of the complex (rocket).
        In Russia, equipment was built (Angara), launched into space, now it does not fly due to the unavailability of other parts of the complex (launch pad).
        
        First, learn to use the terms correctly.
        
        Orion is already ready, only the rocket is not ready. You spoke about the Orion (spacecraft), and not about the entire SLS-Orion complex.
        
        Secondly, the Angara was not built, as the missile needed to be improved. By the way, there is already a launch pad for it in Plesetsk, from which it was launched.
        
        Third, learn to give normal analogies already.
        
        Try to move aside the pink visor that falls from you at the words "American space" and honestly answer, guided by what criteria do you get such opposite conclusions?
        
        I am guided by the same criteria, and the opposite conclusions are obtained because the analogy given to you is incorrect.
        
        Can you explain again the difference between the Orion-SLS and Angara projects?
        
        Again your double standards, if the Americans are going to launch it, if Russia is going to do it, then surely "if they will." winked Are you a hard-core mattress topper?
        
        Firstly, initially I did not say anything about the Americans at all, you started the song about "Orion".
        Second, the Angara for Russia is much more important than Orion -SLS for the United States. These are two projects that are incomparable in complexity and goals - I no longer hope that you will ever understand this.
        
        And where did you get the idea that Russia will stop producing Protons before the Angara appears? Did you come up with it yourself, on the basis of this, they made a conclusion about the "dementia" of Roscosmos?
        
        https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/5d35a6149a79478e2a08a233
        
        - read. There is a certain reserve for several launches, but in 2023 the Proton program will be closed according to plans. If "Angara" appears, of course.
        
        Naturally, the production of "Protons" can be resumed if the "Angara" is again delayed.
        
        True? Who told you that? Do not believe they are flattering, for sure they want to get something from you
        
        This is evident from the ability to handle sources.
        
        Shouldn't you be sprayed or are you trying to "jump off the hook"?
        He believes in the "Lunar Conspiracy", you are in the "divine Mask", I am not going to assess this, it is just not clear why you consider yourself better?
        
        I "believe in the divine Mask" (or rather, I trust him) on the basis of his concrete and already perfect achievements. At the same time, I do not deny the likelihood that some of his projects may not be realized. Everything is possible, especially in such an extremely complex area as astronautics. Nevertheless, his already existing achievements allow him to form a certain credit of trust in Musk.
        
        But the shadow believes (precisely believes) in conspiracy theological crap, which has already been refuted hundreds of times by experts in the field of astronautics (including domestic).
        
        If for you a person who builds his opinion on the basis of already available real evidence and facts is not smarter than a person who believes in a "worldwide conspiracy" in which all countries of the world are involved without exception - well, what can I say ... your business.
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 8 July 2020 21: 50
        
        +1
        
        1
        
        0
        
        Great, you just agreed with my thesis that the heavy version of the Angara has not yet been developed. Already progress.
        
        Do not lie. I said they are doing Angara-5M. Angara-5 was developed and flew into space. Unfortunately, I don’t have comics, can you watch the "vidosik" at slow speed again?
        
        You already repeat 6 times that a heavy Angara does not yet exist, is it under development? Drop the option that flew at the start of 2014, it will not be used.
        
        Will Orion be? The conversation is only about common assessment criteria.
        
        Abstract equipment?)) I wonder how soon you get to comparing Platonic ideas and all that.
        
        And it is necessary? I see you have some problems with this. I would not want to overload your young immature body.
        
        I am guided by the same criteria, and the opposite conclusions are obtained because the analogy given to you is incorrect.
        
        True? And what is the incorrectness?
        
        Firstly, initially I did not say anything about the Americans at all, you started the song about "Orion".
        
        That's right, I started talking about Orion. I became interested in the criteria by which you determined that Orion is, but there is no Angara. I did not see a clear answer.
        
        Second, the Angara for Russia is much more important than Orion -SLS for the United States. These are two projects that are incomparable in complexity and goals - I no longer hope that you will ever understand this.
        
        More important? Did I understand you correctly?
        Do you think that if the project is less important for the country, as well as more complex or has different goals, then the conclusion about its implementation should be made, guided by different criteria?
        I'm afraid to disappoint you, but I can never understand this. Double standards are unacceptable to me. I am not in the sect, I am not obliged to agree with any nonsense.
        By the way, do not shift the focus towards Orion-SLS. I was talking about the ship, the rocket had nothing to do with it.
        
        First, learn to use the terms correctly.
        Orion is already ready, only the rocket is not ready. You spoke about the Orion (spacecraft), and not about the entire SLS-Orion complex.
        Secondly, the Angara was not built, as the missile needed to be improved. By the way, there is already a launch pad for it in Plesetsk, from which it was launched.
        Third, learn to give normal analogies already.
        
        Firstly, yes, I spoke about Orion, meaning the ship, I did not say a word about SLS-Orion (excluding the paragraph above). Do you ascribe to me non-existent statements and are trying to correct me? They invented it yourself - and correct yourself.
        Secondly, the Angara-5 was built and it flew into space (maybe, watch the "vidosik" for the third time .... frame by frame)? What you call "revision" will already be Angara-5M, a product with different characteristics. There is a launch pad in Plesetsk and it may also be used, but the main part of the launch is planned from Vostochny. Why do you think that Angara must be produced and launched right now, it is not clear, for some reason there are no such claims to Orion.
        Thirdly, do not try to be clever, you do not succeed.
        
        - read. There is a certain reserve for several launches, but in 2023 the Proton program will be closed according to plans. If "Angara" appears, of course.
        Naturally, the production of "Protons" can be resumed if the "Angara" is again delayed.
        
        In this case, this is unnecessary, you yourself dispelled your own doubts. It was not me who believed that they would stop releasing Proton, and that they would not do the Angara, and there would be nothing to fly on.
        
        I "believe in the divine Mask" (or rather, I trust him) on the basis of his concrete and already perfect achievements. At the same time, I do not deny the likelihood that some of his projects may not be realized. Everything is possible, especially in such an extremely complex area as astronautics. Nevertheless, his already existing achievements allow him to form a certain credit of trust in Musk.
        
        But the shadow believes (precisely believes) in conspiracy theological crap, which has already been refuted hundreds of times by experts in the field of astronautics (including domestic).
        
        If for you a person who builds his opinion on the basis of already available real evidence and facts is no smarter than a person who believes in a "worldwide conspiracy", in which all countries of the world are involved without exception - well, what can I say ... your business.
        
        You believe (or rather trust), but "Shadow" does not believe (more precisely, does not trust), he has reasons for that, the Americans have lied a lot, a person may have excessive skepticism, but he has grounds.
        Are you outraged that I do not refute him, while arguing with you?
        This is the problem of the Americans, I am not going to fight for their image. Let them correct it themselves, I am not going to participate in this. Maybe they can do it and people will start to believe them, including "Shadows", I'm not interested in that. Your attempts to "sew" on me the belief in the conspiracy are in vain.
        As for the evidence, you exaggerate your own merits, often it’s you who demand them, while asserting something. For example, about financing the Mask, you rather believe in its bottomless pocket and demand evidence to the contrary.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 22: 32
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Do not lie. I said - they make Angara-5M. Angara -5 was developed and flew into space.
        
        No one will use Angara-A5. Angara-A5M has not yet been finalized. Consequently, the heavy Angara does not yet exist.
        
        Turn on the logic already, finally.
        
        Will Orion be? The conversation is only about common assessment criteria.
        
        Criteria for evaluation:
        
        1. The complexity of the project.
        
        2. The objectives of the project.
        
        And it is necessary? I see you have some problems with this. I would not want to overload your young immature body.
        
        Yes, do not overload me with your ignorance and stupidity.
        
        True? And what is the incorrectness?
        
        The fact that these are two too different in goals and complexity of the project. Do you need to repeat this 8 times?
        
        More important? Did I understand you correctly?
        Do you think that if the project is less important for the country, as well as more complex or has different goals, then the conclusion about its implementation should be made, guided by different criteria?
        
        Again. The criteria are one. Projects are too different.
        
        I'm afraid to disappoint you, but I can never understand this.
        
        These are your problems, since you do not understand the obvious.
        
        Double standards are not acceptable for me. no I am not in a sect, I am not obliged to agree with any nonsense.
        
        So you carry it yourself, this nonsense.
        
        By the way, you shouldn't shift the emphasis towards Orion-SLS. I was talking about the ship, the rocket had nothing to do with it.
        
        So "Orion" itself is already ready. What's the problem?
        
        Secondly, the Angara-5 was built and it flew into space (maybe, watch the "vidosik" for the third time .... frame by frame)?
        
        And what's the point that they built it, and it will not fly?
        
        Why do you think that the Angara should certainly be produced and launched right now, it is not clear that for some reason there are no such claims to Orion
        
        Because Roscosmos itself has planned to use it since 2017. It's 2020 now.
        
        There are no complaints about Orion, because this project is important only for the implementation of the lunar mission. The hangara is also important for the implementation of a heap of projects, including those of defense significance. In addition, Angara is also important in the context of the transition to environmentally friendly media. After all, the proton is closed because the damage to the environment (and the associated financial costs) from it is great.
        
        In this case, this is unnecessary, you yourself dispelled your own doubts. It was not me who believed that they would stop releasing Proton, and that they would not do the Angara and there would be nothing to fly on.
        
        Ok, they will use a launch vehicle, against the use of which the leadership of the country, in whose territory there is a single launch pad for missiles of this type, is opposed.
        
        and "Shadows" does not believe (or rather, does not trust), he has reasons for that, the Americans lied a lot, a person may have excessive skepticism, but he has reasons.
        
        No not like this. He does not just doubt the fact of the lunar expeditions of the United States - he is sure that they were not there. These are two different things.
        
        About "the Americans lied a lot" as a basis. The US lunar program is recognized by the USSR / Russia, and China, and a bunch (more precisely, the vast majority) of other countries. That is, denying the landing of the Americans on the moon, he automatically admits the participation of these countries in collusion with the United States. Indeed, oooo very reasonable))
        
        Offline 123
        
        123 (123) 8 July 2020 22: 57
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Criteria for evaluation:
        1. The complexity of the project.
        2. The objectives of the project.
        
        Are you going to evaluate the degree of project implementation by these criteria?
        Sorry, I don’t see any point in discussing the topic, this is the level of Pinocchio embryo.
        The rest is about the same level. For sim let me take my leave.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 23: 04
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        Are you going to evaluate the degree of project implementation by these criteria?
        
        For these projects, the effectiveness of this implementation is evaluated.
        
        Sorry, I don’t see any point in discussing the topic, this is the level of Pinocchio embryo.
        
        You have described yourself perfectly.
        
        Offline Cyril
        
        Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 22: 36
        
        0
        
        0
        
        0
        
        As for the evidence, you exaggerate your own merits, often it is you who demand them, while asserting something. For example, about financing the Mask, you rather believe in its bottomless pocket and demand evidence to the contrary.
        
        I never spoke of Musk's bottomless pocket. I talked about profit from commercial launches, investments from non-governmental organizations, loans, etc.
        
        And yes, arguing that the well-being of Mask projects is based on government orders, you must provide this evidence. You say so, not me. The absence of such evidence automatically confirms my point.

Offline

Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 8 July 2020 13: 43

-2

I didn’t understand who, judging by the title, called? Ourselves?

Online Sergey Latyshev

Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 8 July 2020 14: 04

-1

1

2
Yes, it’s strange that the manufacturer himself did not call it the best in the world .... Could I name it, is it a pity or something?

Offline

Brancodd 8 July 2020 14: 27

Curiously, Musk agrees with this view:

Russia has excellent rocket technology and the best engine available. The reusable version of their new Angara rocket would be excellent ...

Offline Cyril

Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 14: 59

-3

0

3
The key word would be.
They criticize not the Angara itself as a technical product, but the approach of Roscosmos to its implementation.
1. Offline Brancodd
  
  Brancodd 8 July 2020 15: 36
  
  +1
  
  2
  
  1
  
  Who criticizes? Musk thinks Angara is "beautiful." Which approach is correct? Leave the heptyl Proton?
  1. Offline Cyril
    
    Cyril (Kirill) 8 July 2020 17: 01
    
    -1
    
    0
    
    1
    
    Which approach is correct? Well, at least to begin with the exact requirements for the rocket. And then they developed and even launched in 2014 a heavy version of the Angara, and then the military said - it doesn't suit us, let's have another one.
    
    And such constipation is with the approach - a lot in this project.

Offline

Denis Arkhipov (Denis Arkhipov) 8 July 2020 16: 00

359 units of what?

Offline BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine 8 July 2020 18: 37

0

0

0
Pulses naturally! that is, n * m / s.
1. Offline BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine
  
  BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine 9 July 2020 11: 25
  
  0
  
  0
  
  0
  
  Sorry, kg* m / s, of goats.

Offline

BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine 8 July 2020 18: 35

Hammer, Rogozin!

Offline

Sapsan136 (Alexander) 9 July 2020 13: 11

The hangar does not work on excessively toxic heptyl and this is its main plus.

Offline

Oleg Shlyapin (oleg shlyapin) 29 July 2020 22: 35

-1

And why is the Angara-A5M missile, which has not yet flown, the best? Firstly, it is a long-term construction. The project was conceived back in 1995 to replace the Soviet legacy. Modularity made it possible to create a line of A1, A3, A5 and A7 missiles, consisting of 1,3,5 and 7 modules, respectively. These missiles were supposed to replace A1 - "Cyclone-2 / -3", A3- "Zenit-2/3", A5 - "Proton-K", and the A7 class would be like an unrealized Soviet rocket "Energia-M" ... The A5 version with the Universal Oxygen-Hydrogen Unit (UKVB) would have increased the carrying capacity and corresponded to the Soviet Angara project. This entire line would be supplemented by a new modification of the Soyuz rocket - Soyuz-2 in versions 2.1A - with the RD-0110 rocket engine at 3 stages and 2.1B - with the RD-0124 at the third stage - with the same engine at and at 2 steps A1 and 3 steps A3 and A5. And the A7 version would use unified URM-1 modules similar to the modules of the first stages of the aforementioned missiles at stage 1. Everything was beautiful in the project - the rockets had to solve all the problems. up to manned flights to the moon and Martian expeditions.

Secondly, it so happened that due to the difficult economic situation in the Russian Federation, the project was not implemented for 16 years. When, as a result, the first A2014 and A1 were launched in 5, it turned out that they require significant improvement. In addition, it so happened that during this time an analogue of the A1 - the light rocket "Soyuz-2.1V" was created, put into operation, and it is cheaper with the same output load. There is no need for A3 at all and it was not developed. The same as the A7. As a result, the main efforts were reduced to the creation of a modernized and more unified and universal A5 in versions A5M and increased carrying capacity A5B. The latter should hold out in terms of carrying capacity to the earlier versions of the A7. Also, the version of the A5UKVB with increased carrying capacity was not developed and the manned version of the A5P was closed. Thus, the modularity and versatility, laid down in the distant 1995, have completely outlived themselves and did not justify themselves, even without being created in the form of real-life missile samples. If the line of the planned A1 and A3 and A5 missiles began to fly in 2000-2005, the idea would somehow justify itself. Now it is hopelessly outdated.

Thirdly, about the price for 1 Angara-A5M missile, which is similar in class to the Russian missile from the Soviet legacy "Proton-M" - according to Russian media, the price of the "Proton-M" ordered in the spring of 2020 , amounted to 2,33 billion rubles, and the first A5M modification missile under construction - 7 billion rubles !!! Those. 3 times more! But even with an optimistic forecast and better prospects for the A5M, the price of this missile will not be lower than 4 billion rubles at the current price scale. At the same time, the launch price of the one-time version of the Falcon-9 rocket Block 5 will fluctuate at the current price scale in the range of 2-2,5 billion rubles with a slightly lower payload - 22,5 versus 24,5 tons, respectively. Therefore, the Angara-A5M missile has no commercial prospects in principle. And any prospects, tk. it is morally and technically outdated in many respects.

Offline

Oleg Shlyapin (oleg shlyapin) 29 July 2020 23: 07

-2

By the way, have you tried to compare the Angara-A5M with the already operated Chinese LM-5 missile and the European Ariane-6 which is preparing for the first launch? They are disposable and in the same capacity class. So to speak, "dvadtsatipyatiatonniki" in terms of the load injected into low-earth orbit.

Offline

Morgan (Miron) 4 August 2020 20: 48

.. named one of the best in the world

- I guess who named. If he had not named him, he would have been fired.