Why Russia does not need a reusable rocket
With the advent of private business into the space industry and such a "PR genius" as Elon Musk, the idea of using reusable launch vehicles began to gain great popularity. It seems that only thanks to new technology The American billionaire was able to take away a number of launch contracts from Roskosmos. It seems natural to give "our answer to the Mask." But in reality, everything is not so simple.
The challenge to American private space exploration was decided to abandon the new head of Il. A young but not over the years talented manager, the son of the head of Roskosmos, Dmitry Rogozin, Alexei announced plans to create an original returnable launch vehicle, which will have to land like an airplane, and fly at hypersonic speeds. Rogozin's offspring directly warns of the complexity and high cost of the project, but he passed the preliminary project to Roscosmos:
Let’s try to figure out if reusable launch vehicles are needed at all today. Why do prudent Europeans invest billions of euros in a one-time Ariane 6? Why in the USA, China and India they deal with reusability issues, but by no means in priority order, but only “in the appendage” to disposable launch systems?
From a technical point of view, multiple use of launch vehicles is not a problem. Everything rests on economic side of the issue. It is known that on the American Space Suttle, three quarters of the payload mass was occupied by systems that provided the return to Earth. At the same time, the cost of one such launch began from half a billion dollars and could exceed a billion. For comparison, the start of the old Soviet one-time "Proton" cost 90-100 million dollars. It is not surprising that the Americans eventually abandoned the Space Suttle program.
Several variants of reusable launch vehicles were also studied in Russia: IDGC “Baikal”, “Korona” rocket, “mini-Buran” MAKS, but they all remained on paper or at the mock-up stage, because they did not find government support. The situation is ambiguous. On the one hand, promising developments do not cause interest from officials from the space industry. On the other hand, there is simply no market for reusable missiles today. Here's how Ariane Group commented on the current realities:
After the end of the Cold War, the need for a large number of space launches disappeared, their number halved. At the same time, competition is constantly increasing in the space services market. The advent of reusable rockets can simply ruin the aerospace industry.
Businessmen such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos go against the market with their reusable launch vehicles, trying to create artificial demand for them, for example, projects to launch large-scale satellite constellations into orbit. If desired, their strategy can be called work for the future, but also it all looks like a banal adventurism of bored billionaires.
The challenge to American private space exploration was decided to abandon the new head of Il. A young but not over the years talented manager, the son of the head of Roskosmos, Dmitry Rogozin, Alexei announced plans to create an original returnable launch vehicle, which will have to land like an airplane, and fly at hypersonic speeds. Rogozin's offspring directly warns of the complexity and high cost of the project, but he passed the preliminary project to Roscosmos:
It’s how to create a new “Buran”, the whole country should begin to do this now, it’s very expensive and not that relevant
Let’s try to figure out if reusable launch vehicles are needed at all today. Why do prudent Europeans invest billions of euros in a one-time Ariane 6? Why in the USA, China and India they deal with reusability issues, but by no means in priority order, but only “in the appendage” to disposable launch systems?
From a technical point of view, multiple use of launch vehicles is not a problem. Everything rests on economic side of the issue. It is known that on the American Space Suttle, three quarters of the payload mass was occupied by systems that provided the return to Earth. At the same time, the cost of one such launch began from half a billion dollars and could exceed a billion. For comparison, the start of the old Soviet one-time "Proton" cost 90-100 million dollars. It is not surprising that the Americans eventually abandoned the Space Suttle program.
Several variants of reusable launch vehicles were also studied in Russia: IDGC “Baikal”, “Korona” rocket, “mini-Buran” MAKS, but they all remained on paper or at the mock-up stage, because they did not find government support. The situation is ambiguous. On the one hand, promising developments do not cause interest from officials from the space industry. On the other hand, there is simply no market for reusable missiles today. Here's how Ariane Group commented on the current realities:
Suppose we have a rocket that can be reused ten times, then we will build exactly one rocket per year. It does not make sense
After the end of the Cold War, the need for a large number of space launches disappeared, their number halved. At the same time, competition is constantly increasing in the space services market. The advent of reusable rockets can simply ruin the aerospace industry.
Businessmen such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos go against the market with their reusable launch vehicles, trying to create artificial demand for them, for example, projects to launch large-scale satellite constellations into orbit. If desired, their strategy can be called work for the future, but also it all looks like a banal adventurism of bored billionaires.
Information