"Angara" against the "fifth column"
On July 9, 2014, a significant event took place, which will become an epoch-making not only for the Fatherland, but also for the entire world space. For the first time in the world a modular rocket “Angara” was launched from the Plesetsk cosmodrome. It seemed that not only on the eve of the launch, but months and even years before this event, everyone involved in this project should be seized by the exciting thrill of creativity, the euphoria of enthusiasm. Still would! They all did their bit.
Now let's go down from space to earth and figure out who and how contributed. Let's start with a shocking statement:
“I have been dealing with Angara for a long time, since the beginning of my activity as the head of the cosmodrome, then the commander. My personal belief is that this rocket for Vostochny is a dead-end rocket, it will not give us the opportunity to develop. We will then have to invest a lot of money again and build something else nearby. I believe that Angara is a dead-end solution for the further development of our country in this area. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare a convincing program for a report to the president, no matter how difficult and unpleasant it may be, since they were convinced of something else. But we will not waste money and wait for something, we need to take an ACTIVE POSITION."
Blimey! Aerobatics, bravo, Anglo-Saxons! They learned their lesson centuries ago that it's half the battle to say, the most important thing is who said! And it was not some "sick" blogger who said this, but a serviceman, "the sovereign man" - the head of Roscosmos Oleg Ostapenko. Let us also use the "methodology" of the Anglo-Saxons and will not "comprehend" what he said, but we will comprehend who "he" is and where they got this "handsome man".
We will not go into his biography, there is nothing interesting there, a typical soldier's career. An interesting one began in 2007, when Ostapenko became the head of the Plesetsk cosmodrome in the Arkhangelsk region and, most importantly, under what circumstances.
To clarify these circumstances, you need to ask yourself the question: why did the former head of the cosmodrome, Anatoly Bashlakov, displease the authorities? First of all, he was not "liked" by the Americans, who accused him of corruption. It's a strange thing, a corrupt military official, but at such an important secret facility that is "on the hook" for them is a treasure trove for them. Why "drain" it? The fact is that in Plesetsk, as in other regions of the former USSR, there is a program for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and the demilitarization of defense industries, known in everyday life as Nunn-Lugara. The scale of this program amazes even the sophisticated. As of October 2012, only 2, 5 thousand nuclear missiles were destroyed, as well as 33 nuclear submarines, 155 bombers, 498 silo launchers - you can't list everything. Also striking is the scale of funding and its constant companion - corruption. Suffice it to say that of the $ 8.79 billion allocated by the US Congress over the same period, a significant portion of the funds were "legally" spent on orders to American contractors and consultants. Well, it's no secret that overseas "benefactors" during inspections could get access to classified information.
Poor fellow Bashlakov fell under such an "American skating rink", and then, what a "coincidence", the monstrous and at the same time strange death of a conscript soldier. The style is felt. Here, of course, there is no need to hang a halo with wings on Bashlakov, but there is no doubt how they can “work professionally” with officials. Well, after the congressmen screamed about the money of the American taxpayers, it became clear that in order to calm them down, Bashlakov had to be replaced by the "right" person. Such was the “hero of our play”.
There is no doubt that the new chief began to coexist "peacefully" with his American colleagues. And here "the card flooded to him!" Such a career could have been the envy of Potemkin and Witte.
Since June 30, 2008 (in a year!) - Commander of the Russian Space Forces. Since November 8, 2011 - Commander of the Aerospace Defense Forces. Since November 9, 2012 - Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation. Since October 10, 2013 - Head of the Federal Space Agency.
No literary imagination is enough to come up with such a "Stirlitz"! How can you deal with "Angara" and not "believe" in it, and even develop an "active position" on this matter!
Now let's listen to another, no less "authoritative expert", corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics named after Tsiolkovsky Andrey Ionin: ideal - it is impossible to make both a light rocket and a medium and heavy one on the basis of one solution. The unified approach to the creation of "Angara" was a compromise aimed at reducing the price: the price of development, manufacture and testing of products. But a paradox happened: the rocket turned out to be more expensive than the Proton. Because the technical solutions used in the process of creating a rocket have not been properly tested in terms of cost. The RD-191 engine made as a result for "Angara" turned out to be expensive and no longer as effective as its constructive predecessor RD-180 ".
Shock! Just "goosebumps"! Does he understand what he is "carrying"? How can you compare a serial rocket with a "piece" one, where each unit, including the engine, is reworked many times? The same "Proton" during the serial development has fallen in value by more than three times. I'm not even saying that the heptyl "Proton" cannot be compared with the "Angara" in principle! And what was the “guilty” of the modular production concept in front of him, and why does it not allow making missiles of different classes? An elementary example of a module is a brick. You can safely build a one-, nine- and sixteen-story house from it. It's all about the properties of the module. If it is too small, the house will turn out to be expensive, if the module is too large, then the house will also turn out to be expensive, because its thick five-meter walls will look like the facade of a fortress. Or, in principle, a house cannot be built if the brick is rotten, like the brains of this would-be academician. So why did he not like the Angara module? Nobody is going to make a "Vulcan" out of it, or vice versa - to shoot down fighters with this module. It is possible in principle, but expensive.
Then let Mr. Ionin turn on his brains and at least decide for himself: is the modular concept acceptable for him in principle or not? If not, why does Folken-Heavy, made on a modular concept, roll his eyes in bliss? This resembles cheap prostitution, which is generally unusual for Russian academics. Now I dare to quote the "thoughts" of this "handsome":
“The Falken rocket family is being built on a new production model for rocketry that makes it cost-competitive. All previous missiles - Russian, American, Chinese - were made on the basis of the production model that was laid by Korolev and von Braun in the 50s of the last century. This model is based on the narrow specialization of manufacturers. This made it possible to solve problems in the shortest possible time, while everyone was busy with their own narrow piece. But the flip side of narrow specialization is unique production and the highest price. After 50 years, Musk approached the problem differently (Elon Musk is the owner of SpaceX. - Author's note), abandoning a narrow specialization. He said that he would do everything possible on his own, and took the path of narrowing cooperation as much as possible. Therefore, his rockets are cheaper than the rest. And it is impossible to compete with Musk within the framework of the old production model … Russia needs to rebuild the rocket and space industry, taking into account Musk's experience. Because he modernized the manufacturing process as much as Henry Ford did the assembly line. Without making our own conveyor, we will not be able to compete with it."
Everything is upside down! Ionin's superficial "academic mind" hears the ringing … but cannot get to the bottom of the issue. You, the reader, must have been struck by the contradiction in the quote. Any manufacturing worker will say that low cost is a direct consequence of specialization. I will muster the courage to read this "expert" a primitive educational program with illustrative examples.
The Henry Ford conveyor that the author of the quote relies on is nothing more than an in-line method of production. The essence of the flow method is the mass production of the constituent elements (parts) of the final product, which are produced on a specialized basis. A dedicated method always means minimizing the cost of producing parts. Costs are mainly of four types: energy, human, material and production and technological. For example, a capitalist needs to put a metal part into line production. A lathe, performing the same operations with a blank, does not need a multi-profile, but a specialized one, which means that it will be less in weight, simpler and cheaper. This means that the machine will not be energy intensive in production and operation. In order for the turner to spend less time and shavings, special blanks will be supplied, that is, they will be maximally adjusted to the future part. The turner himself, performing the same type of work, without being distracted by other operations, will work productively. Monotonous work of a narrow profile does not require high qualifications, as well as a high salary. If the volume of the order for a part is large, then the capitalist can go further - abandon expensive turning production, and re-equip the shops for stamping or casting, and so on.
What does the bourgeois do when he receives an order from Elon Musk? That's right, bends the price, because it is unprofitable for him to produce a small batch of parts. Why isn't Musk ordering a large batch? Obviously, she fears that she will end up in scrap metal. Now let's ask the key question: why is Musk trying to produce the part himself, if the costs are no less, or even more than that of a specialized enterprise? There can be only one answer - Elon Musk tries to keep as much working capital as possible inside the corporation. Imagine, he made an order, and then threw it away. A lot of money went irrevocably, and so he paid the workers' salaries, bribed kerosene … You can understand him, but the most important thing is that he understands that his "strategy" is pure palliative, it can temporarily ease the situation, and then - collapse.
In the twenties of the nineteenth century, Russian landowners did this. Having sold the harvest on the market, the money raised was kept at home, not being put into circulation. And so that the "serf corporation" did not depend on the industrialists, they had a village blacksmith, weaver, cooper and so on. As a result, the industry, having no sales market, was at the level of handicraft, the village fell to the level of subsistence farming, and the landowners with working capital were having fun at balls. Let me remind you that the industrial revolution was in full swing in England, France and other European countries, and we got such degradation that 30 years later, British and French officers, going to the Crimean War, took furniture, wives, dogs and favorite prostitutes with them. … For the West, it was a colonial war, and they did not see the difference between Russia and, for example, India.
Let me give you an example from our time. Enterprise "A" constantly leases dump trucks from specialized motor transport enterprise "B". After a while, firm "A" decided to refuse the services of firm "B" and bought itself three new dump trucks. At first glance, this is the right thing to do, production assets have increased, working capital has increased, there is no need to transfer money irrevocably to firm “B”. But it turned out differently: after 5 years, the firm "A" handed over all the dump trucks to scrap metal, while the twenty-year-old dump trucks of the firm "B" were in operation. It happened so because the firm "B", having 100 units of equipment, could afford to have a repair base, stands, a diagnostic center, an extensive staff of specialized mechanics and much more. For obvious reasons, firm "A" could not have all this.
Now let's answer the question: why did von Braun's "lunar" rocket turn out to be prohibitively expensive? There can be only one answer - all the components were not produced in-line. It made no sense for the contractor to rebuild production to the flow method, knowing that Saturn has no serial prospects. Moreover, NASA knew very well that this rocket would not have a "follower" either, so the number of components was ordered without warranty that the contractor would do something similar in the future. And if you take into account the fact that the contractor did not do "something like that" before, then you can imagine how much he broke the price. Let me remind you that Saturn did not have both a serial follower and a serial predecessor. I wrote above that the lunar astronauts before that "trained" on the "aerosin" "Titans". So it is not necessary for Ionin to question von Braun's managerial abilities and Korolev's. Let it be better to question the presence of intelligence and decency.
"Angara" shouts SOS!"
Now we need to think: what in reality can the “fifth column” do with the “Angara”? True, she has already done a lot, delayed the project for at least 7 years, introduced to the masses approximately the following way of thinking that "Angara" is outdated, unprofitable and unpromising. But this is not enough for them, because time will put everything in its place, because the Angara physically already exists even in the form of the South Korean Naro-1 missile.
The answer begs to be unequivocal: to try to reduce the funding of the project as much as possible. This, in turn, will affect the number and cost of launches. You understand that mass character is Angara's trump card and, having knocked out this trump card from it, you can slowly bury the project. You can also deprive Angara of the cosmodrome, because it is obvious that no matter how beautiful the plane is, it is nothing without a normal airfield with the appropriate infrastructure.
That is why Ionin “thinks” about this:
The Angara needs to be finished, although it is clear that this missile has no market fate. You cannot abandon the project, because it simply demoralizes the industry. Therefore, the rocket should be completed and used at Plesetsk to launch military and dual-purpose vehicles. Let it cost around $ 130 million, we will launch it 3 times a year. And we will have a guarantee of launching sovereignty, a new missile, and everything is fine. There is no need to build another launch site for the Angara on Vostochny. It will be wasted money, because it will not work in the market all the same”.
Further, I cited above, there are "arguments" about what Musk is "clever" and how we need to equal him.
This is what "them" call retreat to prepared positions and aimed fire from these positions. But the director of development of the Skolkovo space cluster, Dmitry Payson, turned out to be a “market man” to the core. He wants to redesign Vostochny for another project and for “Russia to support competition among manufacturers of rocketry. Many in the same industry are convinced that competition is necessary. " Of course, Pyson sings the praises of Elon Musk and his technological masterpiece.
I will quote his statement without comment, everything is said above, and I will submit it to your judgment so that you can appreciate what nonsense is going on in his head:
“By buying in the store those parts and components that are there, giving out some mechanical work to a minimum, doing everything inside in a large workshop, without investing in heavy, expensive, very efficient engines, but making the engines much simpler, cheaper, but putting them on a rocket in greater quantities, using a number of such technological features and tricks, Musk really managed to build a cheap rocket."
Well done, you won’t say anything! Only for some reason these "fellows" do not crawl out of the studios "Echo of Moscow" and "Dozhd"! Interestingly, Venediktov, Sobchak and others find them themselves in order to get "advice", or is someone "whispering" to them? And these are people of the highest official and academic degrees! If I go down at least half a step lower - it will charge in my eyes, you can't pick up any format! These "specialists" adorned themselves with all kinds of regalia, as the natives adorn themselves with feathers and beads. It is bad that these "amulets" do not save them from idiocy and shamelessness.
How does this happen ?! We, having an unsurpassed rocket in all respects, may lose it. The fact that she physically exists does not mean anything. “Buran” and “Energy also existed - and where are they now? The West, with its "Star Wars", has elegantly "divorced" the combiner Gorbachev as a poker idiot. We all witnessed the “sawing off” of the country, national wealth, nuclear submarines, spaceships …
Maybe that's enough? I appeal to the "powerful of this world": how will you, in the "other world", look into the eyes of Korolev, Tsiolkovsky, Tsander? If you are not indifferent to the fate of the Fatherland, make an effort to neutralize these non-humans! Save the Angara!
Do you think the Falken bluff impresses anyone other than our fifth column oligophrenics? Here the answer is unequivocal - no one. You need to look not at what they say, but what they are doing. And what they do is that they are again extending the contract with Roscosmos for the period from June 2016 to June 2017 under the manned flights program, despite all the sanctions. But the Congress does not want to allocate money for its program of manned flights. According to NASA chief Charles Bolden, in order to provide a manned flight on the American spacecraft, it is necessary for Congress to authorize the $ 821 million requested by the president. But the "unpatriotic" congressmen allocate more than half of the requested money, namely 424 million, to Roscosmos for contract renewal. The question is - where is the hurry? Until the end of the term of the previous agreement - as much as 2 years. Let me remind you that SpaceX is planning to launch a manned spacecraft in just 2 years.
It’s just that the parliamentarians are well aware that they will not have a manned spacecraft not in 2, not in 3 or more years. Maybe Charles Bolton understands them more, he, as the head of NASA, signed a contract with Elon Musk and paid him $ 1.6 billion? Bolton, with pessimism unusual for Americans, said that after 3 years, that is, in 2017, he was questioning the American manned flight. In simple terms, Bolton needs to take a contract with Musk and go with him to … the bushes. We, in turn, would provide the NASA chief with scientific dissertations for all sorts of Ionins.
We need to learn one simple truth: Americans cannot work without oversaturated funding. With "ordinary" cash infusions, they will construct space "Potemkin villages".
The expression, "the need for invention is cunning" is not about them. "Exemplary" funding was in the 60s, when the "lunar" rocket was being built, the scale of cash injections and why everything is so expensive - it was said above. Most importantly, they would not have been able to implement the "lunar" program with less money.
Today is a good example of this. The Americans are “marking time” with smaller-scale projects, and no “marketing moves” by Elon Musk will save them. To make a new technological breakthrough, America first of all needs to make a financial breakthrough, and it is unlikely to succeed. What exactly will she succeed in doing is at least ruffling the nerves of our "Angara" …
