19 thoughts on “Rogozin’s New Trampoline”

  1. I dunno about a reusable rocket but a Venus flyby is a very doable project for the Russians. That they beat us to Venus wouldn’t surprise me in the least. почему нет?

  2. Interesting. Given their track record, my guess is that their reusable rocket, if it ever flies, will enter service about 5 years after F9 retires (replaced by Starship).

    On the other hand though, the Russians do have a head start on RTLS, having performed an RTLS before SpaceX did.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqW0LEcTAYg

    They might have a bit of work to do on the reusability side, though.

  3. Good for them, if it happens. There is room in the market for a variety of launch capabilities and they can build on the knowledge gained to compete with Starship.

    Launch is a bit of a trap though isn’t it? There is the national pride in having the capability and provides some help to military programs but is getting to space more important that doing things in space?

    Russia does have major systemic problems but they do have a lot of experience doing things in space. What if they were to purchase rides on Starship? This would enable them to do a lot more in space, just like it enables everyone else with the money to purchase a ride and the creativity to find something to do with it.

      1. It lools like SpaceX took existing capabilities and innovated them. Copying them wont be easy but SpaceX gave the answer to work back from.

      2. No need to steel it: it’s already made of (stainless) steel. 🙂

        Unfortunately, the joke will be lost on Russians, since steel and steal are not homonyms in Russian.

  4. While this is a bit off topic I would like to see Rand go back on David Livingtone’s Space Show in light of the fact that Livingstone on his latest show with Mark Bray is saying he believes that national security payloads should be launched on government owned rockets and the Mitchell Report in 1994 was implicitly wrong to move national security payloads to privately owned rockets though the EELV program(David actually doesn’t say this last part but that is what he is implicitly arguing).

    1. Additionally at the end of the episode Livingstone seems to imply that Musk if he wanted could simply “pack up” SpaceX and move the whole thing to China apparently notwithstanding ITAR and a million other export control related laws.

      1. I’ve run into that, “What if Musk just packed up and moved to China?” meme and variations on it a lot in recent days. I don’t know where it’s coming from as I don’t do social media platforms, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the latest work by Chinese trolls.

        1. Apparently there is an amendment to the Senate NASA Authorization Bill from Cory Gardner who wants to mandate ALL NASA contractors disclose any direct or indirect ties to China. Gardner is apparently trying to use Tesla’s factory in Shanghai as a wedge against SpaceX.

        2. I don’t think it’s the work of Chines trolls, because I don’t see how the Musk-might-move-to-China theme is beneficial to China. It does however rhyme with Trump’s hints that Biden is a Chinese pawn (and with Gardner’s attack on SpaceX).

          2. Because of Lockheed Martin, Gardner has a parochial interest in bashing SpaceX. His proposed amendment to the authorization bill seems to be an example. Gardner and Trump belonging to the same party, it seems unlikely Gardner would be after Musk because of any connection the latter might have to Trump.

      2. I’ve heard him say things like that before but sometimes he just poses the question rather than expresses something he believes. I’ll have to listen to that episode to get the context.

        They would have to have a reason to leave. Under what circumstances would SpaceX be chased out of the USA?

  5. I find it very difficult to listen to David Livingston for more than a few minutes. His voice sounds so passive, I simply find his voice irritating.

  6. I’m sure Rogozin’s comments, like his original trampoline remark, are intended for domestic consumption. Few Russians will have any idea that he’s way off base.

  7. It wouldn’t have taken much to make a reusable Proton first stage, just a small seventh engine in the middle and landing legs (probably even just three permanently deployed fins). With a lengthened Blok B, Blok A could stage low and slow and just land down range on the hard ground of the streppe (no need for precision guidance) and be retrieved by a helicopter. Too late now, of course. Too bad Chelomei didn’t try it in the first place.

  8. Roscosmos should follow SpaceX’s development path of taking an existing booster and, at first, just trying to control the re-entry area with a burn. Then add aerodynamic controls to narrow the re-entry path to get the boosters to hit near a target area, and only then working on the deceleration and touchdown. They probably should have started doing that shortly after a Falcon 9 landed on a barge.

    Frankly, they should’ve done the first steps back in the 1960’s when downrange farmers complained about dodging the falling booster sections.

Comments are closed.