Roscosmos called the weaknesses of the American Crew Dragon


The state corporation Roscosmos called the weaknesses of the reusable manned spacecraft Crew Dragon, created by the American SpaceX. Russian experts identified a number of problem areas and published their findings in a departmental journal "Russian space".


Experts noticed that the liquid engines of the emergency rescue system of this ship are located right behind the wall of the cabin. Attention was drawn that the crew is in close proximity to toxic fuel. This has raised serious concerns about a possible danger. After all, the explosion of Crew Dragon, which occurred at a ground stand in April 2019, confirms the validity of such doubts.

The insufficiently comfortable sanitary conditions of the American ship were also noted. On Russian Soyuz spacecraft (crew of up to 3 cosmonauts), the toilet is located in a special compartment for domestic needs.

Astronauts flying on the shuttle complained that the toilet area was separated by a symbolic screen during each use. But if the sealed shuttle cockpit had a volume of 74,5 cubic meters, then the new ship has only 10 cubic meters, and the toilet is still behind the curtain

- explained in the material.

Experts added that the cabin of the American ship is designed for seven astronauts and significantly more than the descent vehicle of the Russian Soyuz. At the same time, the Americans reduced their crew to 4, since they are no longer required. In this regard, the ship seems oversized.

It is summarized that with the advent of the Crew Dragon, Americans have gained a compact and more reliable ship over a decade of effort, the operation of which is much cheaper than the shuttle. For example, during the launches of Space Shuttle (the last was in July 2011), 14 astronauts were killed, and Crew Dragon has a crew rescue system that can be used at any stage of the flight.
  • Photos used: NASA / SpaceX / wikimedia.org
16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. shadow Offline shadow
    shadow 27 June 2020 18: 13
    -4
  2. Cyril Online Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 27 June 2020 21: 13
    0
    The insufficiently comfortable sanitary conditions of the American ship were also noted. On Russian Soyuz spacecraft (crew of up to 3 cosmonauts), the toilet is located in a special compartment for domestic needs.

    But if you make a reusable capsule ship, it cannot have any separate household compartment. The Russian "Federation" will have the same layout of the toilet "with a curtain" as on the "Dragon", otherwise there is no way to do it.

    At the same time, the Americans reduced their crew to 4, as it is no longer required. In this regard, the ship seems oversized.

    Instead of 3 retracted passenger seats, additional cargo can be installed, so there is no need to talk about "oversize".

    Experts noticed that the liquid engines of the emergency rescue system of this ship are located directly behind the wall of the cabin. Attention was drawn that the crew is in close proximity to toxic fuel.

    First, the toxic fuel tanks are located in a service compartment located at the bottom of the ship. Between these compartments there is not a cardboard wall, but a multi-layer partition. In addition, each Super Draco engine is individually sealed. Again, these engines are used not only for emergency rescue but also for normal ship propulsion and maneuvering. Since the ship is reusable, they will by definition be built into its hull. By the way, the shunting engines and tanks for them with the same toxic heptyl on the Federation are also built into its body.
  3. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 27 June 2020 22: 43
    -3
    I got this Roskosmos.
  4. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 28 June 2020 00: 31
    +1
    I looked through the original article, the impression - they would have to beat their hands. They would ask RT to share the experts once they themselves do not know how.
    https://www.roscosmos.ru/media/pdf/russianspace/rk2020-04.pdf

    As for the "shortcomings", as far as I understand, there will be two compartments on the Orel, one metal for people, the second composite for the engine, but if "WOMAN" happens, what's the difference? Everything is close by. Toilet behind the curtain? What to call what is in the photo on the right? Apparently this is it. No matter how much I looked, I did not see any mention of a separate bathroom with a jacuzzi.


    There in the article there is a mention that the Americans promised the first manned flight in 2015, then in 2019, I think they are not lying, but who heard both of this? And about Roscosmos, all these unfulfilled promises are heard. Now "Roscosmos" experts say that "Eagle" is being created for a flight to the moon, and for flights to the ISS they will make a light version, they say, "Orion" needs to be leveled. No.

    By 2023, tests of the Angara-A5P manned rocket should begin in Russia. And at the same time - the ship "Oryol" in the version for the delivery of astronauts into orbit of the International Space Station.
    At the same time, "Eagle" will be "loaded" to a heavy version for flights to the moon.

    https://www.ugra.kp.ru/daily/27116/4195884/

    And on May 5, "China tested a new generation manned spacecraft." Launched the Mask earlier, but who heard about it?
    https://naked-science.ru/article/cosmonautics/kitaj-ispytal-pilotiruemyj-kosmicheskij-korabl-novogo-pokoleniya

    In terms of information, the Americans did everything.
    1. Cyril Online Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 28 June 2020 13: 04
      -1
      And on May 5, "China tested a new generation manned spacecraft." Launched the Mask earlier, but who heard about it?

      They (the Chinese) launched it (the new Chinese ship) in May in an unmanned version - the Americans did it with their Cru Dragon a year ago.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 28 June 2020 13: 33
        +1
        They (the Chinese) launched it (the new Chinese ship) in May in an unmanned version - the Americans did it with their Cru Dragon a year ago.

        I know, I had in mind before launching SpaceX, the proposal was a bit wrong. It was understood that the Chinese program remained in the shadows, however, like the Boeing.
        How do you worry about them. lol
        By the way, here again Musk's "reputation" is being attacked, they say, SpaceX is the brainchild of the Pentagon.
        I looked, I found this document here, I have not delved into it yet. Your opinion on this issue is interesting. yes

        https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040161462.pdf

        On the NASA website, the description indicates that this is a comparison of the old NASA program (Bantam) and two DARPA programs (Falcon and Rascal).

        And Musk himself is so far engaged exclusively in peaceful space exploration, though, together with the military, but these are such trifles, right? Just think, in April I took part in the exercises, winked and in February too. repeat

        https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32346/the-air-force-and-spacex-are-teaming-up-for-a-massive-live-fire-exercise
        1. Cyril Online Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 28 June 2020 14: 11
          0
          By the way, here again the "reputation" of the Mask is encroached upon, say SpaceX the brainchild of the Pentagon.

          If SpaceX was the "brainchild of the Pentagon," Musk would not have sued the US Air Force when he won the right to launch military satellites from them.

          And Musk himself is so far engaged exclusively in peaceful space exploration, though together with the military, but these are such trifles, right? Just think in April, participated in the exercises winked, and in February, too.

          And what is surprising in the fact that he collaborates with the Pentagon? Since 2017, he has launched satellites into orbit. This time he made available his satellite network.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 28 June 2020 14: 18
            +1
            If SpaceX was the "brainchild of the Pentagon," Musk would not have sued the US Air Force when he won the right to launch military satellites from them.

            You never know, suddenly the guy wanted more, or maybe they decided to "legalize" cooperation. In any case, the halo of a "guy-shirt" who spends exclusively his own money on peaceful development has faded.

            And what is surprising in the fact that he collaborates with the Pentagon? Since 2017, he has launched satellites into orbit. This time he made available his satellite network.

            No wonder request I also see nothing surprising in the fact that the Pentagon was at the root of the Falcon program. It’s not me who told me that they finance everything exclusively at their own expense. winked
            1. Cyril Online Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 28 June 2020 14: 44
              0
              In any case, the halo of a "guy-shirt" who spends exclusively his own money on peaceful development has faded.

              laughing He never had such a halo. No one denied the help of NASA and the military at first, no one denies a significant (but not prevailing) share of government orders even now. But this does not negate the fact that he also invested dofig of his money.

              You never know, suddenly the guy wanted more.

              What more? Above zero?

              I also see nothing surprising in the fact that the Pentagon was at the root of the Falcon program.

              And now more about financing the development of the ultralight "Falcon" agency DARPA:

              Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) has been awarded $ 8M by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and US Air Force to demonstrate highly responsive, affordable launch capability.

              As much as 8 million dollars)) Well, just fabulous bucks) laughing
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 28 June 2020 16: 53
                +1
                He never had such a halo. No one denied the help of NASA and the military at first, no one denies a significant (but not prevailing) share of government orders even now. But this does not negate the fact that he also invested dofig of his money.

                That is, you want to say that DARPA allocated 8 million for your project and then spin around, as you want?
                You once said something like that - the burden of proof lies with the approver.
                It is very interesting to see the arguments. Any information on the termination of the DARPA Falcon project?
                He also invested his money "dofiga"? Truth? And how many?

                What more? Above zero?

                More than one project. The Pentagon funded the creation of the Falcon, but Musk wanted to launch other satellites besides his own. This is a completely different project.

                As much as 8 million dollars)) Well, just fabulous bucks)

                This is just confirmation that there was funding. We will say that this is not because DARPA does not publish information?
                With the same success, it can be argued that hypersound is developed exclusively at the expense of companies. It is unlikely that you will be able to prove the opposite and present reporting to the MO on the allocation of funds. repeat
            2. Cyril Online Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 28 June 2020 14: 47
              0
              It's not me who told me that they are financing everything only at own expense.

              I didn’t tell this either)
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 28 June 2020 16: 41
                +1
                It’s not me who told me that they finance everything exclusively at their own expense.

                I didn’t tell this either)

                If literally, then no, I didn’t tell, but we have already talked about this topic. You can remind a little. yes

                So Uncle Sam at SpaceX and was - no one denies this. At first, the company really lived off of funding from NASA allocated under the COTS and CRS programs. (ISS cargo support). At state launches, the company also generated the necessary reliability statistics for its missiles. And then, in 2015, it entered the market of commercial launches. After that, the share of government orders in the total number of launches decreased, the share of commercial orders increased.

                Information about the participation of "Uncle Sam" is not complete, is not it?
                Here are some more sources of company financing:

                The source of financing is the contributions of investors and the Mask himself, as well as the profit received from orders.
                A profitable project is SpaceX itself and their main direction (launches on Falcon-9).

                SpaceX has no dumping and government subsidies.

                SpaceX was financed from the budget only once - when they won the competition (on a competitive basis, by the way) for the creation of the spacecraft and spacecraft for the delivery of goods and people to the ISS.

                (123) This is not the first time that SpaceX and the Department of Defense have joined forces.

                - and? The Ministry of Defense ordered the launch of its satellite, SpaceX fulfilled the order for money. Where are the "subsidies" here?

                I gave you a link where it is written in black and white in the American edition, the representative of the Air Force claims that SpaceX and the Ministry of Defense are not cooperating for the first time. It is about using satellites for military purposes. Do you think that in such cases the financing comes from the company?
                But you persistently repeat, this is an isolated case. I don’t see any further delving into projects, I’m tired of looking for all these links every time.

                (123) Without government orders and overpriced payments, an enterprise is not viable.

                - did you audit SpaceX to confirm this? Do you have insider information about the financial condition of the company? Can you present?
  5. rotkiv04 Offline rotkiv04
    rotkiv04 (Victor) 28 June 2020 08: 11
    -1
    It would be better if these Rogozin specialists kept quiet until they finished their Federation, Roscosmos is already like an Armenian radio.
  6. Syoma_67 Offline Syoma_67
    Syoma_67 (Semyon) 28 June 2020 20: 16
    0
    Roscosmos called

    - Roscosmos would be better silent.
  7. novice Offline novice
    novice (Andrei) 5 July 2020 22: 21
    +1
    This is like looking for a speck in the wrong eye. And the truth, unfortunately, we have nothing to make expert assessments in this area .....
    You must be able to face the truth! Talk less, do more!
    And then it’s just a laughing stock! It’s good for them that ordinary people aren’t at all up to it now!
  8. Syoma_67 Offline Syoma_67
    Syoma_67 (Semyon) 12 July 2020 16: 58
    -2
    Roscosmos called the weaknesses of the American

    - their weaknesses, apparently, a long time to list.