Technodinamika will test parachutes for the new Federation spacecraft

2018 will begin testing parachutes for the manned ship "Federation". The development of the landing system for the newest Russian spacecraft is being carried out by the Scientific Research Institute of Parachute Building, which is part of the Technodinamika holding.

Employees of the scientific research institute of parachute building and the military personnel of the marine testing center will test in the Crimea, at the testing ground near Feodosiya. At the same time will be used models of the spacecraft "Federation".

“This year, tests will be held with mock-ups of 3 tons. They will be parachuted nine times with a Mi-8 or Ka-32 helicopter.

- Igor Nasenkov, General Director of Tekhnodinamika, told Izvestia.

In 2019, the next stage of testing will begin - using the full-size nine-ton layout of the Federation, which will have to survive 28 discharges from the Mi-26 helicopter and the Il-76 aircraft.

The landing program assumes that at the height of 4,5 thousand meters the Federation will open an exhaust parachute, and then a three-domed main with a total area of ​​3,6 square. km, writes the edition. Jet engines from a height of approximately 50 m will reduce the rate of descent. Landing will be carried out on the amortized supports, thereby preventing the descent vehicle from falling on its side after touching the ground, which is typical of the Soyuz spacecraft.

The Federation is a reusable manned spacecraft, which should replace the manned spacecraft of the Soyuz series and automatic cargo ships of the Progress series. As previously reported by the head of Roscosmos Igor Komarov, the first launch of the Federation will be carried out in 2022 from the Baikonur cosmodrome. In the future, new vehicles will be used for manned flights to the moon.

Comments

[wasps]

Can not be?! We are a gas station with bears riding on balalaikas guzzling dope ...?

[CooL_SnipeR]

Soba ... partners and libesralians bark - the caravan goes

[Separ DNR]

the first launch of the "Federation" will be carried out in 2022 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome

Quote: vespe

Can not be?! We are a gas station with bears riding on balalaikas guzzling dope ...?

Quote: CooL_SnipeR

Soba ... partners and libesralians bark - the caravan goes

The point is not that the Russians cannot do anything, and not the cries of marginal liberorids, but that there is time until the year 2022 to peacefully develop?

[Wedmak]

Hmm ... while the media bark that Musk buried Roskosmos, our silent glanders conduct tests and design new systems. Well done. That would be to stop the theft there, and then toss some money.

[donavi49]

Well this year, two new spacecraft in an unmanned version will fly on the ISS - 100%.
From The Mask - Dragon-2
From Boeing - Starliner.

If everything is ok, then Starliner with the crew (pictured) in November on the ISS, and Dragon until the end of the year. In any case, they now have a question already in this or the next year. Both spacecraft relative to the Union are a new generation. Therefore, here they were ahead of the RK - with the Federation, which is optimistic in 22, but realistically (Starliner should have also in 2015 in the year) in 2025.

[axenm]

Quote: donavi49

Well this year, two new spacecraft in an unmanned version will fly on the ISS - 100%.
From The Mask - Dragon-2
From Boeing - Starliner.

What a touching naivety !!
For a long time (since 2004, when it became clear that no image losses would prevent the shutdown of a flawed, dangerous and expensive shuttle), I constantly stumble upon the delusional timing of launches of American manned capsules, which are ALWAYS POSED.
And I do not see any events and accomplishments that allow us to believe these dreamers this time.

[Simargl]

Quote: axxenm

And I do not see any events and accomplishments that allow us to believe these dreamers this time.

You just need to stock up on seeds and wait: here 50/50 - will succeed / fail.
I’ll tell you a terrible secret: it doesn’t matter - this year, whether next, - the main thing is ahead of us.

[axenm]

Quote: Simargl

I’ll tell you a terrible secret: it doesn’t matter - this year, whether next, - the main thing is ahead of us.

before you what?

[Simargl]

Quote: axxenm

before you what?

More convenient, roomy, cheaper.
Who will need the Union? After all, they will finish their manned spacecraft in any case!

[axenm]

Quote: donavi49

this year, two new unmanned aerial vehicles will fly 100% on the ISS

where is such a probability figure unrealistic in practice from?
you are just a nasa propagandist reckoning with impudently absurd confidence will hammer into souls weak in mind, whose memory is a little longer than that of fish, the version that the development of American astronautics is on the right track?
Or do the voices in the head whisper?
They would write for decency at least 99%.
I’m sure that American manned capsules will not fly successfully this year, and I’m even ready to accept bets on it.

[donavi49]

I wrote CA in unmanned option

They will fly 100%. Well, 99.9% - 0,1% if the launch vehicle catches a shutdown (i.e. a major accident).

Here in the pilot - if the unmanned mission will pass normally. November at Starliner and the end of the year at Mask. At the same time, everyone wants to be the first with people after the shuttle closes. Unmanned will fly in the summer.

[axenm]

Quote: donavi49

Here in the pilot - if the unmanned mission will pass normally. November at Starliner and the end of the year at Mask.

This is the launch in the current 2018 year.
that is why I wrote:

Quote: axxenm

I’m sure that American manned capsules will not fly successfully this year, and I’m even ready to accept bets on it.

so your replica:

Quote: donavi49

I wrote a spacecraft in an unmanned version

it’s not clear what it refers to ..
Well, at least you were forced to reduce the sturgeon from 100 to 99,9 percent.
And the probability, in your opinion, of the percentage of capsule flight in manned mode, in percent, is very interesting? 90..80..70?
Thank you in advance for your response..

[Overlock]

even under the Union in Feodosia, astronauts were brought down. Soyuz Apollo also trained splashdown.

[axenm]

"Federation" (PTK NP) - utter stupidity imposed by politicians who forced designers to conceptually copy American (and still not able to fly up) absurd barrels (artificially inflated, in response to - "why are they better than the union?" Joyfully reply: 6-7 people accommodate - not in vain we spend taxpayer money !!!).
That is, the same rake when the Kremlin elders forced to copy the shuttle.
In view of the fact that the KK Federation is the fruit of a political order,
he is very unsuccessful in layout and concept,
and here we have to rejoice about the delays in its implementation
and hope that it will never be created.
For flights to the moon and into orbit of the earth,
it is quite enough Unions, or a new ship repeating at a new technical level its concept.
Although I believe there’s nothing to do in orbit
- you must fly immediately to the moon and make a permanent base there.
As soon as the power of compradors and prostitutes changes,
we will have a second Korolev who
will make Russia the undisputed leader in space exploration, which will pull the development of our entire country as a great technological power, and not a shameful raw material colony.

[Simargl]

Quote: axxenm

Federation "(PTK NP) - utter stupidity

For what reason? Besides "copying" - are there any reasons?

Quote: axxenm

he is very unsuccessful in layout and concept

The layout is debatable, the concept is what? Are you talking about Clipper?

Quote: axxenm

For flights to the moon and into orbit of the earth, alliances are enough, or a new ship repeating at a new technical level its concept.

Into the orbit of the Unions, while enough. To the moon - not enough, because the internal volume does not allow you to fly for 2 ++ weeks: not that you don’t use the space suit — diapers are difficult to change. However, these difficulties could be transferred in the mode breakthrough (if, would, would the landing took place before the Apollo), but now this is in the past, the moon should be mastered, and this implies at least some comfort.

Quote: axxenm

Although I believe that there is nothing to do in orbit - you need to fly immediately to the moon and make a permanent base there.

It is debatable: to fly to the moon with one module, a super-heavy class LV is needed, and to create a base, you can’t do it at all at a time.
The station is needed. Like an assembly shop. Then in general it will be possible to manage with heavy and medium.

Quote: axxenm

we will have a second Korolev who will make Russia the undisputed leader in space exploration

Yes, how much can you? Almost at any time, Korolev is waiting in the wings! However, they give him work only when everything is “broken," or a breakthrough is needed!
We do not need Korolev, but a normal policy ... in everything ...
Otherwise, the “Korolev” so needed now will appear, will develop the “R-7” and we will fly another 60 years at the next “Union”!
Development must be continuous! Let the same Clipper not go, but as will be necessary - the dust from the project is blown away, work will continue. Another thing - work on it was supposed to start not 18 years ago, but not less than 40 (or better, simultaneously with the Space Shuttles) !!!

[axenm]

Quote: Simargl

In the orbit of the Unions, so far enough. To the moon - not enough, because internal volume does not allow to fly 2 ++ weeks

what other 2 ++ weeks?
The level of trying to argue with me here is simply amazing ..
I understand that people happen, they can describe themselves - they want to write for days, but they jam and they write for weeks ... and I'm not trying to reproach my opponent like that, but just kindly point out a mistake.
But in this case, they would not build their argument on a 2 ++ weekly flight ...
... therefore, you actually thought that you need to fly to the moon for so much time, which means that you are frankly ignorant in the field of astronautics.
All your other “objections” to my theses are just as ridiculous ..
It is Friday night, so I will take the time to write the answers with errors only on the weekend.

[Simargl]

Quote: axxenm

what other 2 ++ weeks?

Quote: axxenm

Quote: Simargl
In the orbit of the Unions, so far enough. To the moon - not enoughbecause internal volume does not allow to fly 2 ++ weeks

How else to explain? Your level is not enough to understand that the flight time to / from the moon is more than two weeks.

Quote: axxenm

I understand that people happen, they can describe themselves - they want to write for days, but they jam and they write for weeks ...

Time from launch to moon landing. + back. + time on the moon itself.
The flight time is 3-5 days.
Let there be even a week, in total.
However, in the Union it’s even impossible to reach out, but for the first mission (Apollon) this became a problem: they tried to sleep hunched up - it didn’t work out very well, in the following they provided for the type of hammocks.

Quote: axxenm

All your other “objections” to my theses are just as ridiculous ..

And Baba Yaga is against it!
Wait polite arguments.

[VALERIK_097]

three-domed main area of ​​3,6 square meters. km ??? Correct moderators.
3600sq.m.

[pafegosoff]

In principle, no matter how much I would like to quickly, but landing - the most crucial moment.
On take-off, the same Soyuz had two accidents (well-known) that ended successfully. At the landing of 4 accidents, two ended in disasters (Soyuz-1 and Soyuz-11)
2022 year. By this time, the Omsk "Flight" should switch to serial production of the Angara launch vehicle.

[slipped]

Quote: Simargl

Quote: axxenm

before you what?

More convenient, roomy, cheaper.
Who will need the Union? After all, they will finish their manned spacecraft in any case!

Afiget! Who is this comfortable and roomy ?! 10-11 cubes in both Americans for seven people, without a toilet and other amenities, and 10,5 cubes for three in the Union with a toilet and a bar)))). Cheap? regarding the Shuttle - exactly, regarding our "Union MS" - expensive.

[Simargl]

Quote: slipped

10,5 cubes for three in the Union

10,45 cubic meters of airtight volume, while free - 6,5 cubic meters, which are scattered in two compartments. However, all this is visible when the compartment is shown.
In any case, the Union is not enough for any lengthy stay.
In addition, he can not take off.
In the Federation, two compartments are combined, in fact. The soft landing module (on Earth) can work, as I understand it, landing on the Moon. Perhaps on Mars. Why do I think so? Because initially they wanted to plant on engines, but then this system was left additional.

[slipped]

Quote: donavi49

Both spacecraft relative to the Union are a new generation. Therefore, here they were ahead of the Republic of Kazakhstan - with the Federation, which is optimistic at 22, but realistic (Starliner also should have been in 2015) in 2025.

Let me clarify - what are they the new generation in relation to the Union of MS? What is its functionality? Can there be less overload during withdrawal-descent? Are there more places? For three turns can get to the station? Is shipping cheaper? One answer to all these questions is no. The only plus is that the SB panels in them rotate in the sun themselves.

[slipped]

Quote: Simargl

Quote: slipped

10,5 cubes for three in the Union

10,45 cubic meters of airtight volume, while free - 6,5 cubic meters, which are scattered in two compartments. However, all this is visible when the compartment is shown.
In any case, the Union is not enough for any lengthy stay.
In addition, he can not take off.
In the Federation, two compartments are combined, in fact. The soft landing module (on Earth) can work, as I understand it, landing on the Moon. Perhaps on Mars. Why do I think so? Because initially they wanted to plant on engines, but then this system was left additional.

Three people of average height in two compartments fit quite normal, there is some discomfort during a flight of more than a day, associated with adaptation to zero gravity and the constant spin of the ship in the sun. We can say - this is his main drawback, his atavism since the time of the king. But, the ship, which is now flying, is used exclusively in missions of "taxi" to the ISS, with a tendency to reduce delivery time, so now all this is becoming insignificant.
The "Federation", as we know it now, was not planned for landing on another celestial body. Shock absorbers are solely for landing on Earth. For landing on the moon, projects of various distillery are being developed.