NASA announced the readiness of the ship Crew Dragon for a manned flight

NASA announced the readiness of the ship Crew Dragon for a manned flight

SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft is ready for manned flight to the ISS. This was stated by the director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Jim Brydenstein.


Speaking at a briefing at the Kennedy Space Flight Center, Bridenstein said that the spacecraft Ilona Mask was fully prepared for a manned flight, scheduled for May 27. The ship is already installed on the launch pad.

The pre-flight review of all systems and subsystems has been completed. We are ready to start in five days. The booster is already on the launch pad.

- said the head of NASA.

In turn, the head of the commission for assessing the state of the ship’s and launch vehicle’s systems, Steve Jersek, noted that during the preparation of the ship for flight, discussions were held that lasted two days, but all issues were “closed”. They were also attended by "Russian colleagues from Roscosmos."

Our colleagues from Roscosmos participated in the discussions. Russian colleagues have been working with us since the first demonstration flight of the ship without a crew, and in preparation for the current flight they discussed all aspects. We gave technical explanations to our Russian colleagues and answered all questions.

- explained the head of the ISS flight program Kirk Shirman.

The manned spacecraft Crew Dragon, planned to be sent to the ISS, is a modification of the Dragon cargo ship, which has already delivered cargo into orbit in automatic mode. On the ship, whose launch is scheduled for May 27, and docking with the ISS at 28, the American astronauts Douglas Harley and Robert Benken will leave.

Recall that the United States stopped manned space flights in 2011, since that time all American astronauts were delivered into orbit by the Russian Soyuz.



Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

152 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. DEVIL LIFE`S 23 May 2020 09: 54 New
    • 8
    • 5
    +3
    Interesting, and then sanctions to Roskosmos for the eyes, or if something goes wrong.
    1. Civil 23 May 2020 10: 44 New
      • 24
      • 46
      -22
      We are waiting for “Mask is a con man, he doesn’t fly anything”. All American cosmonautics bullshit, Rogozin Boch. We are waiting for his trampoline 2.
      1. Barmaleyka 23 May 2020 11: 10 New
        • 11
        • 6
        +5
        Quote: Civil
        Rogozin Boch

        and what is it for?
        discuss will fly ...
      2. Wedmak 23 May 2020 12: 14 New
        • 20
        • 22
        -2
        Max is really the rogue ... so far none of his subjugation ideas have worked. Dragon (like SpaceX) owes its appearance to NASA and the company with their money, experience, and specialists.
        But there are still big questions for the operation of this ship, while it has not shown itself in any way: neither as reliable, nor as safe, nor as serial.
        1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 12: 34 New
          • 22
          • 8
          +14
          NASA long before the advent of SpaceX gave the development of ships and rockets to corporations. Therefore, she had nothing but money. And she gave SpaceX money much less than other contractors.
          For example, for money
          September 16, 2014 NASA announced the signing of contracts with Boeing and SpaceX [1]. The contract with Boeing amounted to 4,2 billion dollars, with SpaceX - 2,6 billion, with the same contractual obligations: completion of development and certification of transport systems, test and staff missions to the ISS [19].

          How is Boeing doing with specialists, experience and technology? And his ship even failed an unmanned test. And until next year, it’s definitely not going to fly with people.
          Well, and about not one idea did not work?
          What about Falcon-9, which has already flown 82 times successfully into space?
          1. Wedmak 23 May 2020 12: 47 New
            • 12
            • 20
            -8
            What about Falcon-9, which has already flown 82 times successfully into space?

            NASA sponsorship, and not directly, from there the same technology, specialists, etc.
            Do you seriously believe that one small company founded by a millionaire is capable of creating and launching a heavy rocket launcher in such a short time ??? Do not tell my slippers ...
            1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 12: 56 New
              • 19
              • 9
              +10
              The technologies were developed during the work of SpaceX, experts were recruited from other companies and fresh ones from universities were hired on the open market.
              Practice has shown yes, capable. This caused a stir in the market and the emergence of dozens of new spacecraft launch companies around the world. For example, the BO company in 2021 is going to launch its heavy New Glen launch vehicle; the RocketLab launches its light electrons already in series. People do, but do not whine, which is impossible
            2. Keyser soze 23 May 2020 14: 16 New
              • 13
              • 1
              +12
              that one small company founded by a millionaire is capable of


              But they don’t fly ... They get to the edge of the Flat Earth and when they get to the Cosmos ... laughing
              1. indy424 24 May 2020 21: 20 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                little of. tesla don't go anywhere either
          2. Genry 23 May 2020 12: 57 New
            • 6
            • 9
            -3
            Quote: BlackMokona
            And she gave SpaceX money much less than other contractors.
            For example, for money

            Your example is only one stage of financing.
            Quote: BlackMokona
            development completion and certification

            OCD, manufacturing, testing - where?
            1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 12: 59 New
              • 6
              • 7
              -1
              All inclusive, read carefully
              commitment: completion Development of и certification transport systems test и full-time missions to the ISS [19].
              1. Genry 23 May 2020 13: 04 New
                • 5
                • 6
                -1
                Quote: BlackMokona
                All inclusive, read carefully
                obligations: completion development and certification

                The word "completion" does not mean the entire volume. This is just a project co-financing.
                1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 13: 10 New
                  • 6
                  • 6
                  0
                  Just the beginning of development is an excursion project, which is needed to generally participate in the competition. You can’t come to the competition with a statement, we will make some kind of ship sometime. We need calculations, pictures, and more.
                  1. Genry 23 May 2020 13: 14 New
                    • 5
                    • 8
                    -3
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    the beginning of development is an excursion project

                    And after EP what? Where is OCD and production? Where are the trials?
                    Your "completion" is as usual, something is not enough and a bit more money is needed.
                    1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 13: 15 New
                      • 9
                      • 6
                      +3
                      So I pointed out that everything is included in this contract.
                      Development, test and staff missions and everything else
                      1. Genry 23 May 2020 13: 22 New
                        • 3
                        • 10
                        -7
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        So I pointed out that everything is included in this contract.

                        Who is "pointed out"?
                        Financing completion is the payment of the tail of the contract.
                        Payment of the contract is always carried out in stages, with full reporting. Until you report on success, no one will give you money for the next step.
                      2. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 13: 24 New
                        • 10
                        • 4
                        +6
                        So this contract is divided into stages, which are paid with full reporting.
                        Launched unmanned to the ISS, get the loot.
                        Launched SAS in flight get the loot.
                        Launched a ship with astronauts in the first mission get loot
                        Launched a second time with astronauts to the ISS get loot.
                      3. Genry 23 May 2020 13: 33 New
                        • 1
                        • 7
                        -6
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        So this contract is divided into stages, which are paid with full reporting.
                        Launched unmanned to the ISS, get the loot.
                        Launched SAS in flight get the loot.
                        Launched a ship with astronauts in the first mission get loot
                        Launched a second time with astronauts to the ISS get loot


                        Well, something comes, but not all ....
                        These steps are only after certification and a full test cycle (final stage of the contract).
                        Or do you think the end is with a flight to Mars (which no one in FIG needs)?
                      4. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 07 New
                        • 7
                        • 4
                        +3
                        Dragon 2 will receive certification only after the first successful flight with people.
                        And again, carefully re-read.
                        obligations: completion of the development and certification of transport systems, test and staff missions to the ISS [19].
                      5. Genry 23 May 2020 14: 10 New
                        • 2
                        • 6
                        -4
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        And again, carefully re-read.
                        obligations: completion development and certification of transport systems, test and staff missions to the ISS [19].

                        Can you understand the difference between execution (main part) and completion (tail) ..?
                      6. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 12 New
                        • 4
                        • 6
                        -2
                        Yes, full implementation, if SpaceX would completely develop a ship from scratch with a NASA contract, and before the contract it was not a rumor about the ship at all.
                        The completion means that SpaceX has already done some work to determine the appearance and characteristics of the ship, with which it won a contract.
                        It’s just an exact bureaucratic formulation.
                      7. Genry 23 May 2020 14: 14 New
                        • 1
                        • 6
                        -5
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        SpaceX has already done some work to determine the shape and characteristics of the ship, with which it won a contract.

                        It didn’t even start the work of designing, manufacturing and testing ....
                      8. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 15 New
                        • 4
                        • 6
                        -2
                        The beginning, with a preliminary design, work begins on the design, manufacture and testing ...
                      9. Genry 23 May 2020 14: 16 New
                        • 2
                        • 6
                        -4
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        The beginning, with a preliminary design, work begins on the design, manufacture and testing ..

                        Do not twist and do not pile everything. Everywhere in the world these are different stages.
                      10. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 17 New
                        • 3
                        • 4
                        -1
                        http://grafika.stu.ru/wolchin/umm/eskd/eskd/GOST/2_103.htm

                        Design stages
                        (ESKD GOST 2.103-68)
                      11. Genry 23 May 2020 14: 30 New
                        • 3
                        • 5
                        -2
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        http://grafika.stu.ru/wСтадии проектирования
                        (ESKD GOST 2.103-68) olchin / umm / eskd / eskd / GOST / 2_103.htm

                        And then hack.
                        Right here:
                        http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200001990
                        And all these stages go after the conclusion of the contract according to the results of the approved TOR (of those tasks).
  • Genry 23 May 2020 13: 01 New
    • 6
    • 9
    -3
    Quote: BlackMokona
    Well, and about not one idea did not work?
    What about Falcon-9, which has already flown 82 times successfully into space?

    Actually, the idea was to provide cheap launches. But the price gap between advertising and real military launches is huge and shows that the average cost is very high ..
    1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 13: 09 New
      • 9
      • 9
      0
      Are you seduced by that nonsense of Rogozin?
      https://elonmusk.su/spacex-vyigryvaet-kontrakt-82-mln-dlya-falcon-9-na-zapusk-sputnika-gps-3-v-2018-godu/
      The SpaceX development company received a contract for $ 82,7 million from the U.S. Air Force to launch a GPS satellite in May 2018. For SpaceX, this will be the first project for the Armed Forces since the company received permission to launch military satellites in 2015.

      Almost all are commercial or for NASA at very different prices.
      https://prostopasha1914.livejournal.com/432404.html
      For the entire mission, the entire costs were limited to $ 50,3 million (and this, taking into account ALL expenses, including overheads - that is, launching specifically costs even less). This is where Elon Musk appeared - believing that his "workhorse" Falcon-9 with reusable first steps was invested in this cost profitably.

      https://prostopasha1914.livejournal.com/432404.html
      An advertising by the way on the SpaceX website is 62 million per launch.
      1. Genry 23 May 2020 13: 17 New
        • 5
        • 7
        -2
        Quote: BlackMokona
        https://prostopasha1914.livejournal

        Is this an OBS? Why do not you, in general, refer to your comments on other sites ("I said so").
        1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 13: 18 New
          • 6
          • 6
          0
          https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/rocket-report-falcon-9-beats-pegasus-on-price-vega-has-its-first-failure/
          Google Translate
          Falcon 9 hits the Pegasus rocket for the price. NASA signed a contract to launch SpaceX on July 8 to launch a small astrophysical mission, as the company offered the previously launched Falcon 9 at a lower price than a much smaller rocket. NASA said it selected SpaceX to launch the X-Ray Polarimetry Imaging Browser (IXPE) mission in April 2021 for $ 50,3 million, including the launch itself and other mission-related expenses.

          Talk about the importance of reusability ... Mission officials substantiated the use of the Pegasus XL rocket to launch a spacecraft. Departing from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, Pegasus XL will be able to launch IXPE into the desired orbit. But a Pegasus rocket would cost more. What is surprising, because the Falcon 9 rocket has 50 times the payload of a Pegasus. (JohnCarter17)
          1. Genry 23 May 2020 13: 26 New
            • 4
            • 9
            -5
            Quote: BlackMokona
            https://arstechnica.com/science/2

            So I need to believe that the earth is flat:
            http://www.meltingreality.com/ploskaja-zemlja-dokazatelstva/
            1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 13: 27 New
              • 10
              • 7
              +3
              Well, believe what a problem, I brought you an authoritative media. Let it fall in English, as ours is not loving to cover such moments.
              1. Genry 23 May 2020 13: 36 New
                • 4
                • 11
                -7
                If there are scans of the contract, then the site is authoritative. And this is your simple "yolk".
              2. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 08 New
                • 7
                • 6
                +1
                https://tass.ru/sport/4382248
                Kuznetsov signed with the NHL club “Washington” a contract for $ 62,4 million

                I can’t see the scan, TASS yolk wassat
  • Mikhail3 24 May 2020 17: 26 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Musk receives money bypassing NASA, directly from the government. In order to create his company, money laundering through NASA began to smack.
    1. Blackmokona 24 May 2020 18: 11 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      You just don’t know that before Mask arrived, the ULA had a monopoly on heavy launches at the Boeing-Lockheed alliance, and not at NASA, so your plan is completely crazy. The main lobbyists already had a monopoly on launches
  • tracer 24 May 2020 15: 22 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Exactly, pray better for your little Mask or what you do there for it. You look, and the launch will succeed ..... into space.
  • Interlocutor 23 May 2020 15: 25 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Interesting, and then sanctions to Roskosmos for the eyes, or if something goes wrong


    Space is such a thing that it can go wrong, flying on the 6th or 16th. And then something will have to be done, but then he imposed a bunch of sanctions.
    1. Venya Selnikov 25 May 2020 14: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There will be a Boeing for this.
      Something can go wrong with anyone (and the Union can also), which is why NASA wants to have at least 2 working projects manned by spacecraft. To duplicate and reduce risks.
      And this is not counting Orion, because he is supposed for long-distance missions, although the NOU can certainly fly.
      1. Interlocutor 25 May 2020 19: 40 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Distant missions of people?
        1. Venya Selnikov 25 May 2020 19: 53 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Interlocutor
          Distant missions of people?
          Yes, above the DOE. Most likely there will be a near-moon station, although in the 24th year I don’t believe it, but a year or two later — it’s real ... the contracts have already begun to be distributed, and Orion will fly to it with people. At the first stage. Then maybe someone else will join, but at first it was Orion.
          1. Interlocutor 25 May 2020 20: 20 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            But how will we deal with radiation and solar flares? laughing Have you come up with a pill? Or did the induced radiation become not afraid of us?
            1. Venya Selnikov 25 May 2020 21: 49 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Interlocutor
              But how will we deal with radiation and solar flares? laughing Have you come up with a pill? Or did the induced radiation become not afraid of us?
              In fact, the devil of radiation outside the NOU is not so terrible as it is painted. With flashes in the sun more, but briefly.
              Just testing radiation-resistant long-term solutions for modules, improved protection for residential modules (emnip, at least water shirts suggest) is one of the Getaway goals.
              Well, you can play a lot of missions.
              Those. brief missions are supposed at first to getaway, which will reduce the accumulated doses by several times. Long ones are also supposed, but only later, when the modules with normal protection will be.
              By the way, just because of the understanding of the importance of radiation, one of the first scientific devices there was chosen the means of radiometric control:
              https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-selects-first-science-instruments-to-send-to-gateway/
              1. Interlocutor 26 May 2020 16: 57 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                The more interesting it will be to observe. But something seems to me that not everything is so simple there, or rather not at all simple. This is not a small compartment, for astronauts in orbit at a station where you can hide from radiation.
                1. Venya Selnikov 26 May 2020 19: 56 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  In space, everything is not easy, but you are not afraid of wolves - do not walk in the forest.
                  In the main inhabited module, increased radiation protection is assumed, where they will sit out during flares, but the flashes are short (they are not planned on the ISS during active flashes of the VCD).
                  In fact, the radiation in the orbit of the ISS may be even larger in some periods than on the getuwe, because although the orbit of the ISS is chosen so that it does not intersect with the lines of force, in the places of some anomalies (above the Atlantic and Brazil) the lines of force descend very low and during flares the dose absorbed on the ISS may be greater than outside the force field.
                  Well, on the ISS, read no radiation protection at all.
                  Getaway - these are new challenges for engineers. It would be nice, of course, for us to participate there, at least a small fraction, but it is unlikely to be.
  • acetophenon 23 May 2020 09: 57 New
    • 19
    • 2
    +17
    I hope everything goes according to plan. It will not be good if people burn up again.
  • nPuBaTuP 23 May 2020 09: 58 New
    • 16
    • 17
    -1
    To be honest, I have some kind of twofold feeling .... and of course the desire for everything to go well and the ship to fly .... still the development of astronautics .....
    and it’s not strange, the desire that he crashes .... well, this is already on the subcortex ... all against the mattresses .....
    1. DymOk_v_dYmke 23 May 2020 10: 16 New
      • 23
      • 2
      +21
      Quote: nPuBaTuP
      To be honest, I have some kind of twofold feeling .... and of course the desire for everything to go well and the ship to fly .... still the development of astronautics .....

      Let it fly and return.
      Maybe this will stimulate us a little ...
      1. Ravil_Asnafovich 23 May 2020 10: 59 New
        • 10
        • 5
        +5
        I agree one hundred percent, we are not going to get such a kick in one place, we don’t do anything.
      2. Rostislav 23 May 2020 11: 27 New
        • 16
        • 11
        +5
        It is unlikely. Rogozin’s salaries and bonuses do not depend on the results of work. And the desire to lead their country into leaders is also only in words. Unfortunately.
        Judge not by words, but by their deeds.
        1. DymOk_v_dYmke 23 May 2020 12: 35 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: Rostislav
          Rogozin’s salaries and bonuses do not depend on the results of work. And the desire to lead their country into leaders is also only in words.

          We are not all Rogozins.
          "Survive this corn" © hi
    2. Kronos 23 May 2020 11: 10 New
      • 10
      • 8
      +2
      This is because you are a fool, since the development of humanity is no more important for you than minor strife
    3. Interlocutor 23 May 2020 15: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I agree. It’s time for the Americans to fly their ships. Development must always go in parallel. Here, humanity will have to decide with radiation fields around the earth. Do not fly to the moon each time flying around them. And there above 500 km, very tough. Yes, and the moon is not sugar. One good solar flare and there is no astronaut il astronaut il tyconaut.
  • Izotovp 23 May 2020 10: 01 New
    • 27
    • 23
    +4
    Hi Rogozin. So the Americans made their trampoline. And we are cutting all the money for old projects. It’s sad. After all, there are bright heads, I personally studied with them!
    1. Ham
      Ham 23 May 2020 10: 14 New
      • 16
      • 11
      +5
      and they do not have the "old project"? about 50 years ago it was a routine for them, and now there are so many joys as if the first person was being launched ...
      this is an example of how quickly you can lose technology and then throw much more money in order to recreate them than to "cut money on old projects"
      1. Vadim237 23 May 2020 12: 57 New
        • 10
        • 5
        +5
        Dragon 2 ship, unlike Apollo, is reusable as the first stage of a rocket on which the ship will launch progress - of course.
        1. Genry 23 May 2020 14: 49 New
          • 7
          • 7
          0
          Quote: Vadim237
          Dragon 2 ship, unlike Apollo, is reusable as the first stage of a rocket on which the ship will launch progress - of course.

          Find out what Dragon-2 engines are working on (an analog of heptyl) and where this fuel is located in it (under the seats of astronauts), you will immediately say: "Well, it’s on ...". And the explosions occur precisely because of the complexity of the passage of fuel through pipelines (water hammer)
          In the "Unions" in the descent capsule there is nothing dangerous.
        2. mark2 23 May 2020 17: 23 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          The reusable was just a shuttle. And the return of the pipe to the ground is the return of the pipe to the ground.
    2. AML
      AML 23 May 2020 10: 17 New
      • 10
      • 6
      +4
      What they did, well, there is nothing surprising, there are no breakthrough technologies in rocket engines. During the time that they sawed it, China has already climbed into space. The only question for the Americans, why so long? I do not believe in the hope that they can count money and therefore consider it economically feasible to fly on Russian engines. For the Americans, tens of billions back and forth does not matter, and even more so in such matters of principle.
      1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 11: 18 New
        • 14
        • 7
        +7
        Because Congress did not allocate money for the project. The contract for a manned spacecraft with SpaceX was concluded only in 2014, and the first money went only in 2015. Also, NASA changed the requirements for the ship 100500 times during the project, plus Boeing judged by an audit to make money for NASA officials to delay SpaceX
        1. Iris 23 May 2020 14: 26 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Judging by the audit, Boeing was making money on NASA officials.

          In fact, this is a charge of corruption against NASA and Boeing! If this is evident from the audit to you, the budget commissions of the Congress, I think, would they see it all the more? ..
          1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 30 New
            • 3
            • 4
            -1
            Well, yes, the audit was created to identify contract violations and all kinds of corruption. In the audit, it was indicated, for example, that in violation of the rules NASA changed the contract without notifying SpaceX and held a tender with the only bidder to accelerate the development of the manned spacecraft and gave Boeing $ 287 million. As an example. Skanchalchik was not bad. winked
            1. Iris 23 May 2020 14: 31 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Wow! .. Something reminds me of it all ..
      2. orionvitt 23 May 2020 12: 20 New
        • 4
        • 6
        -2
        Quote: AML
        For the Americans, a dozen billion back and forth doesn't matter

        Already has. The blessed times are over. We will see how it flies.
      3. eklmn 23 May 2020 16: 09 New
        • 6
        • 4
        +2
        “The only question for the Americans, why so long?”
        Yes, because NASA, after the shuttles, refused to manufacture rockets.
        It was cheaper to pay Russia. But a holy place does not happen empty and there was a private trader who 10 years went to the first launch.
        Question to the Russians. Where is your private trader, who with a team of 6 thousand people would create competition with Rogozin with his 400 thousand.?
        1. slipped 23 May 2020 23: 23 New
          • 3
          • 5
          -2
          Quote: eklmn
          It was cheaper to pay Russia.


          It is now cheaper. laughing

          Quote: eklmn
          But a holy place is never empty


          Of course, only recently, in April, a new crew was delivered to the ISS, on the next, only in the ISS program, the 62nd (!) Soyuz MS-16 spacecraft. laughing



          Quote: eklmn
          and there was a private trader who 10 years went to the first launch.


          Initially, the terms were called much shorter. laughing

          Quote: eklmn
          Question to the Russians. Where is your private trader, who with a team of 6 thousand people would create competition with Rogozin with his 400 thousand.?


          The answer is most likely to the “non-Russians” - have you been into hibernation for the last 20 years? laughing Roscosmos has a perfectly tuned space transport system on the ISS, which has proven its reliability not in word but in deed. Many times. "Union MS" is called. Now it delivers to the station in four turns, but soon it will learn how to deliver astronauts in one turn, i.e. in an hour and a half. Superfast and clear.

          And we also have a "private trader" - for example, the Sputniks private satellite-building company, which has already actually begun the industrial production of small spacecraft for sale - their new and already serial spacecraft will fly this year in Soyuz-2 cluster.



          The private company Cosmocourse is creating a suborbital rocket for tourist launches to a height of 200 km, in a couple of months they are already launching the AIS of their engine. In addition, a tender was announced for the creation of an ultralight carrier, and the same Cosmocourse has already announced that it will participate in it with its project. There are other private companies successfully operating in the Russian space industry as subcontractors.
          1. eklmn 24 May 2020 02: 47 New
            • 3
            • 4
            -1
            “It is now cheaper. (fly in Russian) ”
            NASA pays Russia from $ 75 million to $ 80 million for one astronaut.
            NASA pays SpaceX $ 55 million for one astronaut. As you can see, the difference is significant.
            “Initially, the terms were called much shorter.” So what?
            Five-year plan for 3? Were the plans broken? Is someone financially hurt? NASA - yes, suffered - overpaid Russia, it is! But they didn’t tighten it because of theft !!!
            Well, for the rest, you are right - Russia has progress, and significant! I wish the entire 400 thousandth staff of Roscosmos, its leader Rogozin, further success on the thorny path of space exploration, health and happiness in personal life !!!
            I also wish success to private companies in their difficult business - the path is thorny and difficult. Good luck !!!
            1. slipped 24 May 2020 12: 38 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: eklmn
              “It is now cheaper. (fly in Russian) ”
              NASA pays Russia from $ 75 million to $ 80 million for one astronaut.


              NASA pays more than $ 90 million for a six-month flight. laughing Well, this is a special price tag for NASA.

              Quote: eklmn
              NASA pays SpaceX $ 55 million for one astronaut. As you can see, the difference is significant.


              SpaceX designed the ship with NASA money and now, in your opinion, should NASA pay SpaceX? Nothing confuses you in this statement? laughing

              By the way, the flight of the Arab cosmonaut Al Mansouri on the MS Soyuz cost the Arabs a little more than $ 40mln



              Quote: eklmn
              “Initially, the terms were called much shorter.” So what?


              Yes, but what bothers you? They have been flying for two years now.

              Quote: eklmn
              Five-year plan for 3? Were the plans broken? Is someone financially hurt? NASA - yes, suffered - overpaid Russia, it is!


              He asked the question himself, and he himself answered. laughing By the way - NASA is the customer and further continues to "overpay."

              Quote: eklmn
              But they didn’t tighten it because of theft !!!


              Are you sure? laughing

              Quote: eklmn
              Well, for the rest, you are right - Russia has progress, and significant!


              Of course have. You just probably don't want to see him. Well, I remind you that we have switched from leak-tight systems in space to leak-tight systems with a long active life. We create new composite structures.



              The previously destroyed production of the domestic electronic component base was practically restored, here is the schedule for using the domestic electronic components in the new GLONASS satellites:



              We have created a powerful civilian constellation of remote sensing satellites and provide service packages to various customers, including foreign ones:



              and start to launch spacecraft into deep space:



              As for manned flights, from next year Russia will increase the production of Soyuz MS spacecraft to three per year and begin assembling the flight product of a new generation ship.
    3. silberwolf88 23 May 2020 11: 26 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      "And we are cutting all the money" ... and you stop sawing ... and everything is fine with you ...
    4. Interlocutor 23 May 2020 15: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Offer your leader
    5. Interlocutor 23 May 2020 23: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Do you have confirmation that we are sawing on old projects? The keyword is "sawing." Mark the line between old and new projects. When were the old ones to end and the new ones to start?
  • Simon schempp 23 May 2020 10: 08 New
    • 15
    • 13
    +2
    I foresee sarcastic comments on the type: "Well done Americans. Repeated what the Soviet Union did 60 years ago."
    1. orionvitt 23 May 2020 12: 24 New
      • 12
      • 10
      +2
      Quote: Simon Schempp
      I foresee malicious comments

      And what is wrong? If for Russia, astronauts fly into orbit and service the ISS with interchangeable crews, this is a routine, then for the “most technologically advanced” power this is an event. Many questions arise.
      1. Courier 23 May 2020 13: 58 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        And who is the most technologically advanced power for you?
        1. orionvitt 23 May 2020 14: 05 New
          • 6
          • 7
          -1
          Quote: Courier
          And who is the most technologically advanced power for you?

          First, give me the definition of “developed technological power,” and I will answer you. Just do not need about iPhones, otherwise schoolchildren can immediately guess, for whom, a sophisticated mobile, this is the top of human civilization.
          1. A.TOR 23 May 2020 16: 49 New
            • 5
            • 4
            +1
            In fact, the "sophisticated mobile" is the "top of human civilization."
            Because this is a completely new level in the organization of interpersonal communication, with all the so-called "pribludy" - binding to a bank card, navigation and so on. and so on.
            For billions (!) Of people, this is a huge window into the world of completely new opportunities, a tremendous simplification of doing business, organizing personal life, and much, much more.
            This is a new ideology of life.
            But the release of new, "unavailable analogs" of tractors is already a routine. And how long
            1. mark2 23 May 2020 17: 31 New
              • 6
              • 4
              +2
              Wow! Is telephone the top of civilization? Gygygy.
              And I thought the creation of a nuclear submarine. A nuclear submarine is the most technologically sophisticated product on this planet. Even taking off into space is easier than dropping a few hundred meters under water.
              Thank you for opening my eyes.
              1. A.TOR 23 May 2020 17: 39 New
                • 4
                • 6
                -2
                The development of mankind is the development of communicative opportunities. The easier (and faster) information exchange takes place - the faster the development of society.
                Yes, the creation of a nuclear submarine is a complicated thing. By the way, the United States was the first. But these, of course, are trifles.
                But the creation of a nuclear submarine - like other technology - is just the tip of the iceberg. It looks good, of course, but - to be honest - it especially affects people's living standards indirectly through the introduction of technologies created during the development of nuclear submarines in everyday life. There were / there are countries that created submarines, but outhouses, sorry, almost the majority of the population, were on the street.
                "Gygygy" is a sign, sorry, of the previous socio-cultural model. Neanderthal.
                1. Charik 24 May 2020 09: 37 New
                  • 0
                  • 2
                  -2
                  The first were refugees from tsarist Russia, so they made submarines in America only
            2. orionvitt 23 May 2020 18: 16 New
              • 5
              • 2
              +3
              Quote: A.TOR
              This is a new ideology of life.

              Clearly, the Internet generation. The head is empty. But why have something in mind if in a fashionable device terabytes of memory with network access.
              For billions (!) Of people, this is a colossal window into the world of completely new opportunities, an amazing simplification of doing business, organizing personal life, and much, much more
              Fashionable, stylish, and no need to think.
              1. A.TOR 23 May 2020 18: 52 New
                • 2
                • 4
                -2
                Yes ... you are right ... at age 60 I stupidly stupid ... sorry fool ...
                1. slipped 24 May 2020 00: 23 New
                  • 4
                  • 4
                  0
                  Quote: A.TOR
                  Yes ... you are right ... at age 60 I stupidly stupid ... sorry fool ...


                  By the way, regarding technological development on the topic:

                  for example, here are two brave US astronauts who are flying in this ship sitting in a teslamobile:



                  pay attention to the cervical articulation of their elaborate cinematic helmets with overalls - reminiscent of a gypsum medical bandage, right? lol

                  Now look at the "ancient" flight suit of the astronaut "Mercury" John Glenn:



                  His helmet has a full sealed articulated joint (!), I.e. his helmet unfolds along with the rotation of his head. Yes, and the suit itself does not at all look like a "plastic" one. laughing
    2. Vadim237 23 May 2020 12: 59 New
      • 9
      • 9
      0
      The Soviet Union did not have such reusable ships like missiles, and Buran flew once and without a crew.
      1. mark2 23 May 2020 17: 34 New
        • 6
        • 3
        +3
        Note in unmanned mode. Myself! Do you understand? it was controlled by a computer. Soviet computer! Do you understand this? not from Earth, nor the pilots. he himself !! he took off, he sat down. At that time, as now, no one has done anything like this, is not doing it and will not do it.
  • KVU-NSVD 23 May 2020 10: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Our colleagues from Roscosmos participated in the discussions. Russian colleagues have been working with us since the first demonstration flight of the ship without a crew, and in preparation for the current flight they discussed all aspects. We gave technical explanations to our Russian colleagues and answered all questions.
    And what did they discuss there together? Only docking systems come to mind, but they have already been worked out for a long time, and the masked Dragon has already flown, there I think everything is the same with the manned
    1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 10: 35 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      There Musk wanted to do everything the same way as a manned one, they even put the LSS on the cargo. But NASA demanded the whole project of constant alterations. Therefore, on the contrary, a new version of the cargo was made from a manned one. Since there is almost nothing left of the old design.
    2. Ravil_Asnafovich 23 May 2020 11: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Repetition, mother of teaching ..., etc.
    3. slipped 23 May 2020 11: 39 New
      • 17
      • 1
      +16
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      And what did they discuss together there?


      The thing is that the ISS is an international project. Accordingly, all decisions on working with the station are made by a joint commission consisting of specialists from the two main countries participating in the project - Russia and the USA. The remaining countries participating in the project occupy a subordinate position to the USA - their opinion is taken into account according to the US quota. In this case, the flight of a manned ship affects the station as a whole - therefore, for its flight there, approval of the Roskosmos specialists is required, who checked the compliance of the technical specifications for the ship with the actual state of affairs. Earlier, the docking of an unmanned vehicle to the station led to an increase in the level of isopropyl alcohol in the atmosphere of the ISS, and the return vehicle exploded in post-flight tests.
      1. KVU-NSVD 23 May 2020 11: 41 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Thanks for the clarification - clearly and intelligibly. hi
    4. qobnvmog 23 May 2020 18: 15 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Russian astronauts may well fly dragons if it will be cheaper than unions.
      1. slipped 23 May 2020 23: 41 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Quote: qobnvmog
        Russian astronauts may well fly dragons if it will be cheaper than unions.


        Russian astronauts will fly on a Crew Dragon in the event that, firstly, this vehicle will prove its reliability and safety in serial flights. Secondly, it will be only cross-over flights for exchange with American astronauts with their delivery to the station, at the Soyuz MS, if an urgent replacement of crew members is required. And yes, it doesn’t work “cheaper than unions” - Russian cosmonauts do not fly at Soyuz at commercial prices. laughing
        1. Disant 24 May 2020 02: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And yes, it doesn’t work “cheaper than unions” - Russian cosmonauts do not fly at Soyuz at commercial prices.

          it's five! good
          Now, apparently, below the scan of payments for the flight on the dragon will be reset. Of course, with an explanatory note on the benefits of a market economy in the militarization of space
  • zwlad 23 May 2020 10: 10 New
    • 12
    • 9
    +3
    Have a good flight to them. They are like Gagarin. For the first time on a new ship.
    1. Narak-zempo 23 May 2020 14: 45 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Quote: zwlad
      They are like Gagarin

      Compare member with a finger.
      1. zwlad 23 May 2020 14: 48 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        And there and there the first manned flight on a new ship
        It’s one thing when they fly on decades of proven technology and another thing when for the first time on a new ship.
    2. Interlocutor 23 May 2020 15: 36 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Definitely Heroes
      1. zwlad 23 May 2020 17: 07 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Heroes Perhaps so to speak. Our astronauts are assigned Heroes. But I would not want to be in their place.
        1. Interlocutor 23 May 2020 18: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Yes. They have a rather dangerous mission.
  • Mountain shooter 23 May 2020 10: 13 New
    • 12
    • 12
    0
    I really hope that people will not die ... very much such a Musk ... PR man, in short. All to the public, all to show off ... When the car launches - let him. And here PEOPLE!
    1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 10: 36 New
      • 10
      • 11
      -1
      The ship is equipped with a proven SAS in real flight, countless tests have been passed under the strict control of NASA, the rocket has very high reliability.
      1. engineer74 23 May 2020 11: 17 New
        • 9
        • 4
        +5
        Quote: BlackMokona
        The ship is equipped with a proven SAS in real flight, countless tests have been passed under the strict control of NASA, the rocket has very high reliability.

        I do not want anyone's blood and I do not wish disaster to the Dragon. But all these tests of "reliability and safety", as well as "strict control", the last 20 years, turn into a bunch of victims, the same Boing, F-35, Tesla, Samsung and much more. Something in this system is unfinished. recourse
        IMHO
        1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 11: 21 New
          • 8
          • 7
          +1
          Because it is impossible to achieve 100% reliability, regardless of the quantity and quality of the tests performed. There will always be a well-camouflaged "No.?" which will circumvent any restrictions and difficulties during the construction or operation of the product.
          You need to look at the number of victims statistically, and then you can see that the number of Tesla accidents is several times less than that of conventional cars in the USA per 1 million kilometers traveled, that the number of accidents per passenger kilometer in aviation is constantly falling, etc.
        2. slipped 23 May 2020 12: 05 New
          • 9
          • 10
          -1
          Quote: engineer74
          But all these tests are “reliability and safety”, as well as “strict control”


          Testing the emergency rescue system of the ship Crew Dragon was in a very "gentle and soft" mode. It was felt that SpaceX did not want to lose another returned device. Therefore, the ship was undocked from a rocket in a passive ballistic flight, which, even after the ship had left a safe distance, was effectively blown up for PR. In fact, these tests passed for a "tick" in front of NASA. If we recall the last Soyuz-FG accident, then the process developed in a different scenario - the timely non-separation of the side block of the first stage and the subsequent “blow” to the central block of the second stage of the rocket with a penetration of the kerosene tank led to a loss of orientation of the ligament of the second and third stages with the space ship - the rocket began to unfold across the stream, i.e. the rocket reached an extraordinary angle of attack, and even in this case, the SAS worked as required. Those. For authenticity with the reality of testing the CAC Dragon CAC, it would be desirable to conduct a missile that is in the process of yaw, thereby simulating a rocket engine explosion, but SpaceX specialists did not go for it, limiting themselves only to turning them off. Well, the “explosion” was already much later. laughing
          1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 12: 37 New
            • 8
            • 6
            +2
            This is a direct lie.

            As can be clearly seen in the photographs of the activation of the CAC, the flame from the Falcon-9 engines spied at the same time as the CAC engines opening the Dragon from Falcon.
            Well, the rocket exploded as a result of the loss of the fairing, which the Dragon acts in the dense layers of the atmosphere.
            1. slipped 23 May 2020 14: 16 New
              • 5
              • 4
              +1
              Quote: BlackMokona
              This is a direct lie.


              In what laughing This only confirms the gentle operation mode.

              Quote: BlackMokona
              As can be clearly seen in the photographs of the activation of the CAC, the flame from the Falcon-9 engines spied at the same time as the CAC engines opening the Dragon from Falcon.


              So what? How does this contradict the foregoing? Perhaps the flight was not even passive at that moment - if the engines had been turned off before the SAS was triggered, the rocket would have risen just across the stream, which happened a few seconds later. And so it was still stable, which allowed the ship to come off.

              Quote: BlackMokona
              Well, the rocket exploded as a result of the loss of the fairing, which the Dragon acts in the dense layers of the atmosphere.


              Are you sure that the APO was not there? laughing
              1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 20 New
                • 2
                • 5
                -3
                Almost in all of your comments.
                The power of the Dragon-2 engines is enough to come off at any angle, tests were carried out when the maximum aerodynamic drag of the rocket was reached
                APO on Falcon-9 is fully automated, and it worked because the rocket left the estimated flight conditions.
                1. slipped 23 May 2020 14: 23 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  Quote: BlackMokona
                  Almost in all of your comments.


                  Oh li laughing

                  Quote: BlackMokona
                  The power of the Dragon-2 engines is enough to come off at any angle, tests were carried out when the maximum aerodynamic drag of the rocket was reached


                  Power is unimportant - the ship was torn from a stably flying rocket. Do you deny it? this is also visible in your photo.

                  Quote: BlackMokona
                  APO on Falcon-9 is fully automated, and it worked because the rocket left the estimated flight conditions.


                  Opa, APO - automatic detonation of an object - it a priori happens automatically even by name. laughing
                  1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 25 New
                    • 4
                    • 4
                    0
                    Power is unimportant - the ship was torn from a stably flying rocket.

                    What is the difference between a stably or not stably flying rocket? Reduced aerodynamic drag during firing? So this is a simplification of the work of the SAS, and not complication. And the height allows in any direction to give an impulse without threat to the crew.

                    No, APO is usually driven from the ground, after which it already automatically explodes. Nobody there sets fire to a manual wick. Here, a fully automatic system, on Earth, no one with a button is needed.
                    1. slipped 23 May 2020 14: 33 New
                      • 2
                      • 4
                      -2
                      Quote: BlackMokona
                      What is the difference between a stably or not stably flying rocket?


                      When an accident occurs, a rocket, and indeed any product, very rarely remain stable. The accident at Soyuz-FG clearly showed this.

                      Quote: BlackMokona
                      No, APO is usually driven from the ground, after which it already automatically explodes.


                      Yeah laughing
                      1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 35 New
                        • 1
                        • 6
                        -5
                        If the SAS fires at lightning speed then the rocket does not have time to lose stability.
                      2. slipped 23 May 2020 14: 37 New
                        • 3
                        • 4
                        -1
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        If the SAS fires at lightning speed then the rocket does not have time to lose stability.


                        The missile loses stability not as a result of the triggering of the SAS lol And as a result of an emergency on it. Those. first the accident, then the operation of the CAC.

                        On the Crew Dragon test, the opposite happened - CAC triggered, then an accident. Do not you understand what? laughing

                        With the same success, SAS could be tested from Earth - it would be the same.
                      3. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 38 New
                        • 1
                        • 4
                        -3
                        No, at first there was an accident, engine shutdown began. And then SAS worked, noticing changes in the propulsion system. After all, there is a delay between the start of the shutdown process and the actual shutdown. Fuel is not dematerialized in the combustion chamber from a program command.
                      4. slipped 23 May 2020 14: 42 New
                        • 2
                        • 5
                        -3
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        No, at first there was an accident, engine shutdown began.


                        That is, the rocket has already begun the transition to passive flight. laughing The most gentle accident mode that could have been invented.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        And then SAS worked, noticing changes in the propulsion system. Indeed, there is a delay between the start of the shutdown process and the actual shutdown. Fuel is not dematerialized in the combustion chamber from a program command.


                        Ay-ay. It would be honest if it weren’t just that the engines were turned off, and the fuel line was opened, followed by the destruction of the turbopump, from then we would see how the CAC Crew Dragon really works. laughing
                      5. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 46 New
                        • 3
                        • 4
                        -1
                        1) No, since the engine was still fully operational when CAC, upon detecting changes in the propulsion system, decided to separate.
                        2) No difference would be seen. As shown by the explosion on the launch pad during a test burn of engines, as well as an accident in flight during the delivery of a cargo ship for the ISS. The payload, even with a complete explosion of the rocket, was not affected, without any CAC.
                        In the case of AMOS-6, the load crashed simply about a fall to Earth in a completely whole form, in the case of Dragon, the ship crashed simply on the surface of the water due to the lack of a program for this situation, and the entire drop successfully transmitted telemetry.
                        And in the test with the CAC test, the second stage did not explode from the explosion of the first stage and flew to the surface of the ocean.
                      6. slipped 23 May 2020 14: 50 New
                        • 2
                        • 5
                        -3
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        1) No, since the engine was still fully operational when CAC, upon detecting changes in the propulsion system, decided to separate.


                        It worked, it didn’t work. You already decide, and that direct artificial intelligence, not otherwise. laughing

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        2) No difference would be seen. As shown by the explosion on the launch pad during a test burn of engines, as well as an accident in flight during the delivery of a cargo ship for the ISS. The payload, even with a complete explosion of the rocket, was not affected, without any CAC.


                        Exactly, what for did this САС! laughing

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        In the case of AMOS-6, the load crashed simply about a fall to Earth in a completely whole form, in the case of Dragon, the ship crashed simply due to the lack of a program for this situation, and the entire drop successfully transmitted telemetry.


                        People would definitely not be hurt! lol Himself is not funny?
                      7. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 14: 53 New
                        • 2
                        • 4
                        -2
                        1) I will explain that there is a delay between the order and the action.
                        2) Musk did not want to do it, NASA insisted.
                        3) No, often people overestimate the explosions after seeing Hollywood.

                        Here is an example, inside this explosion, a test ship for jumping tests. Rate damage
                      8. slipped 23 May 2020 15: 07 New
                        • 2
                        • 3
                        -1
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        1) I will explain that there is a delay between the order and the action.


                        Yes, it doesn’t matter in this case.

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        2) Musk did not want to do it, NASA insisted.


                        Well so, Dr. Mengele straight. laughing

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        3) No, often people overestimate the explosions after seeing Hollywood.


                        In short, the CAS test is an explosion, and then shooting. This was just not there.
                      9. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 15: 18 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        You would tell Boeing and Lockheed. Boeing tested the CAC on the ground and completely satisfied NASA, and Lockheed jumped on a mini rocket and also completely satisfied NASA.
                        laughing
                      10. slipped 23 May 2020 17: 50 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        You would tell Boeing and Lockheed.


                        Oh, and there’s another song in general. laughing
  • Interlocutor 23 May 2020 15: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Yes. The engine was already turned off when the capsule was disconnected.
  • knn54 23 May 2020 10: 15 New
    • 20
    • 9
    +11
    US-sea money, specialists and ENTUSIASTS (not only their own) is enough. Equipment, whatever you want.
    RF money goes unknowingly. Young people are not interested. Only pensioners remained. And the "effective" managers.
    Here is the result.
    1. orionvitt 23 May 2020 12: 29 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: knn54
      RF money goes unknowingly where

      You might think in the states that money goes to where. Oh yes, "so different." Every year, trillions are printed, and there are fewer and fewer. laughing
      1. zwlad 23 May 2020 15: 00 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        So they print and store tons of ours in apartments, save up waste paper for the future. Then they will change to smart books.
    2. Interlocutor 23 May 2020 15: 39 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      The results are normal, we just don’t know about them. Our country does not like self-promotion.
    3. mark2 23 May 2020 17: 47 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      But how can young people be interested in something, if they explained to me on this page today that the smartphone is the highest point in the development of civilization. Life is a success. In FIG space, in FIG Mars! .. iPhone - this is the topic!))
      1. Pontiffsulyvahn 26 May 2020 16: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        That's right, yes. The smartphone is the highest point in the development of civilization. This is a device that combines the most outstanding technical achievements of mankind, ranging from simple toys to satellite navigation systems.
        This is the quintessence of human experience.
  • prior 23 May 2020 10: 48 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    As you call a ship, it will sail (in this case, it will fly).
    Fly on the Dragon ?! No, it’s better on a broomstick, in the sense of Soyuz.
  • Guards turn 23 May 2020 11: 15 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    May 27 can’t be launched, it must be postponed to another day. Every year on the last Wednesday of May in many countries of the world, World Multiple Sclerosis Day or World Multiple Sclerosis Day is held.
  • silberwolf88 23 May 2020 11: 24 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    let's see how the operation goes ... it's a complex ... a launch vehicle ... launch systems and a manned spacecraft itself ... there are always risks with space technology ... the rest will be shown by time ...
    the main thing is for our crews not to participate in flights on this equipment ... and the ship must be our Union to return to the station ...
    1. orionvitt 23 May 2020 12: 31 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: silberwolf88
      and the ship to return to the station must be our Union ...

      No, they themselves are. And there is always a spare “Soyuz” for “every fireman”.
  • seregin-s1 23 May 2020 11: 46 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    The main thing is that the rescue system works!
  • Valent691_1 23 May 2020 12: 43 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    And here, as it is, not everything looks syrupy https://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/news/view/148992/
  • BYCHARA 23 May 2020 12: 46 New
    • 5
    • 11
    -6
    Well, let's pray for the pilots !!! laughing For some year they have been trying to start and something farts are compressed))))
  • domovoy doma_2 23 May 2020 13: 14 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Successful flight.
    1. BYCHARA 23 May 2020 14: 45 New
      • 1
      • 10
      -9
      Quote: domovoy doma_2
      Successful flight.

      Without Russians, it would be scary for them to rise into space ... Well, yourself, with a mustache, so to speak.!
      Let the “White Sun of the Desert” look and the bus wheels pissed. Our astronauts had such a sign !!!

      Well, here they are chasing puppies ..
      1. Interlocutor 23 May 2020 15: 40 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, who knows. Suddenly, they’re watching “White Desert Sun” on iPhones .....
  • vkd.dvk 23 May 2020 14: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Wedmak
    What about Falcon-9, which has already flown 82 times successfully into space?

    NASA sponsorship, and not directly, from there the same technology, specialists, etc.
    Do you seriously believe that one small company founded by a millionaire is capable of creating and launching a heavy rocket launcher in such a short time ??? Do not tell my slippers ...

    LRE "Merlin" - an open cycle. Kerosene is used as fuel, liquid oxygen is an oxidizing agent.

    The Merlin engine uses pin injectors. This type of nozzle was first used in NASA's Apollo program on the lunar module landing stage engine, which was one of the most critical segments of this program. The fuel components are fed through a double impeller turbo pump located on the same axis. The pump also supplies high pressure kerosene to the hydraulic control system, which is then discharged into the low pressure channel. This eliminates the need for a separate hydraulic system to control the thrust vector and guarantees its operation during the entire operation time of the Merlin LPRE.
  • vkd.dvk 23 May 2020 14: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: seregin-s1
    The main thing is that the rescue system works!

    The vehicle is separated from the emergency rocket by engines located in close proximity to the last stage of the launch vehicle. Their accidental launch causes an explosion of the entire system. This exacerbates the composition of the fuel and oxidizer, which is self-igniting in a pair. This has already destroyed our rocket, which destroyed a lot of staff and Marshal Nedelin. Not regular inclusion of engines of the upper stage.
    Not for nothing, the rescue engines we have are on a long bar, at the top of the ship. And such a rescue system has already proven effective when the crew in which the US citizen was rescued. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Rescue_Rescue_Range_unit_Union »
    1. Blackmokona 23 May 2020 15: 43 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      The second stage during the test of the SAS did not explode, neither from the SAS engines, nor even from the explosion of the first stage. It flew to the surface of the ocean and only exploded there.
  • 75 Sergey 23 May 2020 14: 56 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    what will we answer at what stage of testing the trampolines?
    1. Interlocutor 23 May 2020 15: 42 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      what will we answer at what stage of testing the trampolines?


      Actually, this is their answer to us .....
  • Zeev Zeev 23 May 2020 14: 57 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    The first commercial manned flight ... Elon Musk makes history.
    1. slipped 23 May 2020 18: 07 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Zeev Zeev
      The first commercial manned flight ... Elon Musk makes history.


      The first commercial manned spacecraft flight will take place at Soyuz MS-20 TPK at the end of next year. This ship is built on the money of space tourists, who had previously concluded a contract with Space Adventure, which will fly passengers on it.
  • nobody111body 23 May 2020 16: 05 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Well, let's say they make fun of their crook mask that they are smart. Well, well, clever, cunning, treacherous, and then we climb there? the best is not in a hurry to do everything ourselves and our designers are not bad; do not chase after these Americans their democracy, more precisely, the dictatorship of a handful of oligarchs is a dead end
  • Jack O'Neill 23 May 2020 16: 09 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    Musk handsome! Good luck flying!
  • Lord of the Sith 23 May 2020 17: 06 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    Oh, and the Yankees are in a hurry, after the first test flight, they immediately launched with astronauts.

    I wish good luck to people, let's see what the vaunted Mask technique is worth.
  • qobnvmog 23 May 2020 18: 06 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Many people have been working on this for a long time. I wish them success.
  • vkd.dvk 23 May 2020 19: 03 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: BlackMokona
    The second stage during the test of the SAS did not explode, neither from the SAS engines, nor even from the explosion of the first stage. It flew to the surface of the ocean and only exploded there.

    Important nuances.
  • Charik 23 May 2020 19: 24 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    Rogozin on a trampoline cried
    1. slipped 23 May 2020 23: 47 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Quote: Charik
      Rogozin on a trampoline cried


      So for five years they’ve been jumping, laughing I’m probably tired of selling tickets, I don’t have enough for my own, but they are paying more and more money - the price tag for a ticket for $ 90 million has risen.
  • Engineer Schukin 24 May 2020 07: 13 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Quote: slipped
    The private company Cosmocourse is creating a suborbital rocket for tourist launches to a height of 200 km, in a couple of months they are already launching the AIS of their engine. In addition, a tender was announced for the creation of an ultralight carrier, and the same Cosmocourse has already announced that it will participate in it with its project. There are other private companies successfully operating in the Russian space industry as subcontractors.

    Judging by how you have falsely described the Cosmocourse, you are either just a propagandist or you don’t have any information at all.
    In fact, there is no Cosmos course. There are only constant statements, “The New Cosmodrome. Unprecedented Prospects.”, “This Was Not in the USSR” by Pavel Pushkin and near-zero activity.
    And there is also a “workshop” of 200 squares, where they replaced the windows and painted the walls.

    In general, a very remarkable story with this Cosmocourse.
    At any time, if you enter the word "Cosmocourse" into Google, there will certainly be fresh news about them, and so on for 3-4 years. Moreover, each title is more beautiful than the previous one. But in reality there is absolutely nothing, neither production, nor R&D, nor investment.

    And you must either know this, or stop once again spreading propaganda misinformation.
    1. slipped 24 May 2020 13: 19 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Engineer Schukin
      Judging by how you have falsely described the Cosmocourse, you are either just a propagandist or you don’t have any information at all.


      Wow, do you own? laughing Not a propagandist? lol

      Quote: Engineer Schukin
      In fact, there is no Cosmos course. There are only constant statements, “The New Cosmodrome. Unprecedented Prospects.”, “This Was Not in the USSR” by Pavel Pushkin and near-zero activity.


      Really? laughing Is it right near the bell? lol

      Quote: Engineer Schukin
      And there is also a “workshop” of 200 squares, where they replaced the windows and painted the walls.


      But still there is a workshop. And 200 squares. At a private company. Those. A private rocket design firm has a 200-square workshop. This is bad? laughing

      Quote: Engineer Schukin
      But in reality there is absolutely nothing, neither production, nor R&D, nor investment.


      Oops So, let’s list - it has a workshop, it has equipment, a bench base has been made, rocket engine elements are being tested, coordination is being made on the choice of a launch site ... Did you miss anything? laughing Is it like having no investment to contain all this? lol Your logic is, to say the least, lame.

      Quote: Engineer Schukin
      And you must either know this, or stop once again spreading propaganda misinformation.


      Burns and burns from the Cosmocourse? laughing Those. Regarding the private company Sputniks, Azmerit, Bioprinting Solution, Galaxy group of companies, are you without any complaints?