totm dec 2019 Russian Launch and Mission Thread

[kerbiloid]

On 4/25/2021 at 8:47 PM, tater said:

would Nauka will be the first element of the new station instead of going to ISS?

A new article about the future station is released, clarfying a little.

https://nplus1.ru/material/2021/04/26/ross

***

Originally, in 2014, they were planning to build a new station by 2019 from the modules being built for ISS, and abandon ISS in 2020.
Later shifted to 2023.

It then-should consist of:

• MLM ("multifunctional module") Nauka / Science as base module
• Node Hub module Prichal / Pier attached to Nauka
• NEM ("science & power module") as energy-and-propulsion module
• Airlock & Docking module (later to be used in LOP-G as the Russian airlock & docking chamber)
• OKA-T (autonomous technological module)  (at the background port on the picture, opposite to the black Soyuz) Can undock, fly separately to do job like growing crystals, then redock for servicing.
• Expandable module (from Energy Corp.) with a short centrifuge inside to study the low-g affecting the crew
   

Spoiler

 

Supply ships - Soyuz and Progress.

Inclination - 64.8°, to be serviced from Plesetsk and Vostochny, and to review greater part of the Russian territory.

Btw, look at Nauka (the leftmost. It's attached with the conical end, i.e. the active port, to the Hub module. No ISS usage.)

***

Also there was being planned NEM-2, another one NEM.

***

In 2016 they ceased the station project and decided to finish building ISS by sending MLM Nauka, Hub Prichal, NEM to ISS.
NEM-2 was cancelled.

***

In Autumn 2020 they returned to the idea of a new station because ISS modules got unstable, and after 2025 they were awaiting an avalanche of malfunctions.

The ROSS project appeared.

Inclination either 51.6° (cuz Baikonur), or 71.6° (to watch the Northern Sea Route).

Also they stated the continuation of ISS usage.

***

Tier 1.

NEM
Hub Prichal (a clone of the ISS Prichal)
NEM-2 (so, indeed there are two NEM, like on the picture)
Airlock & Docking module

Inclination 97-98° (cuz they can to watch the whole Russia and the other whole world), altitude 300..350 km (unexpectedly) .

But since such orbit is very expensive from the delta-V pov, and very risky due to radiation, the station won't be inhabited, but just visitable.

Spoiler

 

***
NEM is as old as Nauka.
Originally they were  planning to expand it with NEP (science  & power platform), delivering it by shuttle and attaching to NEM.

Spoiler

But after Columbia the plan was cancelled, and they started the NEM clone instead (NEM-2).

Every NEM with its own propulsion, delivered by Proton.

Both were being planned for ISS, but both were postponed, postponed, ... So, now they will be a separate station.

Now NEM-1 will become a base module of the new station.

Its naked interior.

Spoiler

A room for warehouse, scientific stands, and 18 kW of pure power.
It's 92 m³ of pressurized volume (Zarya - 71.5, Zvezda - 89.3).

It has only one docking port, to attach it to the Hub Prichal.
The back end is occupied with the power & cooling & propulsion & science platform.

As originally he was docking to the hub, and now, as a base module, he she will be being docked first by the vessels, then by the Hub Prichal active node, they will do a gender-bender magic and change the docking port from active (with probe) to passive (with drogue).

Currently there is only the hull of it.

Spoiler

Instead of storage and lab, they will put inside:

• command & conquer communication
• toilet & full life support with electrolysis, regenerators, etc (i.e. all inclusive like a sir)
  (also this requires to modify the hull vents)
• gym
• medicine
• bedrooms

It will look like this
(АСУ on top is a toilet)

Spoiler

This will increase its mass, so they will remove the gyrodynes.

***

The Proton for it is made and stored.
But it won't now be used for NEM, but for some random payload.

NEM should be lifted by Angara-A5M, from Vostochny, from the launchpad to be built. It will take 2 years.

It is.

Spoiler

Theoretically, they can lift it from Baikonur by Proton, but it needs additional negotiations with Kazakhstan about the dropzones, so no.

It needs Angara-A5M with specailly forced engines - RD-191M (+10% to max payload).
Fire tests of RD-191M - 2022, manufacturing - 2023.

***

Shrouded modules on Angara.

Spoiler

 

***

As NEM has just 1 port, it should be enforced by the spherical 6-port Hub Prichal.

"It"'s under construction.

Spoiler

 

But instead of NEM this one will be delivered to ISS and attached to Nauka's nadir port.

They will build another one, same cozy and beautiful, and send it to NEM.

***

So, NEM, NEM-2, Hub Prichal, and airlock&docking module will form the Tier 1 of the new station.

Spoiler

***

So, Nauka stays on ISS with a spherical 6-port thing attached.

***

First flight -2026, Soyuz, docking to NEM.

Then - 6-port Hub Prichal attached to the NEM.

Soyuzes probably with crew of 2, but from Baikonur.
Then from Vostochny.

Later - PTKNP instead of Soyuz.

***

Airlock & docking module.

Spoiler

Originally it was for LOP-G.
Now not.

Physically it yet doesn't exist.
But will.

It has two isolated airlock chambers (because what if one is leaking, they explain).

***

The Tier 1 will be finished in 2030.

 

***

Tier 2.

The Tier 1 will be expanded by two new modules based on NEM, but with a docking port at the back end (instead of the external platform):

• industrial module
• dockyard

Spoiler

***

Btw, as you can see on video (and what puzzled me on first glance), the NEM-family modules will get hulls of new construction.

As Almaz was derived from early rocket fuel tanks, the Soviet/Russian modules are waffled from inside.
I.e. they take a thick aluminium sheet and cut out small squares, so it becomes a waffle from inside.

Now they do it like a sir (or a mister), like in those videos about SpaceX and so on.
They take a thin cylindeer, and wld bars outside to get a lattice, like in American modules.

***

The maneuvering module OKA-T is not mentioned now, but the idea is alive.
Maneuvering modules are planned, but of some other construction to be developed.

They plan a fleet of tugs to be serviced by the station.

The dockyard module will have an extendable platform.

***

Also the station (Hi, 97°!)  is a transit station for lunar needs (probably that's why such inclination).

A new scenarion includes four Angara-A5V launches per expedition, with hydrolox upper stage, to avoid the need in a superheavy rocket.

***
***

Meanwhile the greedy capitalist sharks from the opposite side of the Earth plan to keep using ISS commercially even after its cancellation.

(They would conjure it from the oceanic grave, if they could, but they can't.)

They have chosen the chosen.
The chosen is Axiom Space (belonging mostly to former NASAians).

Axiom Space will build three commercial modules for ISS to keep milking the dying cow from 2024 to 2030.
On the ISS euthanasy the Axiom modules will undock and keep flying as an orbital station.

Spoiler

There are running negotiations about including in the Axiom station the Japan lab Kibo module and the European warehouse Leonardo.
No info available about the Axiom launch vehicle and how will they dock the modules without Shuttle.

Commercial astronauts will be getting to there by Dragons.

***

ESA is also negotiating with China about euronauts on the planned Chinese orbital station.
They already had a training together.

***

For better explanation, but in Russian, follow the link
https://nplus1.ru/material/2021/04/26/ross

1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said:

Actually, it would be "it'll be"

Actually, we yet don't know, if it will, would or should be.

Edited April 28, 2021 by kerbiloid

[CatastrophicFailure]

26 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

No info available about the Axiom launch vehicle and how will they dock the modules without Shuttle.

Each Axiom module will be an independent spacecraft, able to maneuver and dock on its own, so can probably launch on anything big enough. 

[tater]

34 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Each Axiom module will be an independent spacecraft, able to maneuver and dock on its own, so can probably launch on anything big enough. 

Yeah, they have said as much already. They have an array of different LVs to chose from, and will benefit from the longer fairing SpaceX is doing for the USAF (meaning that they can choose between Atlas V and F9).

I'm all for new stations, frankly. Axiom figured out a way to leverage continued ISS funding to make their own station (eventually flying free).

It's be cool to see someone work on a spun station, even if just on a tether.

[SOXBLOX]

48 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Actually, we yet don't know, if it will, would or should be.

I notice that you are using the same present tense as I did to describe the (still hypothetical) station. Better add this caveat to it, too. 

I still bet strongly against these plans becoming a reality. For a nation with ⅓ of the US's population, and less than one-fifth its GDP, to put up a full station, seems unlikely, especially given that there is no real benefit to doing so. I would bet more money on Japan pulling this off, or perhaps China.

In my opinion, it's more likely these are just moves to attract notice. An apt comparison might be to the defensive reflexes of a small, cornered animal. Act big and scary to threaten a predator. But in the end, it's just bluffing.

IDK. Something may come of it yet. Russia is still a major spaceflight player.

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

They plan a fleet of tugs to be serviced by the station.

What would tugs tug at these inclinations? I know there are spysats, but is there anything that really needs to be moved around?

[SunlitZelkova]

11 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

I notice that you are using the same present tense as I did to describe the (still hypothetical) station. Better add this caveat to it, too. 

I still bet strongly against these plans becoming a reality. For a nation with ⅓ of the US's population, and less than one-fifth its GDP, to put up a full station, seems unlikely, especially given that there is no real benefit to doing so. I would bet more money on Japan pulling this off, or perhaps China.

In my opinion, it's more likely these are just moves to attract notice. An apt comparison might be to the defensive reflexes of a small, cornered animal. Act big and scary to threaten a predator. But in the end, it's just bluffing.

IDK. Something may come of it yet. Russia is still a major spaceflight player.

What would tugs tug at these inclinations? I know there are spysats, but is there anything that really needs to be moved around?

I don't think economy really matters, just the will. The USSR's economy was... not good, to put it lightly, in the 80s, yet the Soviets built and operated multiple space stations, including the first modular one, with expendable rockets, while the US was limited to not more than two week long stays aboard the supposedly cheap and reusable Shuttle. Challenger halted US crewed spaceflight for two years, the USSR had its own accident (Soyuz T-10a, which did not involve crew death) but was able to continue flying just five months later. And despite having a better economy, the US was never able to build its own modular space station, in fact it nearly cancelled it (it survived by one vote in some House committee). Had it not survived, there would have been no ISS.

The reason so many things have been delayed before seems to have been caused by the economic problems of the 90s and 2000s. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but (from what I have read) while sanctions hurt, the economy is still nowhere near the level of how it was then (not taking in to account the pandemic). Even if it isn't to the exact schedule, I think Russia could fairly easily build this station so long as they want to. And for sure, eventually they will want to. If Russia is trying to "come back" as a world power, having something in space is necessary, if you are trying to show you are an alternative to the US or China as a major economic and defence partner, flying Soyuz 9 style missions with Soyuz or Oryolnok won't cut it.

[kerbiloid]

25 minutes ago, tater said:

It's be cool to see someone work on a spun station, even if just on a tether.

ISS and Zvezda + Nauka. Anyway they will be disconnected.

19 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

I notice that you are using the same present tense as I did to describe the (still hypothetical) station. Better add this caveat to it, too. 

will, would, should - where is the present tense?

future, future-in-the-past, future-in-the-past

20 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

I still bet strongly against these plans becoming a reality. For a nation with ⅓ of the US's population, and less than one-fifth its GDP, to put up a full station, seems unlikely, especially given that there is no real benefit to doing so. I would bet more money on Japan pulling this off, or perhaps China.

Unlike them, Russia had Salyuts and Mir, it's not from scratch.
The modules themselves also are not futuristic.
So, depends on desire.

23 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

In my opinion, it's more likely these are just moves to attract notice. An apt comparison might be to the defensive reflexes of a small, cornered animal. Act big and scary to threaten a predator. But in the end, it's just bluffing.

A small, cornered animal would place 100 Mt charges in the radiation belt, and so, rather than keep building scientific stations.

25 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

What would tugs tug at these inclinations? I know there are spysats, but is there anything that really needs to be moved around?

Tugs to put payloads in high orbits.

Maybe the mentioned Nucleon, btw.

[sh1pman]

30 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

A small, cornered animal would place 100 Mt charges in the radiation belt, and so, rather than keep building scientific stations

What’s the point of putting 100 Mt charges into radiation belt?

[SOXBLOX]

52 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

will, would, should - where is the present tense?

future, future-in-the-past, future-in-the-past

No, not really. Will is present tense. English has no future tense, but forms it using modal verbs, like "will". In the context of these verbs, the past is actually called the "preterite" tense. It mixes the perfective aspect (for example, прочитал vs. читал) with the past tense. If you studied Greek, it's called the aorist. Future-in-the-past uses "was/were". If you use "would" in FTP, you add a modal meaning. So, now you know why we say English is hard. 

53 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don't think economy really matters, just the will.

Good point. I'm hardly an expert on Russian politics, but I am skeptical that the will is there. Of course, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Who knows? We'll see...

Edited April 28, 2021 by SOXBLOX
Clarified a pronoun.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, sh1pman said:

What’s the point of putting 100 Mt charges into radiation belt?

Maybe to create the fog of war?

7 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

No, not really. Will is present tense. English has no future tense

The modal verb itself - maybe, but the "will/shall <indefinite form of verb>" construction in whole It's everywhere mentioned as Future Simple / Future Indefinite.

Also, this is not a lingustics thread, as well as not a thread about Starship.
Which yet does not exist (Present Indefinite). Maybe, it will exist (Future Indefinite)m but currently that's indefinite, and obviously is not an option for the mentioned orbital station for any reason even if it did.

[kerbiloid]

NEM and Hub

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

 

 

[SOXBLOX]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

...but the "will/shall <indefinite form of verb>" construction in whole It's everywhere mentioned as Future Simple...

I said that.

Pretty sure we had been arguing over whether Russia could just buy a couple Starship launches down the road (it wouldn't, solely for national pride), and use those to move Nauka from the ISS to polar orbit. Then you said that Starship doesn't exist yet, and I pointed out that the imaginary station doesn't either. So, here we are.

I'm quite certain that these graphics and plans are just grandstanding by Rogozin and friends. But who knows? If the funding is approved, and stays constant, there is a chance it could work. 

Anyways, do they plan to use Soyuz to visit the new station, or Oryol, or something else?

[kerbiloid]

44 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

whether Russia could just buy a couple Starship launches down the road

It's even cheaper to buy the seats in ISS and Dragon taxi. Unlike Starship, they at least exist and even have flied.
The whole idea is to diy, rather than buy, and not just the pride, but the ability is important.

Like SpaceX won't rent Angara, or China won't rent Starship, so Russia won't rent a foreign rocket when it's able to make its own, and already has thousands of flights performed.
This is diversity.

44 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

I'm quite certain that these graphics and plans are just grandstanding by Rogozin and friends.

I'm quite sure that this is a new generation of the module architecture (as these modules are obviously unified), to replace the glorious Almaz generation.
Their construction inherits both Almaz (geometrically) and Western (external lattice) ideas, follows the probe-drogue docking ports instead of the currently useless APAS/IDSS ones.

The American LOP-G/SLS/Orion and Starship projects are at still same mostly imaginary phase, and can be cancelled, like Constellation was.
So, nothing unusual in changes and delays.
Unlikely it will be done in time, but currently the only two things Space-X actually made are the medium-to-heavy rocket stage on legs and the crew capsule of _idio highly doubtful design with crew between two tonnes of flammable toxins and eight high-thrust engines. Everything other is still a  set of 3d presentations and a hopper cosplaying a bigger 1st stage on legs with 3 engines of 30 required, still having performed no flight successfully (and mostly due to the issues with engines and fuel system).
Let alone Artemis (though, since they selected the Starship water tower as a lander, I'm _{pretty sure} afraid of the Artemis future ).

So, the current state of all these projects looks very similar, and unlikely they will be implemented exactly how and when they are described.

Just all of these project are not required for any cost and right now, they are "it would be nice to have".

What about Rogozin and friends, I'm afraid, they are in junior league  of what you are meaning.
SLS and SpaceX look much more speculative.

Edited April 29, 2021 by kerbiloid

[SOXBLOX]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The American LOP-G/SLS/Orion and Starship projects are at still same mostly imaginary phase, and can be cancelled, like Constellation was.

And I think that the hypothetical polar station is even more imaginary than them. To become a reality, it needs funding, competent leadership, and rapid development. I don't see any of those. What I do see is Dmitry Rogozin asking NASA to continue to pay the Russian space industry, and backing it up with bluffing. Kinda suspicious to me how this station stuff follows right on the tail of the US no longer requiring Soyuz launches.

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

....crew capsule of highly doubtful design with crew between two tonnes of flammable toxins and eight high-thrust engines.

While SpaceX launches on probably the best crew vehicle ever designed, and works towards building a better one, another organization launches a cramped tin can on repurposed Cold War-era ballistic missiles. 

(  Just kidding. I know Soyuz is still a fantastic low-end crew vehicle.)

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said:

SpaceX launches on probably the best crew vehicle ever designed

This vehicle will shoot in its time. It's an antonym of safety.

[SOXBLOX]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

This vehicle will shoot in its time. It's an antonym of safety.

So...what crew vehicle is a better option?

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

So...what crew vehicle is a better option?

Won't a classic CST-100 fly this year again?

Though, this thread is falling into offtopic.

[Codraroll]

18 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

So, the current state of all these projects looks very similar, and unlikely they will be implemented exactly how and when they are described.

This is ... stretching it a little. Starship has prototypes constantly being made and tested, funding, specialized hardware for the mission (Raptor engines) under serial production, crew hired and allocated specifically for the project (for several months already by now) and has made several large strides in its development in a very short time frame. It also comes off the back of the success of Falcon 9 and (to some extent) Falcon Heavy, giving some credence to the crew building it.

By comparison, the recent past of Russian spaceflight has been ... rough.  Angara's development is agonizingly slow, the project to replace the Soyuz has gone on largely unsuccessful since the 1980s, the Russian space program remains notoriously under-funded, and I've lost track of how many new rockets and spacecraft have been announced to great fanfare only to be quietly shelved years later.  Russia has had the Orel spacecraft (previously Federation, previously PPTS, previously PTK NP) in development for about as long as SpaceX has worked on Dragon, but Dragon flew  to the ISS almost a decade ago and has already been replaced with a new version, while Orel keeps being pushed back a couple years at a time, and it doesn't even look like they have settled on which rocket they want to carry it or whether said rocket even exists. In short, there's a lot of stuff that never made it off the Roscosmos drawing board in recent years, and quite little that actually did.

The idea that this space program could produce an entirely new space station on its own in the current climate strikes me as slightly less likely than the idea  that SpaceX manages to pull off the newest rocket they've been actively working on for a while now.

[OrdinaryKerman]

21 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

crew capsule of _idio highly doubtful design with crew between two tonnes of flammable toxins

Don't all crew capsules have fuel tanks on the outside of their pressure vessels?

[kerbiloid]

16 minutes ago, OrdinaryKerman said:

Don't all crew capsules have fuel tanks on the outside of their pressure vessels?

Does any of them have the tanks around and with 2 tonnes of hypergolics (on launch), except the Crew Dragon?

Soyuz has a, iirc, 30 kg tank of peroxide and vents it out on descending.
VA Almaz jettisonned the whole tank.
Gemini and Mercury had a small tank on top, and usually almost empty on landing.

CST-100 and Orion, afaik, have them on bottom and probably will vent, too, we'll see.

But nowhere except the Crew Dragon the crew sits inside the propulsion unit.
It even can't escape from that tank with LES, as it is the LES itself.

35 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Starship has prototypes constantly being made and tested

With 3 engines of 30 required, and still exploding.

So, they have no idea how it will work in sense of overheating and vibration when there will be 30, as they couldn't predict even the 3.

35 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

crew hired

As it was hired for various cancelled programs.

35 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

Russia has had the Orel spacecraft (previously Federation, previously PPTS, previously PTK NP) in development for about as long as SpaceX has worked on Dragon, but Dragon flew  to the ISS almost a decade ago

Maybe that's because Soyuz and Progress didn't stop flying, so PTKNP was a wish rather than a need. It is/was for the lunar program, and just also for LEO.
As you can see, the ROSS can be supplied by same Soyuzes and Progresses. PTKNP is better, but not exclusive.

Edited April 30, 2021 by kerbiloid

[OrdinaryKerman]

24 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Does any of them have the tanks around and with 2 tonnes of hypergolics, except the Crew Dragon?

1. It's 1.3 tonnes, not 2. Orion's CM comes close at about 1 tonne of fuel.
2. The fuel is in exactly the same place as every other capsule before, below the crew, around and outside the pressure vessel. The engine pods don't contain fuel. There's the capsule's main structural hull between the crew/cargo and the fuel, and they're not crammed within centimetres of each other like the 55something-years-old design you seem to think is better than a modern crew vehicle.

Edited April 30, 2021 by OrdinaryKerman

[kerbiloid]

24 minutes ago, OrdinaryKerman said:

The fuel is in exactly the same place as every other capsule before

What exactly other crewed capsule before?

Apollo 7..17 + 1 (Apollo+Soyuz) + 3 Apollo (Skylab), i.e. 14 Apollo capsules. And theydidn't carry a tonne of hypergolics, because their propulsion was inside the SM, and LES could detach and save the capsule with minor amount of the fuel.

Mercury - a small fuel can on top and almost always totally spent, Gemini-same.
Soyuz - a small can, almost spent on aerobraking and vented on chuting.
VA Almaz - jettisonned whole RCS unit after aerobraking
CargoDragon - no crew.
CST-100 and Orion - we'll see, what they are, but also they don't have the propulsion inside the capsule (not the cabin, the capsule), just RCS and some amount of fuel for it.
PTKNP doesn't have liquid fuel below, a small can for RCS on top. Below it has a couple of steel cans with solid fuel to stop the 20 m/s fall.

And as you can see, the CrewDragon tanks are inside the heat-protected volume, and they are around the cabin, and they are much bigger than others'.
And both components are toxic and self-igniting on contact.

Edited April 30, 2021 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

38 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

This is ... stretching it a little. Starship has prototypes constantly being made and tested, funding, specialized hardware for the mission (Raptor engines) under serial production, crew hired and allocated specifically for the project (for several months already by now) and has made several large strides in its development in a very short time frame. It also comes off the back of the success of Falcon 9 and (to some extent) Falcon Heavy, giving some credence to the crew building it.

By comparison, the recent past of Russian spaceflight has been ... rough.  Angara's development is agonizingly slow, the project to replace the Soyuz has gone on largely unsuccessful since the 1980s, the Russian space program remains notoriously under-funded, and I've lost track of how many new rockets and spacecraft have been announced to great fanfare only to be quietly shelved years later.  Russia has had the Orel spacecraft (previously Federation, previously PPTS, previously PTK NP) in development for about as long as SpaceX has worked on Dragon, but Dragon flew  to the ISS almost a decade ago and has already been replaced with a new version, while Orel keeps being pushed back a couple years at a time, and it doesn't even look like they have settled on which rocket they want to carry it or whether said rocket even exists. In short, there's a lot of stuff that never made it off the Roscosmos drawing board in recent years, and quite little that actually did.

The idea that this space program could produce an entirely new space station on its own in the current climate strikes me as slightly less likely than the idea  that SpaceX manages to pull off the newest rocket they've been actively working on for a while now.

Starship has prototypes, but no Super Heavy. In addition these prototypes are still rather "bare", no where near the level of the final product, whereas some of the modules for the new Russian station are already under production/exist. Starship certainly has a great team behind it, but the Russian engineers are just as good, Soyuz is after all still performing just fine.

As kerbiloid said, part of the problem with the development of Oryolnok is that Soyuz and Progress are eating up the funding and still exist, similar to how the Constellation Program was underfunded partially because the Space Shuttle was still happening. All of this might remain the same for the next few years, but once the Russian segment of the ISS (or the ISS itself) ends there will be more money to go around and a political need to do the new station (maybe not Oryolnok) will be there, so even if it isn't to the exact schedule announced, it (or something resembling it) will happen eventually.

I think comparing Roscosmos and SpaceX is pointless because one is a national space agency and the other is a private company. As Roscosmos' activities are dictated by the government, of course its projects will constantly be in limbo, and as SpaceX can basically do whatever it (Elon) wants to, assuming it puts its mind to it. Now just because it can "do" (fabricate) whatever it wants to doesn't mean it will work. That's not to say it is likely to fail, but at the same time it isn't guaranteed to work either. We just need to wait and see.

On an unrelated note, this Roscosmos/ROSS vs. SpaceX/Starship discussion that has been going on has a curious dynamic. ROSS is technologically conservative and very doable, but the will is the primary deciding factor in whether it will succeed or not. Starship is technologically radical and has a lot to prove, while the will is guaranteed (at least for as long, and so long as no major design flaw is uncovered).

[OrdinaryKerman]

34 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

What exactly other crewed capsule before?

 

34 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

theydidn't carry a tonne of hypergolics

I said the same place, not the same amount. Under crew seating, around and outside the pressure vessel. At the bottom, but just above the heat shield. Not in the engine pods. Of course Dragon 2 has a lot more fuel, they (SpaceX) designed it that way. Why, I don't know, but I'm quite sure they know what they're doing. Venting that can probably be easily done by firing all RCS thrusters in all directions (resulting in not much net impulse, but a lot of fuel drained)

34 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Orion - just RCS and some amount of fuel for it.

Orion seems the closest in terms of fuel mass to Crew Dragon, with almost 900kg of fuel if the wet and dry mass figures on Wikipedia are to be believed (with still 200kg for other resources).

Edited April 30, 2021 by OrdinaryKerman
I think this thread has had enough Roscosmos vs. SpaceX for today

[kerbiloid]

30 minutes ago, OrdinaryKerman said:

has a lot more fuel

And thus total amount of heat to warm the cabin or to leak and self-ignite on a tank damage, say, on a hit by ground or on the upper stage destruction, is by an order of magnitude greater.

30 minutes ago, OrdinaryKerman said:

Why, I don't know, but I'm quite sure they know what they're doing.

All initial presentations were about the Crew Dragon landing on legs and engines, rather than chutes, and they were trying to proof that the chutes are too heavy, etc.

And as the Dragon uses the crewed capsule as a way to make all engines reusable, they have to keep all fuel in the capsule, so inside the capsule heat protection, right under the crew cabin.

To vent by RCS, say, 200 kg of the fuel excess, they should probably rotate a lot. And if they just splash it out, it will cover the ship outside.
So, unless they will show the opposite, it looks like the 100 or 200 kg will stay in the tanks until the ocean splash.
And did they ever test a ground landing with fuel? Never heard about that.

30 minutes ago, OrdinaryKerman said:

rion seems the closest in terms of fuel mass to Crew Dragon, with almost 900kg of fuel if the wet and dry mass figures on Wikipedia are to be believed (with still 200kg for other resources).

I'm afraid, I can't see this neither in wiki, nor on the picture

Spoiler

https://spaceflight101.com/spacecraft/orion/

Orion's SM is to carry 8+ tonnes of fuel, so unlikely the CM needs so much of it.

Edited April 30, 2021 by kerbiloid

[CatastrophicFailure]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And thus total amount of heat to warm the cabin or to leak and self-ignite on a tank damage, say, on a hit by ground or on the upper stage destruction, is by an order of magnitude greater.

Building tanks strong enough to survive a given impact is a known and relatively solvable engineering problem. My intuition is that any impact strong enough to rupture Dragon’s fuel tanks will rupture the crew as well, rendering any post-crash fire irrelevant from their perspective. (See: Vladimir Komorov) It’s a very relevant fact here that even risk-averse NASA has signed off on the safety of Crew Dragon, with LOCV chances far lower than the shuttle ever was. We armchair rocket scientists like to sit here flinging theories back and forth but the fact of the matter is, the people actually making the important decisions have access to much better data than we do and are generally much smarter than the lot of us to boot. 

being, y’know, actual rocket surgeons & all...