Author Topic: Tuesday Shuttle launch just scrubbed (Read 1638 times)

Chairboy · « **Reply #30 on:** July 14, 2005, 01:34:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
What's troubling from my perspective is NASA's apparent abandonment of the 'Space Plane' concepet in favor of the 'safer' capsule and service module program.. a step backwards in my eyes.

Name some advantages that a space plane offers.

Modern capsule:
Land anywhere. Sea, woods, fields, parks. Rogallo parachutes give you precision landings. Most cross-range needs can be met by the capsule during re-entry, and Apollo proved.

Spaceplane:
You need a runway to land, usually a long one. The wings are a lot of dead-weight during 99% of the mission. The larger cross-section means more fragile areas that can be damaged. See the Columbia burn-through for an example.

It'll be the right time to go to spaceplanes when we need to carry large groups of people or we need dual-purpose vehicles that can operate in-atmosphere as well as in orbit, but until then, the capsule/non-plane method offers many advantages.

Don't get me wrong, I love a sexy spaceplane as much as the next guy. I built an R/C model of the X-20 from scratch, and I've memorized Jensen's definitive shuttle reference, but I'm realistic about the mission requirements.

g00b · « **Reply #31 on:** July 14, 2005, 02:32:37 PM »

Space Elevator baby!

http://www.spaceelevator.com/

Proveably feasable.

Can you imagine the construction contract on that sucker

In the meantime, an updated Spiral type or capsule/chute vehicle seems to be the best option.

g00b

Hangtime · « **Reply #32 on:** July 14, 2005, 02:34:15 PM »

Agreed.. capsule/module program offers best cost/benefit for immediate mission requirements.. BUT a trans-atmospheric fully reuseable REAL spaceplane provides the 'fire it up and lets get orbital' flexibility the booster/payload system ain't got.

If the US gets it done first we'll be a true space-faring society the moment it's realized. Colonization of space can begin... the new frontier will be readily accessible...

Both systems should be developed.. not one in place of the other... and the nation that gets a true spaceplane operational first will wind up dictating the terms of future space development.

Gunthr · « **Reply #33 on:** July 14, 2005, 02:41:43 PM »

I just thank God OSHA made them move the TERMINATE FLIGHT button away from the cigar lighter on that console. Thats one less thing to worry about...

2bighorn · « **Reply #34 on:** July 14, 2005, 03:18:18 PM »

Didn't Europeans and Russians agreed to develope their version of shuttle? I think is called Clipper and first launch is planned for 2012 or so.

Meatwad · « **Reply #35 on:** July 14, 2005, 03:18:57 PM »

didnt hear anything about the joint program

Chairboy · « **Reply #36 on:** July 14, 2005, 03:47:04 PM »

It's Kliper, and its creation is dependent on money, which is far from guarenteed. The number of times (the non-russia part of) Europe has chambered the 'manned spacecraft' bullet, then neglected to pull the trigger is amazing. The Hermes shuttle of old is one one in a long line of euro-manned launchers that were axed. Arianespace is the only real space company over there (that I can think of), and they seem perfectly happy at launching unmanned payloads out of South America without all that added fuss of putting some hairy, loudly complaining lout who probably won't even do them the favor of speaking french atop their nice and shiny rockets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper

Skydancer · « **Reply #37 on:** July 14, 2005, 04:20:59 PM »

We should spend less money blowing things to bits and more on space travel. Scrap all those nuclear subs and go blow the money that we would've spent on em on developing space exploration vehicles! And Skuzzy is quite right.

Chairboy · « **Reply #38 on:** July 14, 2005, 05:33:04 PM »

Better yet, convert the nuclear subs and bombs INTO spacecraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion

Boroda · « **Reply #39 on:** July 14, 2005, 05:41:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Lets see.. Soviet Space programme..

Soyuz prototype, fire, Bondarenko, Killed

IIRC it was a failure in a barocamera. Amd it happened in 1960.

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Soyuz 1.. Chute Failure. Komarov, Killed.
Soyuz 11, Depressurized, 3 more dead.

Last lethal accident in 1971. Since Dobrovolsky, Volkov and Patsayev landed dead - all Soviet cosmonauts wear pressurised suits (compact ones, with soft foldable helmet).

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Then there's the laughable near misses..

Soyuz 5.. reverse rentry. Holy smokin hatch gaskets, batman...

Soyuz 5? I don't remember, there were several test launches unmanned after Komarov crashed.

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Vostok 1.. Service module jettsion failure.. holy smokin wires, robin!

Ahven't heard about it, did Vostok have to jettison service module?

Then you forget some intersting stories, like Belyaev having to mperform a first manual landing in Voskhod-2, landing in taiga at -30C...

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Mir 2/23/97.. FIRE! Whoopsee!
Mir 6/25/97.. Collison! Geico coverage cancled after collision with Progress Resupply rocket. Some hasty cable hacking and module closeoffs by the 2 russian and 1 american astronauts save the farm.

Fire? Didn't hear about it. Will inquire from my friend who works at mission control center, he's a life-support engineer on regular duty.

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
And, my commie martyr friend; yer ground crews seem to be real expendable....

Compare the number of Soviet space launches to American - anf you'll get an idea. We have made over 2000 unmanned launches only, plus over 100 manned IIRC, what about your side?

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Plestek Cosmodrome.. 59 technicians in two seperate booster failures. Then there's Nedelin.. 126 flash fried technicians. Tsk, tsk...

Never heard about any ground-crews accidents in Plesetsk, that cosmodrome in the North is operational since mid-80s, we already had the bloody "glasnost".

Nedelin accident happened in 1960, and it was a new ICBM, not a space launch vehicle.

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
I believe the current count is 96 Russians made it to space vs 277 for the USA. By my reckoning, you folks seem to enjoy a much higher fatality rate in your space program than ours. Also we can argue that there are doubtless plenty more losses/fatalities on your side that have never been made public.. while we always operate manned missions under public oversight.

Interesting, no?

96 Russians? Around 1985 we had 100+ cosmonauts, some of them flew up to 5 missions. Maybe you count only Russians by nationality? There were plenty Ukrainians, Belorussians, Uzbeks, etc.

If you count manned launches - you are decades behind us. If you count time spent in space - you are lost in the mist of ages

Americans made beautiful, revolutionary rockets. Saturn-V is a masterpiece. But, as usuall, you rely on "technological overkill", making your stuff too complicated and expensive. Saturn-V remained a great rocket that wasn't meant to be mass-produced.

You make stunts while we work.

About "publicity": in mid-80s I was surprised at how often your launchers go boom. Impressive and frightening sight

We had reports about all your launches in evening TV news ("Vremya" ["Time"] programm). At that time I read almost every issue of "Aviation Leak" (my Father brought them from work for me to read, they had "classified" stamp on covers

) so I usually saw that our TV never missed any American launch, including unmanned. At the same time USSR made 3-5 launches weekly. Only 5-10 strings in "Izvestiya" newspaper. First time a launch was broadcasted live was in 1988 IIRC, I skipped school to watch it.

Boroda · « **Reply #40 on:** July 14, 2005, 05:48:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
We should spend less money blowing things to bits and more on space travel. Scrap all those nuclear subs and go blow the money that we would've spent on em on developing space exploration vehicles! And Skuzzy is quite right.

Unfotunately, defence is the only field where almost any spendings are justified. Bomb costed USSR almost as much as Great Patriotic War...

About subs - they are a great field for durable life-support systems, not as complicated as in spacecrafts - but still... And a test ground for nuclear reactors, to make them compact, reliable and powerfull. Who the hell will be interested in a reactor filled with melted sodium instead of water in civilian applications?

I can say only one thing to people who say that they don't want their tax money to be spent on space exploration: do they use weather forecasts? And as I have read in an American propaganda brochure from early-70s - thousands of technological inventions from Appolo programm had commercial applications. So - your government stimulated R&D and made profits for your hi-tech companies.

Wolfala · « **Reply #41 on:** July 14, 2005, 06:58:49 PM »

Pavel,

With Mir, I think he was talking about the fire that was started by the lithium percolate candles.

Hangtime · « **Reply #42 on:** July 14, 2005, 10:09:56 PM »

bah, Pavel; as always, you ignore or excuse the truths, and repeat propaganda myths. Time and again, YOUR nation put cosmonauts at risk for your own grandstand plays with euipment proven to be unsitable for the tasks. Needless grandstanding YOU accuse US of.. when this was actually the entire Soviet GamePlan... Here's a classic example of your precious soviet governments 'demonstration' of your supposedly 'superior' space program in action:

Date: 23 April 1967 00:40 GMT. . Landing Date: 24 April 1967. Flight Time: 1.12 days. Flight Up: Soyuz 1. Flight Back: Soyuz 1. Call Sign: Rubin (Ruby ). Backup Crew: Gagarin, Program: Soyuz.

Despite the various failures on the three previous Soyuz 7K-OK test flights (Kosmos 133, Kosmos 140A, and Kosmos 140), Brezhnev and Ustinov pressured Mishin to proceed with an attempt to accomplish the 'all up' manned rendezvous, docking, and crew transfer spectacular that would eventually be accomplished by Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5. Komarov was the pilot for the Soyuz 1 active spacecraft, which would be launched first. Soyuz 2, with the crew of Bykovsky, Khrunov, and Yeliseyev would launch the following day, with Khrunov and Yeliseyev spacewalking to Soyuz 1 and returning to earth with Komarov. Not only would this mission show the "superiority" of Soviet technology, compared to that in America just after the Apollo fire, but it would 'demonstrate' several key elements (first orbit rendezvous, crew transfer via spacewalk) of the planned lunar landing mission.

However immediately after orbital insertion Komarov's problems started. One of the solar panels failed to deploy, staying wrapped around the service module. Although only receiving half of the planned solar power, an attempt was made to manoeuvre the spacecraft. This failed because of interference of the reaction control system exhaust with the ion flow sensors that were one of the Soyuz' main methods of orientation. The decision was then made to bring Komarov back. The first attempt at retrofire however failed - the automatic systems of the ship could not orient it because at the moment of manoeuvre to retrofire attitude the spacecraft was going through an ion 'pocket' - an area of low density where the sensors could not reliably detect the direction of motion of the spacecraft. A decision was made to make a manual retrofire on the next orbit.

Because the manoeuvre would be happening on the night side of the earth, Komarov could not use the Vzor optical alignment device to orient the spacecraft for retrofire. A method of alignment by sighting the moon through the periscope was hurriedly selected. Belyayev personally assured Ustinov that the method was feasible based on his Voskhod 2 experience. Following approval, Komarov was able to accomplish the manual retrofire using this method.

Re-entry was successful and the drag chute deployed. However due to a failure of a pressure sensor, the main parachute would not deploy. Komarov released the reserve chute, but it became tangled with the drag chute, which had not been released as would have normally occurred on deployment of the main chute. The descent module crashed into a field near Orenburg at 7 am.

The word came from US listening posts in Turkey that Komarov was infuriated by the balky spacecraft, and he rode his constantly malfunctioning capsule all the way to the ground cursing on the radio link all those who had sent him to space in such an unready piece of equipment. The Russians claim that the crash site was not thoroughly cleaned up by the recovery teams. A group of Young Pioneers supposedly found some remains of Komarov at the crash site, and gave him a second burial place.

Result.. Nothing worked right, 1 cosmonaut dead and your space program 'demonstrated' nothing beyond a chilling willingness to attempt ANYTHING to upstage the American Apollo program... even at the cost of billions in unready equipment and Cosmonauts lives.

Sad Boroda.. truly sad. Not much of a 'program' when it's only objective was 'one-upmanship'.. something you seem quite willing to accuse us of, yet refuse the reality of it when it was done as a matter of routine in Moscow.

Chairboy · « **Reply #43 on:** July 14, 2005, 10:19:01 PM »

Hangtime, what's the purpose of your line of inquiry?

# killed in Soviet/Russian spacecraft in flight: 4
# killed in US spacecraft in flight: 14

Both figures are over roughly the same number of manned flights.

So... what's your point again?

Wolfala · « **Reply #44 on:** July 14, 2005, 10:47:07 PM »

I vote for killing the thread.