Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on July 13, 2005, 12:40:41 PM
-
Looks like today's shuttle launch was just scrubbed due to an equipment problem. I don't imagine that the looming storm clouds made 'em terribly anxious either.
Interesting difference between the shuttle and the russian Soyuz, the Shuttle has weather minimums because it is flown manually to a landing (for instance, if there was a survivable abort during the launch, then would separate from the launch stack and glide back to KSC or maybe even a trans-atlantic abort site). The Soyuz can (and has) launched in blizzards, rain storms, and fog because, as a capsule, it drops down under a parachute.
From the live feed on NASA TV, it sounds like they'll be de-fuelling the external tank. The problem is a fuel sensor, one of the four is acting up.
-
faulty fuel sensor.
can't get a link to work on this for some reason
-
DOH!
-
I was watching nasa tv and thought they launched that test rocket and they werent happy with the results and that scrubbed the mission. Probably wrong though.
-
The Soyuz is a much smaller spacecraft with plenty of power. The shuttle is huge and underpowered.
-
Soyuz (Union) evacuation system works even when a launcher blows up right on a launch table... When they had an explosion in 1981 IIRC - everyone from design-bureaus and launch facility services were looking for vaseline while emergency-evacuation system designers got high awards.
-
Yep, the Soyuz has abort modes throughout the whole launch. The shuttle doesn't have any between SRB ignition and SRB burnout, about two and a half minutes later. Even if NASA had detected the burnthrough at the instant the Challenger launched in 86, for instance, there would have been nothing they could have done.
Raider, I was on the feed and they said they scrubbed it because one of the four low fuel sensors in the hydrogen part of the ET was falsely triggered. It's important for them to have that because if they ran the tank dry, it would eat up the SSMEs (which are really highly strung, high performance rocket engines that don't react well to suddenly running dry).
The Soyuz design is really top notch, wish we had something equivalent in our inventory. The weight/performance advantages over the Apollo command module are pretty amazing. The Soyuz has two pressurized compartments, one in back where they sit during launch and re-entry, and one up front that has the docking module, toilet, living room, etc. When they re-enter, they get rid of the propulsion/power module behind them and the living room section in front so it's a tiny compartment that does the re-entry. Less need for heat shield, reduction in weight that's launched, etc. There are some remarkable similarities between the Soyuz and the GE Apollo reference design of the 1960s... :D but that's fodder for spy buffs.
One final thing about the Soyuz, it launches on a Soyuz booster which is a direct evolutionary descendant of the R-7 booster that put the original Sputnik in orbit (first satellite). Look at the two boosters side by side, and it's immediately obvious that the Soyuz booster is the same R-7 structure (with performance and technology improvements, of course) with an extra upper stage. The great thing about this is that it's an evolutionary design. The US space program has, until now, started almost from scratch for each new manned vehicle. According to some memos, the new manned launcher (similar in size to a Soyuz) will launch atop a single SRB descended from the Shuttle design. Crikey.
-
Heard some discussion today on the Shuttle Program being manditorily retired in 5 years. What's on the design boards to replace it?
-
Need to get our butts in gear, the Chinease are hott on our heels.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
What's on the design boards to replace it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDLV
+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle
=
Replacement
-
Really from the plans, they are looking at returning to the moon and possibly creating a mission to orbit mars? Looks pretty interesting, I myself cant wait until we can have a manned orbit around mars, just think of all the data that they can collect.
Wonder if it would be possible to put a small remote tv transmitter on the moon powered by solar panels. Nothing major, just maybe a couple of watts if it would receive. Just have a slate on there saying something like "hello from the moon." That would be pretty neat.
-
I forgot, what would be the propulsion system for a mars type mission. would it just be a slingshot around earth to pick up speed and coast there, or will it be an actual engine to give it thrust? Something like that would be fusion or a nuclear engine?
-
I just learned that the shuttle has a flight termination system (that's range speak for self-destruct).
That's gotta be a tough gig... sit there during a launch with the "kill seven people" button right in front of you.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
I forgot, what would be the propulsion system for a mars type mission. would it just be a slingshot around earth to pick up speed and coast there, or will it be an actual engine to give it thrust? Something like that would be fusion or a nuclear engine?
They have experimented with ion drives and solar sails. The ion drive is reactor powered. Chemical power (rocket engines) are not feasable due to the huge amount of fuel required.
-
wouldnt the solar sail be too easily damaged by cosmic debris and other space junk floating around?
-
Scrub the shuttle and design a new version. Same idea different craft. The shuttle was fine as a first attempt but its getting very old. I'm sure NASA could do it better this time. Use the Money that the Iraq mess is currently wasting. That should about cover it and be far more worthwhile. ;)
-
there was a show on the discovery chanel about deep space travel. i forget the name, but it was a marathon. I think the ships name was pegasus. Wonder if anything like that can be achieved within the next 30 years.
-
Well...there are some pretty interesting designs being tested out in Orbiter....
-
I'm relieved that they resisted the pressure to launch this time.
-
The CEV (known as the Constellation class spacecraft) is promising. The flexibility of Apollo, lower cost, smaller cross section to make re-entry less risky... it's pretty neat.
Basically, they've adopted the Soyuz idea, and an unmanned heavy launcher (based on Shuttle technology) would provide cargo lift. Between the two, our options in space should be greater.
-
Did someone change the calendar and make yesterday Tuesday?
-
Doh! That was me, I are dumb. Tuesday is just 'stupid' for Wednesday, in this case.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDLV
+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle
=
Replacement
funny that with SDLV they copy an Energiya launch vehicle concept...
CEV is called "Spiral"?! "Spiral" was a name for a Lavochkin manned shuttle, small "space interceptor" vehicle.
http://www.moninoaviation.com/11a.html
As for R-7 - it is a beautiful combination of some primitive technologies: railway electric automation from 1920s, German liquid rocket technology from 1940s and "bearing skin" from American aviation industry of 1930s-40s. But the whole design is cheap, reliable and uses cheap non-toxic fuel components (LOX and kerosene), and this stuff is in serial production for 50 years now...
When Sergey Korolyov designed R-7 as an ICBM - he kept in mind a possibility to use it as a space launch vehicle. It took great effort to persuade the military to build such a big rocket, while space programm was only an option that was very effective in propaganda and demonstrated the ability of Soviet rocket technology, that helped Kruschev in his "missile bluff".
What really amazes me is that a country completely destroyed in 1945 could develop such tremendous projects as a Bomb in 4 years and then R-7 in less 12 years. People living in barrack communal homes, posessing something like one suit, one pair of boots and one winter coat, when half of the country were wearing second-hand military uniforms and quilted jackets, they designed things that made us first in space...
-
OK, I think the most productive thing would be to have a list generated, with graphics of possible shuttle replacements.
So, the criteria: SSTO, Heavy Lifter, etc. Point is, needs to be crew'd and have a decent endurance in the 300 - 500 km altitude range.
Wolf
-
Lets see.. Soviet Space programme..
Soyuz prototype, fire, Bondarenko, Killed
Soyuz 1.. Chute Failure. Komarov, Killed.
Soyuz 11, Depressurized, 3 more dead.
Then there's the laughable near misses..
Soyuz 5.. reverse rentry. Holy smokin hatch gaskets, batman...
Vostok 1.. Service module jettsion failure.. holy smokin wires, robin!
Soyuz 18a.. Can you say 'motor failure, eject eject eject' 10 times real fast?
Soyuz 23.. How long can you hold yer breath, Comrade? Capsule impacts frozen lake, sinks. Cosmonaut/Submariner badges issued.
Soyuz T-10-1.. another motor failure, eject scenario. (The escape system on Soyuz really gets a workout, Boroda)
Soyuz TM5.. can you say 'WTF.. no de-orbit burn AGAIN?' Cosmonauts manually re-tried system next day, landed with do-do in their pannts.
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.
And, my commie martyr friend; yer ground crews seem to be real expendable...
Plestek Cosmodrome.. 59 technicians in two seperate booster failures. Then there's Nedelin.. 126 flash fried technicians. Tsk, tsk..
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?
-
Hang, no offense, but in my opinion, if it were not for the Russian space program and JFK, we would still be trying to figure out how to get weather ballons to higher altitudes.
And if those disasters had occured here in the U.S., what would have happened?
Russia does deserve a bit of respect for getting the whole idea of space travel off the ground. And even through the disasters, they kept on going.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hang, no offense, but in my opinion, if it were not for the Russian space program and JFK, we would still be trying to figure out how to get weather ballons to higher altitudes.
And if those disasters had occured here in the U.S., what would have happened?
Russia does deserve a bit of respect for getting the whole idea of space travel off the ground. And even through the disasters, they kept on going.
Amen
-
Both countries also have a butchers bill. The US program has lost 17 lives that were inside space vehicles, the Soviets have lost 4, so we could go back and forth all day.
It's easy to point fingers, but both countries share a common achievement, we've repeatedly put humans into the least forgiving environment yet and brought them back safely more then not (a LOT more then not).
-
Absolutely agree, the Soviets were the goad for our early program advancement agenda.
Sadly, due to the political polartity issues, we ran our own learning curve while they enjoyed the very public nature of our efforts. Had we known what happened to Bondarenko, Chaffe, White and Grissom would not have been imolated... just one example that comes to mind.
There are other instances where they *ahem* 'borrowed' from our painstaking R&D to facilitate their advancements.. THEIR programme successes were due in no small part to our 'public' persual of our quest for manned space flight... to a lesser degree, ours from theirs.
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.
-
Why not just drop a cable from the space station and use an elevator to deliver supples and such.....might take a few days to get back and fourth and a few hundred miles of cable.....but hey, imagine the view :D
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
didnt hear anything about the joint program
-
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. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper
-
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.
-
Better yet, convert the nuclear subs and bombs INTO spacecraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion
-
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.
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).
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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 :D) 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.
-
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.
-
Pavel,
With Mir, I think he was talking about the fire that was started by the lithium percolate candles.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I vote for killing the thread.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
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?
The point was pounding the mindset that spouted this:
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.
That's all.
-
C'mon, just imrubberyoureglueit.
-
Neener, neener, neeener.
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The point was pounding the mindset that spouted this:
That's all.
Hang, can't you see that the mood of my anwer was the same as yours? ;)
In the phrase I quoted (not very polite, sorry) I tried to show the difference between approaches. Things like Saturn-V simply couldn't be reproduced in USSR, regardless to the sum of money spent, and I hope you know that Soviet space programm suffered from funding problems even during the Moon-race. The art of engineering is to use what you have and make what you want with it. Exaple: if USSR had Sabre blueprints in 1949 - they couldn't produce it, thechnology didn't give you the nessessary quality and precision...
About Soyuz-1: do you know how John Glenn's first orbit flight went? He was really lucky that he stayed alive...
-
I know, Pavel.. I hugely enjoy jabbing you thru the bars of your commie brain cage. Beauty is, we both know exactly what the rules are... and it's fun. :)
Justa make yah feel better, we've had a fair number of very close calls in our program too... On August 29, 1965, Gemini 5 landed 130 kilometers short of its planned Pacific Ocean landing point due to a software error. The Earth's rotation rate had been programmed as one revolution per solar day instead of the correct value, one revolution per sidereal day.
The Gemini 8 crew narrowly averted disaster on March 17 1966 after a maneuvering thruster would not shut down and put their capsule into an uncontrolled spin.
Three of the five Lunar Landing Research and Training vehicles (LLRV & LLTV) were destroyed in crashes near Houston, Texas. LLRV No. 1 crashed on May 6, 1968 at Ellington AFB, Texas, Neil Armstrong was flying the craft at the time and had to eject. LLTV No. 1 crashed on December 8, 1968 at Ellington AFB, Texas causing MSC test pilot Joseph Algranti to eject safely. Another LLTV crashed at Ellington AFB, Texas on January 29, 1971. NASA test pilot Stuart Present ejected safely.
The rocket that launched Apollo 12 on November 14 1969 was struck by lightning shortly after lift-off. All on-board systems were temporarily disabled... imagine riding a dead rocket into space... they couldn't trigger the escape system even if they tried to. Dammo!
In the most celebrated "near miss", the Apollo 13 crew came home safely after an explosion on April 14, 1970 crippled their spacecraft en route to the moon. They survived the loss of most of their spacecraft systems by relying on the Lunar Module to provide life support and power for the trip home.
Apollo 13 also had a close call during launch that almost resulted in a launch abort. It was overshadowed by later events. The second stage center engine experienced violent pogo oscillations that luckily caused it to shut down early. The two ton engine, solidly bolted to its massive thrust frame, was bouncing up and down at 68 g. This was flexing the frame 3 inches (76 mm) at 16 Hz. After three seconds of these pogo oscillations the engine's "low chamber pressure" switch was tripped. The switch had not been designed to trip in this manner, but luckily it did. This led to the engines automatic shutdown. If the pogo had continued, it could have torn the Saturn V apart... which explains in small part the current huge concern over the low fuel cutoff sensor difficulty the current shuttle is working through.
On January 23, 1971, Gene Cernan was flying a helicopter as part of his Lunar Module training as Backup Commander for Apollo 14. The helicopter crashed into the Banana River at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Cernan nearly drowned because he was not wearing a life vest and received some second-degree burns on his face and singed hair. According to official reports at the time, the crash was the result of mechanical failure. Later accounts, written by Cernan himself in an autobiography admit he was flying too low and showing off for nearby boaters. The helicopter dipped a skid into the water and crashed. James McDivitt, an Apollo Manager at the time, demanded that Cernan be removed from flight status and not be given Command of Apollo 17. He was defended by Deke Slayton and given the Apollo 17 command. James McDivitt resigned as an Apollo Manager shortly after the Apollo 16 mission.
During final descent and parachute deployment for the ASTP Command Module on July 24, 1975, the U.S. crew were exposed to 300 µL/L of toxic nitrogen tetroxide gas (RCS fuel) venting from the spacecraft and re-entering a cabin air intake. A switch was left in the wrong position. 400 µL/L is fatal. Vance Brand became unconscious. The crew members suffered from burning sensations of their eyes, faces, noses, throats and lungs. Thomas Stafford quickly broke out emergency oxygen masks and put one on Brand and gave one to Deke Slayton. The crew were exposed to the toxic gas from 24,000 ft (7.3 km) down to landing. About an hour after landing the crew developed chemical induced pneumonia and their lungs had edema. They experienced shortness of breath and were hospitalized in Hawaii. The crew spent two weeks in the hospital. By July 30, their chest x-rays appeared to return to normal. Deke later died of lung cancer.
Death-wize, 4% astronaut fatalities vs 2% cosmonaut fatalities... you lose more on the ground, we lose more on the vehicles.
Biggest diffrence I see between the two programs has always been the depth of concern shown for the saftey of the folks involved... as Skuzzy pointed out, had our program been plauged with the death toll yours experienced early on, we'd have shut the program down... and every time we did lose lives, the program stopped in it's tracks and went back to hunt the cause, and spent whatever it took to fix it. Sadly, thank's to our 'bus' spacecraft, when we mess up, the death toll is very large...
Our best hope for success in space remains in large part a joint program where commonality of engineering and knowlege is freely exchanged between the space-faring nations. We don't need another Chaffe, White & Grissom disaster.. one that would never have happened had we known the details of the Bandarenko tragedy.
Cheers, you commie martyr dirtbag!
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I know, Pavel.. I hugely enjoy jabbing you thru the bars of your commie brain cage. Beauty is, we both know exactly what the rules are... and it's fun. :)
Same thing here ;) We have two rows of bars between us ;)
Originally posted by Hangtime
Justa make yah feel better, we've had a fair number of very close calls in our program too...
It doesn't make me feel better in any way. Cosmonautics is a dangerous business, and in such an innovative field accidents happen :( Even now cosmonauts are not "passengers", they risk their lives and have to show their best skills and devotion.
Originally posted by Hangtime
Biggest diffrence I see between the two programs has always been the depth of concern shown for the saftey of the folks involved... as Skuzzy pointed out, had our program been plauged with the death toll yours experienced early on, we'd have shut the program down... and every time we did lose lives, the program stopped in it's tracks and went back to hunt the cause, and spent whatever it took to fix it. Sadly, thank's to our 'bus' spacecraft, when we mess up, the death toll is very large...
Bondarenko's death didn't have anything to do with actual spacecraft design, Soviet spaceships never used pure oxygen atmosphere...
I hate to say it, but Challeger catastrophe made me really interested in space exploration. I still remember how I heard about it, on a radio in a kitchen, having breakfast before school... I still have a huge collection of newspaper articles about it, almost everything from central and Moscow city press, walking my dog in the evening I cut atricles from newspaper-stands if they contained some info that wasn't mentioned in papers my family wasn't subscribed to...
I went to study in Moscow High Technical College (Rocket College on Yauza river, as it was called in Voice of America transmittions) because I wanted to become an air/space engineer, but chose a wrong department according to my Father's advise :(
Space Shuttle is another relic from Cold War, it's only reasonable purpose was to "steal" sattelites from orbit. Both shuttle programs suffered from costs rising through design/production chain...
Originally posted by Hangtime
Our best hope for success in space remains in large part a joint program where commonality of engineering and knowlege is freely exchanged between the space-faring nations. We don't need another Chaffe, White & Grissom disaster.. one that would never have happened had we known the details of the Bandarenko tragedy.
Completely agreed. We have cheap and reliable launchers for up to 20 tons to low orbit, and great experience in long-term life-support systems, including physiological consequences of zero-G. You have expensive modern hi-tech applications, including super-high power launcher technology experience. We must work together. At least new "iron curtain" should not block this cooperation.
Originally posted by Hangtime
Cheers, you commie martyr dirtbag!
;)
I am not a "martyr", my liver is :D Your health! ;)
-
I am not a "martyr", my liver is Your health!
If only I had the server space to post the video of U, Me and Eva drinking. The best comment's early on "She's speaking like, a very very sober woman." Then the camera pan's over to Eva's face, who according to her has been drunk twice in her life. Well, anyway - it was a priceless expression. Great time that night - I did 12 shots, she did 15 and was hovering in the bathroom for the rest of the night. I think you were upto 20 when you left around 11pm to continue with Estel until 4am, but I don't remember.
Man that was a great time.
Wolf
-
Pavel, yer a bit mistaken regarding the pure oxygen atmosphere.. your initial trans-orbital design incorportated the same system we were working with. Your side learned of the danger the hard way (as did we years later) and changed the design before sending a Soyuz to space.
On March 23, 1961, Valentin Bondarenko became the first space related casualty of all time while undergoing training in a special low pressure chamber with a pure oxygen atmosphere.
Bondarenko accidentally dropped an alcohol soaked cloth onto an electric hotplate. In the pure oxygen environment, the fire quickly engulfed the entire chamber. Bondarenko was barely alive when the chamber was opened, and died of his burns in hospital a short time later. At the time of the accident, Bondarenko's death had been covered up by the Soviet government and was not known about in the US program... had we known what happened to him and why... :(
Space Shuttle is another relic from Cold War, it's only reasonable purpose was to "steal" sattelites from orbit. Both shuttle programs suffered from costs rising through design/production chain...
LOL.. commie martyr paranoia!! Again!! Gawd, you crack me up sometimes. ;)
-
BTW, we may have 'learned' from the Apollo 1 fire, but... all the Apollo missions still went up with pure oxygen atmospheres. The lessons learned were:
1. Not so much fuel maybe (flammable velcro, etc)
2. Perhaps it is being not so great an idea to pressurize capsule to 17+lbs on the pad with pure O2?
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
If only I had the server space to post the video of U, Me and Eva drinking. The best comment's early on "She's speaking like, a very very sober woman." Then the camera pan's over to Eva's face, who according to her has been drunk twice in her life. Well, anyway - it was a priceless expression. Great time that night - I did 12 shots, she did 15 and was hovering in the bathroom for the rest of the night. I think you were upto 20 when you left around 11pm to continue with Estel until 4am, but I don't remember.
Man that was a great time.
Wolf
Alex, you have a strange opportunistic habit of counting "shots". We had about one litre, of which I drank a halflitre of that crappy cranberry plus some white. 250ml of vodka is only enough to make you feel fine ;) We are not Germans ;) You know, there was a reference book on poisons published in East Germany, ethanol was listed with a lethal dose of 250ml, with a footnote: "Doesn't apply to Russians" :) It's not a joke, I saw it with my own eyes.
When Eva told me that you recorded our drinking party on video - I didn't believe her ;) Are you sure that you didn't study at Langley? ;) J/K :D
You looked at us with really wide eyes :) People enjoying vodka with salo, spring onions, sour cabbige and black bread definetly look strange for foreigners :) I was surprised myself that Eva enjoyed salo... My choise of food was absolutely proletarian/peasant, just the stuff that goes well with vodka.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Pavel, yer a bit mistaken regarding the pure oxygen atmosphere.. your initial trans-orbital design incorportated the same system we were working with. Your side learned of the danger the hard way (as did we years later) and changed the design before sending a Soyuz to space.
On March 23, 1961, Valentin Bondarenko became the first space related casualty of all time while undergoing training in a special low pressure chamber with a pure oxygen atmosphere.
Bondarenko accidentally dropped an alcohol soaked cloth onto an electric hotplate. In the pure oxygen environment, the fire quickly engulfed the entire chamber. Bondarenko was barely alive when the chamber was opened, and died of his burns in hospital a short time later. At the time of the accident, Bondarenko's death had been covered up by the Soviet government and was not known about in the US program... had we known what happened to him and why... :(
Bondarenko was performing a training/test in a low-pressure chamber (barocamera), the pressure was as low as at 8-10 km high, with atmospheric air he could simply strangle, it was a test not for low-oxygen but to check his ability to withstand low pressure.
And that accident once more shows that all problems we, Russians, have are because of alcohol :)
Frankly speaking - you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that pure oxygen atmosphere even at low pressure may cause troubles. I think that the main reason for O2/N2 atmosphere in Soviet spaceships was the fact that it was impossible to make everything work without electric sparks. :(
Originally posted by Hangtime
LOL.. commie martyr paranoia!! Again!! Gawd, you crack me up sometimes. ;)
Hang, my Father worked for Buran programm, he was a scientific supervisor (i hope it's a right term) for ground facilities capital construction, so I heard the word "Buran" even before me and my Mother moved to Moscow from Leningrad following Father. Father has a great habit to talk about serious things with his son, so I remember this things pretty well.
If you look at delivery costs per 1kg for disposable launchers like Soyuz (R-7) or Proton vs. re-usable vehicles (Shuttle or Buran) - it's obvious that there must be some reason other then having a low-orbit delivery unit with the size of a 40ton railway car. And "orbital bomber" hallucinations were obviously unreal even when they remained on paper.
-
No, the high cost per kilo is because the estimates were waaaaay too optimistic. The Shuttle was supposed to offer cheap access to space. It failed in that regard.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to stupidity.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
No, the high cost per kilo is because the estimates were waaaaay too optimistic. The Shuttle was supposed to offer cheap access to space. It failed in that regard.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to stupidity.
It doesn't explain that Soviet Buran programm, that, in fact, made USSR bankrupt, started to go to production (beyond R&D) after what you said became obvious.
Defence purposes always are funded. I mean in super-powers, not like modern Russia.
-
Ah, I thought you were talking about the US Space shuttle, not Buran.