Jim - 2/2/2008 6:02 PMQuoteCapt. David - 2/2/2008 5:39 PMQuoteJim - 2/2/2008 4:30 PMQuoteCapt. David - 2/2/2008 4:17 PMIt Near Earth orbit and it's micro-gravity environment has much more to offer than just a pretty view. Not with using a manned vehicleThe Almaz capsule does have a history of being used as an unmanned science laboratory. For versatility, I can't think of a better design. Apparently, neither can the folks at Khrunichev. Their next generation of spacecraft is based upon this capsule's design.It has limited flight experience and it was long ago, to make such claims.There are better platforms , FOTON, being one. Khrunichev is just digging up an old design (the only one they have) to see it they can make a buck. It has nothing to with how good it is
Capt. David - 2/2/2008 5:39 PMQuoteJim - 2/2/2008 4:30 PMQuoteCapt. David - 2/2/2008 4:17 PMIt Near Earth orbit and it's micro-gravity environment has much more to offer than just a pretty view. Not with using a manned vehicleThe Almaz capsule does have a history of being used as an unmanned science laboratory. For versatility, I can't think of a better design. Apparently, neither can the folks at Khrunichev. Their next generation of spacecraft is based upon this capsule's design.
Jim - 2/2/2008 4:30 PMQuoteCapt. David - 2/2/2008 4:17 PMIt Near Earth orbit and it's micro-gravity environment has much more to offer than just a pretty view. Not with using a manned vehicle
Capt. David - 2/2/2008 4:17 PMIt Near Earth orbit and it's micro-gravity environment has much more to offer than just a pretty view.
Capt. David - 2/2/2008 7:47 PM1. Well THAT'S certainly not a good argument, since Soyuz is an old design, and FOTON even older. And "how long ago" the last test was, doesn't by any means change the results of the test.2. The Almaz capsule has one characteristic the other two lack: During reentry it is self-stabilizing. Even during a ballistic descent after the power was deliberately cut-off at entry-interface, capsules No. 0102 and 0102A remained in a stable attitude.3. As for flight experience, the Almaz capsule has more of that than the Apollo capsule did when it was first launched manned.4. Add to that it's reusability. Seems like a good design to me.David L. Rickman
Jim - 2/2/2008 11:01 PMQuoteCapt. David - 2/2/2008 7:47 PM1. Well THAT'S certainly not a good argument, since Soyuz is an old design, and FOTON even older. And "how long ago" the last test was, doesn't by any means change the results of the test.2. The Almaz capsule has one characteristic the other two lack: During reentry it is self-stabilizing. Even during a ballistic descent after the power was deliberately cut-off at entry-interface, capsules No. 0102 and 0102A remained in a stable attitude.3. As for flight experience, the Almaz capsule has more of that than the Apollo capsule did when it was first launched manned.4. Add to that it's reusability. Seems like a good design to me.David L. Rickman1. Almaz is more than 30 years old so no real difference (or improvement over) between it and Soyuz2. Incorrect. Soyuz and FOTON are also. See Soyuz 5. It was basis design feature of the Vostok, which FOTON is based on3. So? It would be the same as flying an new Apollo capsule. Only the shape will be similar. All the systems will be new.4. Not of much value in the overall scheme
Capt. David - 3/2/2008 10:02 AM1. I don't even know why you would use Soyuz 5 as an example. That was a horrible reentry. The Orbital Module broke free AFTER the major reentry aerodynamic events took place. Gravity up-righted the capsule, but it was no longer flying at that point.2.Reusability has EVERYTHING to do with the overall scheme. Being able to refurbish the capsule takes a HUGE chunk of cost out of each mission.3. During reentry there is really no similarity between the Apollo and Almaz capsules. Their shapes are as different as "Mickey Mouse" and "Goofy".David L. Rickman
Jim - 3/2/2008 10:33 AMQuoteCapt. David - 3/2/2008 10:02 AM1. I don't even know why you would use Soyuz 5 as an example. That was a horrible reentry. The Orbital Module broke free AFTER the major reentry aerodynamic events took place. Gravity up-righted the capsule, but it was no longer flying at that point.2.Reusability has EVERYTHING to do with the overall scheme. Being able to refurbish the capsule takes a HUGE chunk of cost out of each mission.3. During reentry there is really no similarity between the Apollo and Almaz capsules. Their shapes are as different as "Mickey Mouse" and "Goofy".David L. Rickman1. It is a perfect example. It still wasn't finished with the major heating phase. And you don't understand dynamics. Gravity isn't enough to right the capsule. It was aero forces.2. Reusability is meaningless for low flight rates.3. Never said anything about reentry wrt to Apollo and Almaz capsules. I was referring to building new capsules. Almaz has no advantage.
Capt. David - 3/2/2008 12:52 P1. Aerodynamic forces alone aren't enough to upright a capsule. If the majority of the weight were at the top of the Soyuz capsule, it would come in with the top down. As an example, look at the LKI design used for Almaz.2. It is obvious that your knowledge of the Almaz capsule is limited. If we're building capsules from scratch, the Almaz design is superior and far more versatile than the Apollo design.3.. You seem to approach this with the assumption that the individual team members of Excalibur Almaz are either criminal or ignorant. 4. P.S. I would never presume to say something as ignorant as "you don't understand dynamics", but I do wonder about your credential. Do these rockets you work with have the term "Cardboard Tubing" anywhere in their description?
Jim - 3/2/2008 2:15 PMQuoteCapt. David - 3/2/2008 12:52 P1. Aerodynamic forces alone aren't enough to upright a capsule. If the majority of the weight were at the top of the Soyuz capsule, it would come in with the top down. As an example, look at the LKI design used for Almaz.2. It is obvious that your knowledge of the Almaz capsule is limited. If we're building capsules from scratch, the Almaz design is superior and far more versatile than the Apollo design.3.. You seem to approach this with the assumption that the individual team members of Excalibur Almaz are either criminal or ignorant. 4. P.S. I would never presume to say something as ignorant as "you don't understand dynamics", but I do wonder about your credential. Do these rockets you work with have the term "Cardboard Tubing" anywhere in their description?1. Again, you are wrong, so I am not being ignorant in stating again that you don't understand dynamics. In the absence of control system, Aerodynamic forces are the only force that can upright a capsule during entry. Gravity gradient forces are only strong enough in microgravity environment. The example you provide validates MY point. Your top heavy Soyuz capsule would not land nose down on the airless moon, since there is no correcting force. It is because the Center of pressure is behind the Center of Mass during earth entry2. You have no proof this. Almaz has never been manned nor has it left LEO3. Never said this. I only countered the baseless marketing drivel you are spouting.4.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4376&posts=4&highlight=air%20force%20spacehab&highlightmode=1#M68745http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/photos/photo-thumbnails.asp?albumid=25&Page=1&sortdir=ascSay Uncle
Jim - 3/2/2008 2:15 PMI only countered the baseless marketing drivel you are spouting.
Patchouli - 12/3/2008 6:02 PMAny doubt of it's superiority is mostly due to personal preference of the US spacecraft and prejudice towards the Soviet design.
Patchouli - 12/3/2008 8:02 PM1. Actually the VA capsule and TKS were very much improved over Apollo with it's use of a full 1 atm atmosphere to the MOL type hatch in the heat shield that allowed use of a habitation module the TKS to use of a much more advanced TPS.2. Any doubt of it's superiority is mostly due to personal preference of the US spacecraft and prejudice towards the Soviet design.
Patchouli - 13/3/2008 1:55 AMThe VA capsule will not burst into flames like Apollo if you have a short since you have a moderator gas in the atmosphere. The pure O2 atmosphere was one thing that was pretty risky in early US spacecraft and I think that alone counts as an improvement..
Patchouli - 13/3/2008 1:55 AMThough since the TKS aerodynamically is so similar to Apollo it also might suffer from the same issue though it could be weighted very differently inside.
Jim - 13/3/2008 8:14 AMBut VA is not risk free from fire, the use of potassium superoxide for oxygen generation has its risks
Patchouli - 13/3/2008 1:55 AMOn stability I have read the Apollo CM did have an attitude you do not want to get into during reentry as it can settle into a stable nose first position that the RCS might not be able to force it back out of.Though since the TKS aerodynamically is so similar to Apollo it also might suffer from the same issue though it could be weighted very differently inside.
publiusr - 7/3/2008 1:45 PMYou claim Almaz to be superior to Apollo? I don't know as I would go that far. I do like the idea of retros and the escape tower being part of the same structure for elegance's sake. Then too, having retros at the bottom of a capsule might allow solids to stay warm and not have grains crack.
Capt. David - 20/3/2008 9:57 AMt by using the RSC during reentry the capsule could be rolled about the trimmed angle of attack allowing the ballistic coefficient to be varied from 471.9 to 646.5 kg per sq. meter (the Apollo capsule was only about 379 kg per sq. meter). This made the Almaz capsule capable of a targeted controlled glide.