Author Topic: Excalibur Almaz  (Read 204285 times)

Offline Capt. David

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #40 on: 02/02/2008 11:47 pm »
Quote
Jim - 2/2/2008  6:02 PM

Quote
Capt. David - 2/2/2008  5:39 PM

Quote
Jim - 2/2/2008  4:30 PM

Quote
Capt. David - 2/2/2008  4:17 PM

It 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

The 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

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.

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.

As for flight experience, the Almaz capsule has more of that than the Apollo capsule did when it was first launched manned.

Add to that it's reusability. Seems like a good design to me.

David L. Rickman

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #41 on: 02/03/2008 03:01 am »
Quote
Capt. David - 2/2/2008  7:47 PM

1.  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

1. Almaz is more than 30 years old  so no real difference (or improvement  over) between it and Soyuz

2.  Incorrect.  Soyuz and FOTON are also.  See Soyuz 5.  It was basis design feature of the Vostok, which FOTON is based on

3.  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

Offline Capt. David

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #42 on: 02/03/2008 02:02 pm »
Quote
Jim - 2/2/2008  11:01 PM

Quote
Capt. David - 2/2/2008  7:47 PM

1.  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

1. Almaz is more than 30 years old  so no real difference (or improvement  over) between it and Soyuz

2.  Incorrect.  Soyuz and FOTON are also.  See Soyuz 5.  It was basis design feature of the Vostok, which FOTON is based on

3.  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

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.

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.

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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #43 on: 02/03/2008 02:33 pm »
Quote
Capt. David - 3/2/2008  10:02 AM

1. 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

1. 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.

Offline Capt. David

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #44 on: 02/03/2008 04:52 pm »
Quote
Jim - 3/2/2008  10:33 AM

Quote
Capt. David - 3/2/2008  10:02 AM

1. 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

1. 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.

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.

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.

We don't know what the flight rates will be, nor what the launch objectives will be. One thing that is clear is that you and I are approaching this subject from two entirely different perspectives. You seem to approach this with the assumption that the individual team members of Excalibur Almaz are either criminal or ignorant. I look at the team and see a CEO who is indisputably an expert in Space Law, a CFO who is a Heinlein Prize Trustee and veteran Space Commercialization Expert, an Executive V.P. of Sales and Marketing who is also CEO of ManSat, a COO who is a retired General in the U.S. Air Force (who once commanded Vandenberg), and a CSO who is a former NASA astronaut and Commander of the ISS. This is just the highlight of their credentials. Add to that an Advisory Board full of Internationally acclaimed scholars, inventors, and executives, and space travelers.

You can quote me when I say, "I kinda think these guys know what they are doing."

David L. Rickman

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?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #45 on: 02/03/2008 06:15 pm »
Quote
Capt. David - 3/2/2008  12:52 P

1.  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 entry

2.  You have no proof this.  Almaz has never been manned nor has it left LEO

3.  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#M68745

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/photos/photo-thumbnails.asp?albumid=25&Page=1&sortdir=asc

Say Uncle

Offline Capt. David

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #46 on: 02/03/2008 07:44 pm »
Quote
Jim - 3/2/2008  2:15 PM

Quote
Capt. David - 3/2/2008  12:52 P

1.  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 entry

2.  You have no proof this.  Almaz has never been manned nor has it left LEO

3.  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#M68745

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/photos/photo-thumbnails.asp?albumid=25&Page=1&sortdir=asc

Say Uncle

I concede to your superior knowledge of physics. However, the Almaz remains superior in ability to the Apollo capsule.

The Apollo is limited to docking with another vessel in order to gain any practical volume. The Almaz capsule was designed to be launched as an attached component to a module or even as part of a large station. It has already proven itself more versatile, and it's soft landing system does give it the ability to land on water or land, making the landing inherently safer than Apollo.

And I seriously doubt that we are related.

David L. Rickman

Offline Capt. David

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #47 on: 02/03/2008 08:46 pm »
Quote
Jim - 3/2/2008  2:15 PM

I only countered the baseless marketing drivel you are spouting.

Proper etiquette requires me to state that when speaking of this capsule "I am in no way connected to, nor repeating any marketing information related to Excalibur Almaz".

I have been independently studying this system for the past decade, and have come to admire this design for it's efficiency, versatility, and practicality.

Jim, you mistook my drool for drivel.

David L. Rickman


Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #48 on: 03/07/2008 05:45 pm »
You 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.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #49 on: 03/12/2008 11:02 pm »
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.

As for the shape of the VA capsule it's very similar to Apollo so attacking the VA shape vs Apollo's is baseless and there are no engineering reasons why the exact shape as apollo can't be made with the same features as the VA capsule.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tks.html

But then it should be superior to Apollo being it was designed several years later then Apollo and after a point in time when Moore's law was at it's greatest.
The computers that flew on the TKS likely were more powerful then what was used to design Apollo and modeling techniques in 1972-1975 were much more advanced then what was available in 1965.

Any doubt of it's superiority is mostly due to personal preference of the US spacecraft and prejudice towards the Soviet design.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #50 on: 03/13/2008 01:38 am »
Quote
Patchouli - 12/3/2008  6:02 PM

Any doubt of it's superiority is mostly due to personal preference of the US spacecraft and prejudice towards the Soviet design.

Well, it may be "superior", but was also 30% smaller, and could only handle LEO entry velocities. The Apollo CM was designed for a different purpose entirely (lunar orbital flight, rather than station resupply), so any comparison is arbitrary at best...

Simon ;)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #51 on: 03/13/2008 01:51 am »
Quote
Patchouli - 12/3/2008  8:02 PM

1.  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.

1.  How is that "improved"
2.  wrong, you haven't provided any legitimate evidence to prove otherwise

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #52 on: 03/13/2008 04:55 am »
The 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.
In retrospect I'm still surprised Apollo didn't get redesigned for a N2 O2 atmosphere even just a 7 psig one like skylab which also was for safety after the Apollo 1 fire as the danger was still there.

As for high speed reentry maybe with a different TPS on the backshell it might be able to handle lunar reentries.

But the big issue was there was no drive to go to the moon in 1975 the US lunar program ended and the Soviets lacked a booster to perform such a mission which would not come around again until 1986 with energia.

The big goals in the 70s were space stations even Apollo got turned into a station fairy for skylab.

For the goals of the time it was very much improved as for being 33% smaller that's a non issue as most of the habitation was in the TKS which also is the VA capsule's service module and carries the docking hardware.

I don't think one can even use the VA on orbit without the TKS at least not still be able dock with stations or change orbit other then perform a retro burn .
Also like Apollo most of the consumables were inside the service module which is TKS.
Of course if it's completely redesigned inside all this could change.
The function of the large TKS could be replaced with a custom built service module with a docking tunnel maybe even based off an existing satellite bus.
But the VA will require a service module of some sort as far as I know to be used.

On 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.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #53 on: 03/13/2008 11:14 am »
Quote
Patchouli - 13/3/2008  1:55 AM

The 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.
.

Not at 5 psia.  

But VA is not risk free from fire, the use of potassium superoxide  for oxygen generation has its risks

Offline todd5ski

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 42
  • Massachusetts
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #54 on: 03/13/2008 07:01 pm »
From what I have read of Jim's posts, he may be crass at times but he appears to be intelligent and knowledgeable.

I'd bet my money on his info on this.

Offline Capt. David

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #55 on: 03/20/2008 11:45 am »
Quote
Patchouli - 13/3/2008  1:55 AM

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.

The aerodynamics of the Almaz capsule weren't really all that similar to the Apollo. The Apollo had a hypersonic trim angle of attack of -27 degrees giving it a Lift to Drag ratio of .368. The Almaz capsule had a hypersonic trim angle of -18 degrees with a Lift to Drag ratio of .25.


Offline Capt. David

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #56 on: 03/20/2008 12:29 pm »
Quote
Jim - 13/3/2008  8:14 AM

But VA is not risk free from fire, the use of potassium superoxide  for oxygen generation has its risks

I was unaware that the Almaz capsule used Potassium Superoxide for Oxygen generation.

Offline Capt. David

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #57 on: 03/20/2008 12:57 pm »
Quote
Patchouli - 13/3/2008  1:55 AM

On 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.

You're correct on the Apollo risk, but the Almaz capsule was so aerodynamically different that it made this situation impossible. The reentry configuration of the Almaz capsule included the RCS located above the manned pressure shell.

Other than safety issue, a major advantage of having the RSC so far above the manned portion of the capsule was that 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.

Offline Capt. David

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #58 on: 03/20/2008 01:07 pm »
Quote
publiusr - 7/3/2008  1:45 PM

You 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.

The temperature of the solids was maintained in orbit through the use of the Thermal Protection System with selected optical properties (i.e. those stripes weren't there just for looks).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Excalibur Almaz
« Reply #59 on: 03/20/2008 01:19 pm »
Quote
Capt. David - 20/3/2008  9:57 AM
t 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.

No different than Apollo

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1