|
anik
|
|
« on: 10/18/2009 08:00 AM » |
|
I have made map in Google Maps and file for Google Earth with planned and actual locations of landings of Soyuz spacecrafts beginning from Soyuz TM-12.
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
« on: 10/18/2009 08:00 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stan Black
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 10/18/2009 12:17 PM » |
|
I have made map in Google Maps and file for Google Earth with planned and actual locations of landings of Soyuz spacecrafts beginning from Soyuz TM-12.
Nicely done... The three ballistic TMA are easy to find... That main cluster, wonder if that will affect property prices.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 10/18/2009 03:13 PM » |
|
I have added into map and file actual locations of landings of Soyuz-1, Soyuz-11, Soyuz-18-1, Soyuz-19 and from Soyuz-25 to Soyuz-34.
|
|
|
|
glanmor05
|
|
« Reply #3 on: 10/18/2009 03:29 PM » |
|
Love maps like this. Thanks for posting.
Prompts a question. There are some fairly large bodies of water on that map.
What happens if they land in there (apart from the splash, obviously)?
and in order to avoid that, is there any ability to steer (or even see where to steer to) flowing shoot deploy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
glanmor05
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 10/18/2009 04:24 PM » |
|
Love maps like this. Thanks for posting.
Prompts a question. There are some fairly large bodies of water on that map.
What happens if they land in there (apart from the splash, obviously)?
and in order to avoid that, is there any ability to steer (or even see where to steer to) flowing shoot deploy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_23
http://www.videocosmos.com/soyuz23.shtm
Wow, great story. Thanks for the reply. Shows how little I know.
|
|
|
|
TJL
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 12/05/2009 11:40 PM » |
|
Great map, Anik.
Speaking of Soyuz landings, prior to TMA 15, which was the last Soyuz to come to rest on its heat shield (not on its side)?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
hop
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 12/05/2009 11:50 PM » |
|
Great map, Anik.
Speaking of Soyuz landings, prior to TMA 15, which was the last Soyuz to come to rest on its heat shield (not on its side)?
Nitpick: TMA 15 landed upright, but the heat shield is jettisoned long before landing.
|
|
|
|
Gorizont
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 12/06/2009 07:46 AM » |
|
Great story of the Soyuz-23 landing! Thanks for that!
greetings...
Soeren
|
|
|
|
TJL
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 12/06/2009 08:21 PM » |
|
That's right...thanks for the correction, hop.
Do you happen to know which Soyuz prior to TMA-15 landed upright?
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 12/11/2010 08:23 PM » |
|
Just found this (one year later) and think it is terrific. Thank you.
Do you have a statistical analysis of the dispersion, the RMS offset?
The map shows the TMA-16 landing "pin" in or on a 3-5 km lake, but TM-23 landing marked in a field. Soyuz 23 was the one that landed in Lake Tengiz, but I see no pin on a lake marked Tengiz in Cyrillic in Google Maps. Am I mistaken?
Some target points are near the shores of various lakes. After Soyuz-23 one would think they would give wide margin to bodies of water.
|
|
|
|
hop
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 12/11/2010 10:39 PM » |
|
Here's the kmz file (as of Dec 11) converted to a CSV for anyone who's interested.
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 12/12/2010 02:48 AM » |
|
For interest I plotted differences between actual and planned landing positions (in km) for TM-12 to TM-34 and TMA-2 to TMA-19 (excluding outliers TMA-1, TMA-10 and TMA-11) , and also a quick histogram of distance between actual and planned. There is some interest in the SpaceX threads on this topic.
Excluding outliers (all in km):
average 13.1
minimum 2.7
maximum 49.7
median 9.6
stdev 10.1
Thanks to Anik for the original data, and Hop for providing it in easy to use form.
|
|
|
|
hop
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 12/12/2010 03:38 AM » |
|
Nice. Looks like ~5km SW "Kentucky windage" is in order 
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #14 on: 12/13/2010 02:53 AM » |
|
I have a very similar bar chart, AnalogMan.
The first plot is fascinating. They are mostly to the East, and preferentially to the North.
I might try to redo the second plot if, from the first plot, we assume a deterministic offset of 9 km East and 2 km North.
I noticed something odd in the data. Until TM-27, all data is in integral units of minutes of latitude and longitude. After that, the "planned" remain rounded but the "actuals" are usually in integral units of seconds of latitude and longitude. Sometimes they have more resolution than that, but for this calculation that doesn't matter. That is, the "planned" locations have random errors due to round-off, on the order of 1 km, with an expected value about half that.
I do not believe that this is significant to the statistics in question. Random single kilometers when most offsets are 10 km or over, should not matter. The minimum offset of 2.7 km is not due to round-off. However I am rusty on my stats and would appreciate correction by anyone who is not.
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #15 on: 12/13/2010 04:18 AM » |
|
I have a very similar bar chart, AnalogMan.
The first plot is fascinating. They are mostly to the East, and preferentially to the North. That's probably because the way the orbital track is lined up for deorbits. (going from south-west to north-east). This would seem to imply that most Soyuz landings overshoot their target.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 12/14/2010 08:45 PM » |
|
The map shows the TMA-16 landing "pin" in or on a 3-5 km lake, but TM-23 landing marked in a field. Soyuz 23 was the one that landed in Lake Tengiz, but I see no pin on a lake marked Tengiz in Cyrillic in Google Maps. Am I mistaken? Soyuz-23 and Soyuz TM-23 are different spacecrafts. I noticed something odd in the data. Until TM-27, all data is in integral units of minutes of latitude and longitude. After that, the "planned" remain rounded but the "actuals" are usually in integral units of seconds of latitude and longitude Planned coordinates are always given in rounded minutes. Actual coordinates can be rounded to minutes or have seconds - it depends on equipment used for determination of coordinates. Now we are using GPS data for determination so coordinates have seconds.
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 01/26/2011 10:34 PM » |
|
Soyuz-23 and Soyuz TM-23 are different spacecrafts.
My mistake. Target coordinates before TM-12, and either target or actual for most of the predeceding landings, are not available? Thanks again. This is great information.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 01/28/2011 09:17 AM » |
|
Target coordinates before TM-12, and either target or actual for most of the predeceding landings, are not available? Yes, all what I know is in the file.
|
|
|
|
simonbp
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 01/28/2011 06:56 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 03/16/2011 08:43 PM » |
|
How does the precision of today's landing of TMA-M compare to previous flights?
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 03/19/2011 10:22 AM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-M:
Planned point specified after undocking - 51°01' N, 67°13' E; 88 km N of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 51°02'54" N, 67°17'36" E; 93 km N of Arkalyk.
Overshoot - 6 km NE.
|
|
|
|
patchfree
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 03/19/2011 01:59 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-M:
Planned point specified after undocking - 51°01' N, 67°13' E; 88 km N of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 51°02'54" N, 67°17'36" E; 93 km N of Arkalyk.
Overshoot - 6 km NE.
Can this overshoot be explained by the high winds during the parachute phase or by the precision limits of the spacecraft guidance during the "gliding" phase?
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 03/19/2011 02:03 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-M:
Planned point specified after undocking - 51°01' N, 67°13' E; 88 km N of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 51°02'54" N, 67°17'36" E; 93 km N of Arkalyk.
Overshoot - 6 km NE.
I updated my scatter graph with this latest data point (marked in red) - click to enlarge.
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 05/24/2011 05:41 AM » |
|
Waiting for today's landing to be added to the database...
Looked really close to the ground observers, with little wind
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 06/23/2011 02:51 PM » |
|
Waiting for today's landing to be added to the database...
Looked really close to the ground observers, with little wind
Bump Are the target and actual coordinates available?
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 06/23/2011 05:15 PM » |
|
Are the target and actual coordinates available? 47°19' N, 69°35' E 47°21'57.84" N, 69°27'49.26" E
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 06/26/2011 10:38 AM » |
|
Are the target and actual coordinates available?
47°19' N, 69°35' E
47°21'57.84" N, 69°27'49.26" E
Updated my scatter graph with this latest data point for TMA-20 (marked in red) - click to enlarge.
|
|
|
|
NotGncDude
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 06/26/2011 08:34 PM » |
|
If I weren't so lazy I'd love to do a downrange-crossrange dispersion aligned with the ground track. You should expect to see much smaller crossrange error... should.
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 06/29/2011 08:31 PM » |
|
Are the target and actual coordinates available?
47°19' N, 69°35' E
47°21'57.84" N, 69°27'49.26" E
Thanks! I get a 9.8 km offset of actual from target. This is right around the median of all previous flights, although it lies in the otherwise unoccupied North-West quandrant of AnalogMan's graph. Was it unreasonable to expect the new digital control system to reduce the distance?
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #30 on: 06/29/2011 09:32 PM » |
|
Are the target and actual coordinates available?
47°19' N, 69°35' E
47°21'57.84" N, 69°27'49.26" E
Thanks!
I get a 9.8 km offset of actual from target. This is right around the median of all previous flights, although it lies in the otherwise unoccupied North-West quandrant of AnalogMan's graph. Was it unreasonable to expect the new digital control system to reduce the distance?
The new digital control system is only used on orbit; otherwise, the landing computer is the same one used by Soyuz TMA. Some day, the digital unit may be installed in the descent module. Some Day.
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #31 on: 06/30/2011 04:25 PM » |
|
Are the target and actual coordinates available?
47°19' N, 69°35' E
47°21'57.84" N, 69°27'49.26" E
Thanks!
I get a 9.8 km offset of actual from target. This is right around the median of all previous flights, although it lies in the otherwise unoccupied North-West quandrant of AnalogMan's graph. Was it unreasonable to expect the new digital control system to reduce the distance?
The new digital control system is only used on orbit; otherwise, the landing computer is the same one used by Soyuz TMA. Some day, the digital unit may be installed in the descent module. Some Day.
Thanks for the information. A better calculation (and a check on my arithmetic) yields 10.56 km, slightly above the median offset distance.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 09/16/2011 06:14 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-21:
Planned point specified after undocking - 47°18' N, 69°35' E; 151 km SE of Dzhezkazgan.
Actual point - 47°19'11.6" N, 69°30'06.8" E; 144 km SE of Dzhezkazgan.
Undershoot - 6.5 km NW.
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 09/16/2011 10:13 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-21:
Planned point specified after undocking - 47°18' N, 69°35' E; 151 km SE of Dzhezkazgan.
Actual point - 47°19'11.6" N, 69°30'06.8" E; 144 km SE of Dzhezkazgan.
Undershoot - 6.5 km NW.
Updated my scatter graph with Anik's latest data point for TMA-21 (marked in red) - click to enlarge
|
|
|
|
asdert
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 11/14/2011 02:13 PM » |
|
I noticed something odd in the data. Until TM-27, all data is in integral units of minutes of latitude and longitude. After that, the "planned" remain rounded but the "actuals" are usually in integral units of seconds of latitude and longitude
Planned coordinates are always given in rounded minutes. Actual coordinates can be rounded to minutes or have seconds - it depends on equipment used for determination of coordinates. Now we are using GPS data for determination so coordinates have seconds.
I wonder whether all coordinates are given in the same reference system. Google Maps uses WGS84, doesn't it? While modern GPS devices may be set to that reference, I guess that in the Soviet era they rather used the Pulkovo datum, but the given numbers don't suggest they have been converted to WGS84. Is the difference so small that it can be neglected? When calculating the landing error, the planned and the actual landing coordinates should be given in the same system, otherwise it makes no sense to calculate differences. What is the current official coordinate system in Russia and Kazachstan?
|
|
|
|
asdert
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 11/17/2011 12:18 PM » |
|
Is the difference so small that it can be neglected?
Okay, I think after some research and calculation I can answer my question myself: It looks like the difference between the Russian system and the International system is around 100 metres or 3 arc seconds in latitude. For the desert of Kazakhstan, this is quasi zero. When comparing planned to actual position, it is a rather small value that can be neglected, seen the precision of the input values.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 11/25/2011 06:01 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-02M:
Planned point specified after undocking - 51°03' N, 67°09' E; 90 km N of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 51°02'55.08" N, 67°11'03.54" E; 91 km N of Arkalyk.
Overshoot - 2.4 km E.
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 11/25/2011 11:47 PM » |
|
And my version of AnalogMan's plot showing TMA-02M to have the smallest miss distance yet. (TMA-02M in red)
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 05/10/2012 02:28 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-22:
Planned point - 51°01' N, 67°10' E; 88 km NE of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 50°57'20.4" N, 67°09'51.8" E; 80 km NE of Arkalyk.
7 km S.
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #39 on: 05/10/2012 07:56 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-22:
Planned point - 51°01' N, 67°10' E; 88 km NE of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 50°57'20.4" N, 67°09'51.8" E; 80 km NE of Arkalyk.
7 km S.
Updated my scatter graph with this latest data point (marked in red) - click to enlarge
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #40 on: 07/02/2012 04:40 PM » |
|
Anik: Do you have planned vs actual coordinates for TMA-03M ? There was a post on the Live thread by Chris Bergin saying "Digital Autopilot test". Is the deorbit and landing system a new digital system or a legacy analog system? (Apolgies if I am repeating a previous question, but this seems to go against my recollection.)
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #41 on: 07/02/2012 06:31 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-03M: Planned point - 47°18' N, 69°34' E; 150 km SE of Dzhezkazgan. Actual point - 47°20'56.3" N, 69°32'47.4" E; 146 km SE of Dzhezkazgan. 6 km N. There was a post on the Live thread by Chris Bergin saying "Digital Autopilot test" It means that Kononenko has tested RODK mode (manual orientation in digital contour) after undocking and it does not relate to deorbit and landing.
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 07/02/2012 06:45 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-03M:
Planned point - 47°18' N, 69°34' E; 150 km SE of Dzhezkazgan.
Actual point - 47°20'56.3" N, 69°32'47.4" E; 146 km SE of Dzhezkazgan.
6 km N.
Updated chart - latest landing marked in red (click image to enlarge). This landing has the smallest distance between planned and actual of all the spacecraft listed in the chart title.
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #43 on: 09/18/2012 05:09 AM » |
|
New landing, same request :-)
Anik: Do you have planned vs actual coordinates for TMA-04M ?
The English audio said "bull's eye landing." It sure looked like calm winds.
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #44 on: 09/18/2012 05:57 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-04M:
Planned point - 51°00' N, 67°14' E; 86 km NE of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 50°59'11.6" N, 67°15'22.2" E; 85 km NE of Arkalyk.
2 km SE.
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #45 on: 09/18/2012 06:27 PM » |
|
Updated chart - latest landing marked in red (click image to enlarge). This landing has the second smallest distance between planned and actual of all the spacecraft listed in the chart title.
EDIT: corrected coordinates on graph
|
|
|
|
patchfree
|
|
« Reply #46 on: 09/18/2012 10:01 PM » |
|
Updated chart - latest landing marked in red (click image to enlarge). This landing has the second smallest distance between planned and actual of all the spacecraft listed in the chart title.
It would be interesting to mark in red all the soyuz TMA-0XM landings to answer the question: is the new Soyuz series more precise? I think not because the landing accuracy is more related to winds the day of landing.
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 09/18/2012 10:36 PM » |
|
Updated chart - latest landing marked in red (click image to enlarge). This landing has the second smallest distance between planned and actual of all the spacecraft listed in the chart title.
It would be interesting to mark in red all the soyuz TMA-0XM landings to answer the question: is the new Soyuz series more precise?
I think not because the landing accuracy is more related to winds the day of landing.
Here you go (TMA-M TMA-02M TMA-03M & TMA-04M in red) EDIT: corrected coordinate of latest point
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 09/18/2012 10:53 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-04M:
Planned point - 51°00' N, 67°14' E; 86 km NE of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 50°59'11.6" N, 67°15'22.2" E; 85 km NE of Arkalyk.
2 km SE.
Updated chart - latest landing marked in red (click image to enlarge). This landing has the second smallest distance between planned and actual of all the spacecraft listed in the chart title. Anik said the offset was to the Southeast, but with almost no latitude (N-S) error. As I read your plot it shows the offset to the Northwest. Am I reading it wrong? Are you plotting in in a way that is intuitive to you but not to me? I also show this to be THE smallest offset, 2.2 km (with 1.1 km uncertainty due to the single arc-minute precision of the target). This is less than the previous minimum of 2.7 km I calculated for TM-14.
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #49 on: 09/18/2012 11:13 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-04M:
Planned point - 51°00' N, 67°14' E; 86 km NE of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 50°59'11.6" N, 67°15'22.2" E; 85 km NE of Arkalyk.
2 km SE.
Updated chart - latest landing marked in red (click image to enlarge). This landing has the second smallest distance between planned and actual of all the spacecraft listed in the chart title.
Anik said the offset was to the Southeast, but with almost no latitude (N-S) error. As I read your plot it shows the offset to the Northwest. Am I reading it wrong? Are you plotting in in a way that is intuitive to you but not to me?
I also show this to be THE smallest offset, 2.2 km (with 1.1 km uncertainty due to the single arc-minute precision of the target). This is less than the previous minimum of 2.7 km I calculated for TM-14.
My error - I pasted N & E values the wrong way around into my spreadsheet! Thanks for spotting. I also make this latest landing the nearest to its planned point after correcting. (I will correct my original posts)
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #50 on: 09/19/2012 12:18 AM » |
|
Thanks, AnalogMan. That makes sense now. However a real nit-picker would note that the azimuth of the offset is shown around 135 deg, but should be near 95 deg. Fortunately, we don't know any people THAT picky. With the second SpaceX COTS landing being roughly 8 km off target, and that not well established, their precisions and that for the new TMs is comparable.
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #51 on: 09/19/2012 11:25 AM » |
|
Thanks, AnalogMan. That makes sense now. However a real nit-picker would note that the azimuth of the offset is shown around 135 deg, but should be near 95 deg. Fortunately, we don't know any people THAT picky.
Not sure I understand your comments about the azimuth of the offset. From my spreadsheet offsets are 1.60 km East, -1.49 km North, giving a distance of 2.19 km and azimuth of 133.0 degrees. If I enter Anik's planned and actual landing coordinates in Google Earth and use the built-in ruler to measure between them, I get a distance of 2.19 km and a heading of 133.1 degrees. Where are you getting the 95 degrees from?
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 09/19/2012 02:32 PM » |
|
My mistake. Did the calculation in my head and got a difference backwards, 11.6" vs 48.4"
You are correct.
And I really like your graph. Here's my magnitude plot:
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 11/19/2012 11:10 PM » |
|
NASA post of an aerial shot of the Soyuz TMA-05M spacecraft shows what appears to be a huge skid mark. This suggests high winds. Do we have the landing offset, and was it much larger than the previous precise landing? PS I still have not seen a good number for SpaceX COTS-2+, or CRS-1 but saw a Twitter post that implies it was close: "If we keep landing this precisely, we're going to have to start issuing the recovery team titanium umbrellas. #Dragon"
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 11/23/2012 04:11 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-05M:
Planned point - 51°01' N, 67°12' E; 88 km NE of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 51°03'13.3" N, 67°08'24.6" E; 91 km NE of Arkalyk.
6 km NW.
|
|
|
|
jcm
|
|
« Reply #55 on: 11/23/2012 04:41 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-05M:
Planned point - 51°01' N, 67°12' E; 88 km NE of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 51°03'13.3" N, 67°08'24.6" E; 91 km NE of Arkalyk.
6 km NW.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 11/23/2012 07:05 PM » |
|
Here's my updated scatter graph using Anik's data. I've picked out the most recent landings in different colors (TMA-05M is in red). Click image to enlarge.
Despite all the talk of the late 'chute opening causing a less accurate landing, the data says otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 11/26/2012 08:59 PM » |
|
This 2010 post said: http://www.roscosmos.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=10734
"GLONASS/GPS navigation equipment will be installed on Russian crew vehicles Soyuz in 2012, Interfax informs.
The first GLONASS’ed Soyuz TMA-05M will fly in 2012. Navigation equipment will be located on the Soyuz descent capsule, with the aim to use it for defining landing coordinates.
The coordinates are further to be relayed for the MCC and rescue teams via KOSPAS-SARSAT, providing the opportunity to define landing spot and maintain crew rescue promptly.
Navigation equipment will be also introduced in the Soyuz GNC system in three years. This will help defining Soyuz orbital parameters and avoid using ground stations. "
The ground stations in question are those whose only function is to provide the Kama-N radar for orbital parameter determination. The voice/data/command stations will still be required." Was this in fact the case, and was the new system effective? The landing offset may have been the largest or the four TMA M series capsules. Is the Soyuz landing system now down the the fundamental limit of weather, where winds add more variance to the landing location than the control systems?
|
|
|
|
Lewis007
|
|
« Reply #58 on: 11/29/2012 04:26 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-05M:
Planned point - 51°01' N, 67°12' E; 88 km NE of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 51°03'13.3" N, 67°08'24.6" E; 91 km NE of Arkalyk.
6 km NW.
NASA's ISS on-orbit status report of Nov 19 gives different numbers: "the capsule landed at 51º01' N 67º09' E ... about 2 miles off-target, 87 km from Arkalyk" http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/reports/iss_reports/2012/11192012.htmlwhy the difference?
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 11/29/2012 06:38 PM » |
|
why the difference? 51º01' N, 67º09' E are planned coordinates before Soyuz TMA-05M undocking.
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #60 on: 03/18/2013 03:08 AM » |
|
Bump
Anyone know the offset for TMA-06M?
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #61 on: 03/21/2013 04:17 PM » |
|
Soyuz TMA-06M:
Planned point - 50°39' N, 67°21' E; 54 km NE of Arkalyk.
Actual point - 50°45'25" N, 67°20'32" E; 64 km NE of Arkalyk.
12 km N.
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #62 on: 03/21/2013 07:48 PM » |
|
Here's my updated scatter plot showing differences between planned and actual landing points. Latest landing is shown with red marker.
(click to enlarge)
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #63 on: 03/21/2013 08:17 PM » |
|
Neat
Here is a bar chart of the accuracies.
(Good values for Dragon are not available after COTS-1.)
|
|
|
|
Comga
|
|
« Reply #64 on: 05/16/2013 02:41 PM » |
|
Bump for TMA-07M
|
|
|
|
Lar
|
|
« Reply #65 on: 05/16/2013 03:37 PM » |
|
Silly question...
Why don't they adjust the planned landing points to account for the persistent skew in actuals to the NE?
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #67 on: 05/16/2013 04:55 PM » |
|
Updated scatter plot.
|
|
|
|
