Author Topic: Soyuz Q & A  (Read 42390 times)

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Soyuz Q & A
« on: 12/11/2009 09:10 PM »
I ran some numbers, and was surprised to find that the Soyuz launch vehicle is relatively insensitive to payload mass increases for very low orbits. By this I mean that if, for example, the mass of a Soyuz spacecraft were to be increased from the normal 7200 kg to, say, 8000 kg, with the resulting injection orbit accordingly lowered, the amount of propellant that the Soyuz spacecraft would have to use to make up the difference would be relatively trivial. This would result in an additional 800 kg of "free" payload (note that this works for Progress and Shenzhou, as well).

Let's assume that the initial orbit for Soyuz averages 220 km (its actually more like 190 x 245, which is significant and I will go into that shortly). What if added mass is provided to Soyuz so that it can't attain a 220 km orbit, but is instead only capable of reaching 185 km? For the Soyuz spacecraft to transfer from 185 km to 220, even with a total mass of 8000 kg, would cost 56 kg. Note that 56 kg cost results in 8000 kg additional payload mass.  Even taking into account that the additional 800 kg would then have to be transported from 220 km to the ISS 375 km orbit, the amount of prop expended for such maneuvers is relatively small.

Its turns out that the Shuttle launch architecture is pretty efficient at maximizing payload, and adds the safety feature that the OMS must work to get the Shuttle into a stable orbit; otherwise, if the Shuttle were injected into, say, a 220 x 220 km orbit, and the OMS were to fail to start, it would be a bit of wait for the Shuttle to get back to Earth (this is the case with Soyuz today, if the engines were to suffer infant mortality syndrome and not work at all, the Soyuz would require a decay time of at least half a week to get the crew back to Earth).

So, what if the Soyuz (assuming a mass of 8000 kg) were released from its launch vehicle some 50 m/s short of the current injection orbit? Once again, the amount of extra prop to get the Soyuz into the nominal orbit would be some 136 kg. Once that were burned, and Soyuz were back in a 220 km orbit, Soyuz would have a mass of 7864 kg, and the amount of prop to raise the orbit to ISS would only be about 235 kg.
In this case, prop would be very limited for maneuvers at ISS, which brings me to the next point: Soyuz could carry a rear prop tank, back where the ancient avionic torus tank used to be located. A rear prop tank would help considerably with controlability of Soyuz (with some additional 800 kg payload in the front); conversely, if this were not possible (due to lack of room in the back, or problems with a connecting a rear tank), another alternative would be to modernize the avionics compartment (ie empty it of all those ancient electronic) and put the resulting tiny boxes in the front (either the descent module or the orbital module) or simply shrink the compartment to the size of a shoebox, leaving an entire 2.2 wide area for an extra prop section behind the descent module.

If my math is correct, it would seem that Soyuz has enormous growth potential, if a new launch architecture were used, and if Soyuz electronics were modernized. In any event, significant electronics modernization that resulted in shrinkage of the avionics compartment mass would cause controlability problems even if nothing else were changed.

Now for the last point: using the 300 kg thrust Soyuz main engine for orbital injection rather than the launch vehicle final stage has another great benefit: as the Soyuz main engine burns prop at a lower rate than the rocket engine, the final orbit perigee would be much higher than in the current architecture, as the Soyuz rocket 3rd stage burns out about 190 km high (orbit perigee is a function of how high the vehicle is when the engines stop burning). This low perigee results in a very elliptical orbit, which is not a Good Thing. So, using the smaller Soyuz spacecraft engine for the final orbital burn would provide for a more circular injection orbit.

Last note on the Goodness of using the Soyuz main engine to achieve the initial orbit is that there is no reason not to utilize a higher initial orbit (since the Soyuz main engine can burn longer, and the fear of infant mortality syndrome sticking the crew into an orbit they can't get back from would not be a factor), so the Soyuz could be injected into say, a 250 km initial orbit, which would make tracking it from Russian territory during the early stages of flight much easier.

Having said all that, there are a boatload of technical issues, which is why this is in the Q & A:

A heavier Soyuz spacecraft would result in a slight movement of launch vehicle drop zones, to the west; how much I don't know. Its possible that the additional 800 kg would not affect the first and second stage drop zones much.

The Soyuz main engine would have to fire immediately upon separation from the 3rd stage, such a maneuver has been done, but only in a launch abort. I would imagine that its possible to program this burn with some confidence, but perhaps I am missing something. To wit:

to transfer from an injection trajectory some 20 m/s short of the current nominal orbit, the 300 kg Soyuz main engine (300 sec ISP) would have to burn for 20 seconds (someone here could do a sanity check on this calculation); if the burn were a few seconds short or long, or there was some start up delay, the result would still put the spacecraft into a functional orbit, and the likely dispersions are probably not that different from Soyuz launch vehicle dispersions for the nominal orbit anyway. However, the question of whether the Soyuz spacecraft has an adequate guidance system to "know" how long to burn, or to "know" if the launch vehicle under or overperformed, that is a good question. Without a "smart" flight computer with the appropriate sensors, its possible that the mission planners would have to rely on a simple timed burn for orbital injection (which begs the question as to how smart the Shuttle computers are, or whether the injection burn by OMS is simply pre-programmed).

In either architecture, the current one, or this alternative trajectory, Soyuz would conduct orbital trim burns on the 3rd/4th orbits to make up for any dispersions, and to get higher to avoid decay.

So apart from If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It, what the holes in this analysis?  Why doesn't Soyuz use the Shuttle launch architecture? Or Shenzhou?

« Last Edit: 12/11/2009 09:12 PM by Danderman »

AlexInOklahoma

• Full Member
• Posts: 177
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #1 on: 12/20/2009 05:12 PM »
A question concerning Soyuz launches and a listing of event sequences from today's 'Live Coverage' of TMA-17...

Regarding this portion: "L- 20 sec:   Ignition of 1st, 2nd stage engines at intermediate thrust level"

1st and 2nd stage is referring to the four 'boosters' as 1st and the inner 'core' as 2nd stage, right?  I see 'stages' named differently at different sites and am just clarifying terms used.  ~Same as saying Stage 0 and Stage 1 as well?  And the inner/centrally-located engine, which stays at ~'intermediate power' while boosters are lit (right?) becomes Stage Two (second Stage, per se) once the lateral boosters (and SAS 'abort things') are done/dropped and that inner engine *then* goes ~full-power, right?

Basically correct?  I searched around a bit and did not see anything specific on this, fwiw

Alex

Art LeBrun

• Photo freak
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2135
• Orange, California
• Liked: 22
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #2 on: 12/20/2009 05:26 PM »
A question concerning Soyuz launches and a listing of event sequences from today's 'Live Coverage' of TMA-17...

Regarding this portion: "L- 20 sec:   Ignition of 1st, 2nd stage engines at intermediate thrust level"

1st and 2nd stage is referring to the four 'boosters' as 1st and the inner 'core' as 2nd stage, right?  I see 'stages' named differently at different sites and am just clarifying terms used.  ~Same as saying Stage 0 and Stage 1 as well?  And the inner/centrally-located engine, which stays at ~'intermediate power' while boosters are lit (right?) becomes Stage Two (second Stage, per se) once the lateral boosters (and SAS 'abort things') are done/dropped and that inner engine *then* goes ~full-power, right?

Basically correct?  I searched around a bit and did not see anything specific on this, fwiw

Alex

The 4 strap ons are stage 1 and the center core is stage 2. I assume center core is at full thrust at liftoff since older technology did not ramp up thrust after liftoff.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

hop

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3327
• Liked: 464
• Likes Given: 816
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #3 on: 12/20/2009 07:03 PM »
Many details of the Soyuz engines, include a description of the start sequence can be found at http://www.lpre.de/energomash/RD-107/index.htm (in russian, but google translate gets the gist)

Unrelated but perhaps of interest, here's an image of the TMA control panel, found VIA one TJ Creamers twitter followers:
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/6874/soyuzinsidepanel.jpg

"there are 22 cmds, so e.g.: Jettison BO; open depress valve of BO; Separation; Shut down Orbital Engine, Depress, etc..."

Art LeBrun

• Photo freak
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2135
• Orange, California
• Liked: 22
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #4 on: 12/20/2009 07:47 PM »
Thanks for the 107/108 link. Unfortunately the ENG button does not work.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

hop

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3327
• Liked: 464
• Likes Given: 816
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #5 on: 12/20/2009 07:58 PM »
You can get the gist with http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lpre.de%2Fenergomash%2FRD-107%2Findex.htm&sl=ru&tl=en

If the whole page doesn't translate, hitting refresh seems to get more of it. Of course, machine translation leaves a lot to be desired:
"Vomit explosive bolts in the oxidizer valve (controlled by the contacts)."

Art LeBrun

• Photo freak
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2135
• Orange, California
• Liked: 22
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #6 on: 12/20/2009 08:10 PM »
That works much better. Thanks for your time.
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #7 on: 12/25/2009 06:32 PM »
Reading the Soyuz LV Users Guide for Kourou, I noticed that the Fregat orbital transponder operates at 2860 Mhz, whereas the Ariane V transmits at 2200 MHz. Since I doubt that the existing Ariane V ground stations can adapt to 2860 Mhz, does this mean that Fregat's orbit determination system will be modified to transmit at 2200 Mhz? Such a change may have significant ramifications for the future, since it would allow European, commercial and Russian orbit determination systems to be unified.

Jim

• Night Gator
• Senior Member
• Posts: 32428
• Cape Canaveral Spaceport
• Liked: 11172
• Likes Given: 331
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #8 on: 12/25/2009 07:22 PM »
Reading the Soyuz LV Users Guide for Kourou, I noticed that the Fregat orbital transponder operates at 2860 Mhz, whereas the Ariane V transmits at 2200 MHz. Since I doubt that the existing Ariane V ground stations can adapt to 2860 Mhz, does this mean that Fregat's orbit determination system will be modified to transmit at 2200 Mhz? Such a change may have significant ramifications for the future, since it would allow European, commercial and Russian orbit determination systems to be unified.

Ground stations are very adaptable.  The same stations support Atlas, Delta II, Pegasus, Ariane, etc.

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #9 on: 12/25/2009 08:53 PM »
Reading the Soyuz LV Users Guide for Kourou, I noticed that the Fregat orbital transponder operates at 2860 Mhz, whereas the Ariane V transmits at 2200 MHz. Since I doubt that the existing Ariane V ground stations can adapt to 2860 Mhz, does this mean that Fregat's orbit determination system will be modified to transmit at 2200 Mhz? Such a change may have significant ramifications for the future, since it would allow European, commercial and Russian orbit determination systems to be unified.

Ground stations are very adaptable.  The same stations support Atlas, Delta II, Pegasus, Ariane, etc.

All of the western LVs listed above have transponders operating at 2200 Mhz, whereas Soyuz Fregat operates at 2860 Mhz, so I am not sure if the adaptation by a ground station is that trivial or even possible, compared to adapting the Fregat transponder.  I'm not a radio guy, so I don't know which is the easiest approach.

NavySpaceFan

• Defender of All Things Nautical!!!
• Full Member
• Posts: 1002
• Norfolk, VA
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 1
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #10 on: 12/29/2009 01:06 PM »
Some questions re: Soyuz call signs, 1) when did the use of astronomical terms (Altair, Pulsar, etc.) start, 2) are they associated with a particular cosmonaut (I recall that Oleg Kotov used the same call sign during TMA-10 as he did during TMA-17), and 3) would the use of a name (i.e. GAGARIN or LEONOV) ever be considered?  Thanks!
<----First launch of DISCOVERY, STS-41D!!!!

Jim

• Night Gator
• Senior Member
• Posts: 32428
• Cape Canaveral Spaceport
• Liked: 11172
• Likes Given: 331
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #11 on: 12/29/2009 03:18 PM »

All of the western LVs listed above have transponders operating at 2200 Mhz, whereas Soyuz Fregat operates at 2860 Mhz, so I am not sure if the adaptation by a ground station is that trivial or even possible, compared to adapting the Fregat transponder.  I'm not a radio guy, so I don't know which is the easiest approach.

The various launch vehicles use various methods to downlink data, analog, digital, PCM, etc.  They are very adaptable.

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #12 on: 12/29/2009 06:43 PM »
The various launch vehicles use various methods to downlink data, analog, digital, PCM, etc.  They are very adaptable.

Most of the European ground stations that will be used for Soyuz LV launches use the Stella 43 antenna, which has a reception of 2200 - 2300 Mhz. I still don't know if the Fregat's transmission system will be revised to meet Stella 43 requirements, or exactly what is the plan.

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #13 on: 01/04/2010 05:32 PM »
I figured it out all by myself. Fregat carries multiple telemetry and radar transponder systems. For operations in relatively low Earth orbit, Fregat uses the standard S-band frequencies around 2200 - 2300 Mhz, compatible with the CNES tracking network. Once Fregat raises its orbit so that it is in view of RSA ground stations, it uses the Russian ~ 2800 Mhz frequency for tracking, up to about 8000 km altitude. After that, it seems to use GPS and a "satellite navigation receiver" for position location.

AFAIK, Fregat has no uplink command capability, so there is no receiver required at high altitudes.

Nicolas PILLET

• Member
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2272
• Gien, France
• Liked: 427
• Likes Given: 58
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #14 on: 02/11/2010 08:21 PM »
I have a question dealing with the Soyuz spacecraft.
In his book, translated by Asif Siddiqi, Boris Tchertok wrote a very interesting chapter on the Cosmos 133 mission (the very first flight of the Soyuz).

Page 606 :

Quote
Someone from among the thermal mode specialists came to the conclusion
that the hot jets of gas from the DPO nozzles would blow on the solar array
panels. They reported to Feoktistov. Without giving it much thought, he
proposed that they turn them on their support bracket 180 degrees about their
axis, so as not to undertake a complex modification of the spacecraft and look
for other sites to install the engines.

Do someone understand the past configuration of the DPO engines ? I don't understand how a 180°-turn could prevent the engines from damaging the solar panels ?

Thanks !
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

TJL

• Extreme Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1151
• Liked: 15
• Likes Given: 4
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #15 on: 02/24/2010 12:11 AM »
This September the new Soyuz TMA 01M is scheduled to fly on its first flight.

Why are they still flying the standard Soyuz TMA (20 and 21) after validating the new version, and once again (Soyuz TMA 22) after Soyuz TMA 02M?

Thank you.

anik

• Global Moderator
• Senior Member
• Posts: 7367
• Liked: 369
• Likes Given: 284
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #16 on: 02/24/2010 05:38 PM »
Why are they still flying the standard Soyuz TMA (20 and 21) after validating the new version, and once again (Soyuz TMA 22) after Soyuz TMA 02M?

Soyuz TMA-20 is back-up spacecraft for Soyuz TMA-01M. Soyuz TMA-22 is back-up spacecraft for Soyuz TMA-02M. As in past Progress M-66 was back-up cargo ship for Progress M-01M and Progress M-67 was back-up cargo ship for Progress M-02M. The first two flights of spacecrafts of new modifications are test flights, so there will be back-up spacecrafts.

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #17 on: 02/24/2010 06:09 PM »
To explain it a different way, the Russian practice with a new spacecraft variant is to fly the new modification, but then fly the old model a couple of times more, to give the designers a little time to evaluate the performance of the new model before committing the new model to being the new standard.

« Last Edit: 02/24/2010 06:09 PM by Danderman »

TJL

• Extreme Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1151
• Liked: 15
• Likes Given: 4
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #18 on: 03/10/2010 12:20 AM »
Was wondering why the back up crew for next months Soyuz TMA 18 crew is comprised of crew members of two different prime crews?

Nicolas PILLET

• Member
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2272
• Gien, France
• Liked: 427
• Likes Given: 58
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #19 on: 03/24/2010 08:22 PM »
Found in ISS Status Report of 18th march :

Quote
Tri-module separation occurred at 6:57am. 16 sec after the separation command, software pitched the PAO instrumentation/propulsion module in the rear to a specific angle (-78.5 deg from reference axis) which, if the PAO would have remained connected to the SA/Descent Module, would have resulted in enough heating on the connecting truss to melt it, thus ensuring separation.

Is it a new procedure, or an old one I did't know about ??
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

eeergo

• Phystronaut
• Global Moderator
• Senior Member
• Posts: 5093
• Milan, Italy; Spain; Japan
• Liked: 803
• Likes Given: 545
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #20 on: 03/24/2010 08:56 PM »
Found in ISS Status Report of 18th march :

Quote
Tri-module separation occurred at 6:57am. 16 sec after the separation command, software pitched the PAO instrumentation/propulsion module in the rear to a specific angle (-78.5 deg from reference axis) which, if the PAO would have remained connected to the SA/Descent Module, would have resulted in enough heating on the connecting truss to melt it, thus ensuring separation.

Is it a new procedure, or an old one I did't know about ??

It was put in place after the second-in-a-row ballistic descent in TMA-11. You probably remember it was due to incorrect separation of the PAO and the descent module, resulting in hatch-forward orientation of the reentry capsule. Now they do this so that, just in case the same problem happens again, aerodynamic forces help to solve it faster.
-DaviD-

Nicolas PILLET

• Member
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2272
• Gien, France
• Liked: 427
• Likes Given: 58
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #21 on: 05/11/2010 09:14 PM »
"Soyouz T" was 11F732.
"Soyouz TMA" is 11F732A17.

What was the complete official designation of "Soyouz TM" ?
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

anik

• Global Moderator
• Senior Member
• Posts: 7367
• Liked: 369
• Likes Given: 284
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #22 on: 05/12/2010 04:51 AM »
What was the complete official designation of "Soyouz TM"?

11F732A51.

hop

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3327
• Liked: 464
• Likes Given: 816
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #23 on: 05/16/2010 08:39 PM »
An interesting tidbit from http://www.lpre.de/energomash/RD-107/index.htm on Soyuz-U vs U2 (via google translate)
Quote
As a result of more stringent parameters of loading the engine using synthetic oil, engine 11D511PF should have greater margin of stability with respect to the HF oscillations.

From the experience of many years of mass production of engines was detected sensitivity stability margin of the working process in the cells on the mode of the main stage to violations in the manufacture of centrifugal two-component jets (as a rule - to violations in the manufacture of tangential holes in the jets) (see also Engines 14D22, 14D21 ).

For this reason, a series of chambers as a result of cold prolivok Water Samples of those who have hydraulic characteristics of the mixing head is in a range. Cameras are selected in such a way mixing heads used in the engine 11D511PF (RD-117PF).

By 1996, production of engines for the rocket Soyuz at the Plant Frunze in Samara have decreased significantly, making it impossible to select engines, capable of working on a synthetic fuel.

To continue the operation of the rocket Soyuz-U2 "it was necessary to either increase the level of manufacturing technology, or to conduct additional studies to clarify the nature of high-frequency vibrations and make appropriate modifications to the mixing head.
If I read this correctly, the U2 was more sensitive to combustion instability, and rather than actually making a "U2" engine, they cherry picked the most suitable injectors for U2. When production decreased, there wasn't enough to cherry pick from.

Nicolas PILLET

• Member
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2272
• Gien, France
• Liked: 427
• Likes Given: 58
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #24 on: 05/18/2010 09:31 PM »
What was the complete official designation of "Soyouz TM"?

11F732A51.

Thank you very much anik !
And do you know if Soyuz TM-16 had a special designation ?
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Chris Bergin

Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #25 on: 06/30/2012 06:06 PM »
Bump. Will use this for questions during Soyuz events.

Stan Black

• Senior Member
• Posts: 2905
• Liked: 136
• Likes Given: 104
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #26 on: 07/01/2012 03:49 PM »
What are the odds of a Soyuz landing upright?

Suzy

• Reality disappoints me
• Full Member
• Posts: 597
• Melbourne, Australia
• Liked: 3
• Likes Given: 44
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #27 on: 07/07/2012 03:28 AM »
A Soyuz parachute question I have been asked and have no idea about: are the main and reserve/backup parachutes stored in one compartment (with one hatch opening) or two? I have done some searching but can't come up with a clear answer or diagram! The screenshot below from "Soyuz: A Universal Spacecraft" shows only one hatch, but it looks like there is another on the side.

Zero-G

• Full Member
• Posts: 196
• Switzerland
• Liked: 7
• Likes Given: 17
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #28 on: 07/07/2012 12:15 PM »
A Soyuz parachute question I have been asked and have no idea about: are the main and reserve/backup parachutes stored in one compartment (with one hatch opening) or two? I have done some searching but can't come up with a clear answer or diagram! The screenshot below from "Soyuz: A Universal Spacecraft" shows only one hatch, but it looks like there is another on the side.

Main and backup parachutes are stored in two separate compartments. Each compartment has its own hatch. The left parachute is the main, the right one is the backup.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2012 12:16 PM by Zero-G »
"I still don't understand who I am: the first human or the last dog in space." - Yuri Gagarin

Nicolas PILLET

• Member
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2272
• Gien, France
• Liked: 427
• Likes Given: 58
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #29 on: 07/07/2012 12:48 PM »
On pictures like these, you can see clearly where is the main parachute compartiment (open) and where is the backup one (closed).

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/soyouz/visite/reels/30/30.html
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Stan Black

• Senior Member
• Posts: 2905
• Liked: 136
• Likes Given: 104
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #30 on: 07/07/2012 12:49 PM »
On pictures like these, you can see clearly where is the main parachute compartiment (open) and where is the backup one (closed).

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/soyouz/visite/reels/30/30.html

And on Zond; the hole was used for the entry hatch?
« Last Edit: 07/07/2012 12:52 PM by Stan Black »

pat Whitaker

• Member
• Posts: 2
• Wellington, New Zealand
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #31 on: 07/07/2012 10:31 PM »
A Soyuz parachute question I have been asked and have no idea about: are the main and reserve/backup parachutes stored in one compartment (with one hatch opening) or two? I have done some searching but can't come up with a clear answer or diagram! The screenshot below from "Soyuz: A Universal Spacecraft" shows only one hatch, but it looks like there is another on the side.

Main and backup parachutes are stored in two separate compartments. Each compartment has its own hatch. The left parachute is the main, the right one is the backup.

The original question relates to this image (and plenty of others like it).

http://cryptome.org/info/soyuz-tma19/pict17.jpg

The main 'chute (and it's drogue and braking 'chute have obviously been deployed, and the cover of the backup 'chute is in place, so what is the apparent packed 'chute still in the parachute compartment?

JayP

• Member
• Full Member
• Posts: 788
• Liked: 2
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #32 on: 07/08/2012 02:12 AM »
A Soyuz parachute question I have been asked and have no idea about: are the main and reserve/backup parachutes stored in one compartment (with one hatch opening) or two? I have done some searching but can't come up with a clear answer or diagram! The screenshot below from "Soyuz: A Universal Spacecraft" shows only one hatch, but it looks like there is another on the side.

Main and backup parachutes are stored in two separate compartments. Each compartment has its own hatch. The left parachute is the main, the right one is the backup.

The original question relates to this image (and plenty of others like it).

http://cryptome.org/info/soyuz-tma19/pict17.jpg

The main 'chute (and it's drogue and braking 'chute have obviously been deployed, and the cover of the backup 'chute is in place, so what is the apparent packed 'chute still in the parachute compartment?

That is not a parachute pack. It is a ballon that is inflated to help force the cute's deployment bag out of the compartment.

pat Whitaker

• Member
• Posts: 2
• Wellington, New Zealand
• Liked: 0
• Likes Given: 0
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #33 on: 07/08/2012 10:42 PM »

That is not a parachute pack. It is a ballon that is inflated to help force the cute's deployment bag out of the compartment.
[/quote]

Thanks Jay, that makes sense,as there didn't really seem to be enough room left for the 'chutes.

Zero-G

• Full Member
• Posts: 196
• Switzerland
• Liked: 7
• Likes Given: 17
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #34 on: 07/15/2012 05:50 PM »
What is the purpose and function of the blue stick with the handgrip on top, which is installed on the "Kazbek" seats in the Soyuz descent module? (see first two photos)
There is one of these blue sticks on every seat, but they don't seem to be linked together. (see last photo I made of one of the Soyuz sims at TsPK)
"I still don't understand who I am: the first human or the last dog in space." - Yuri Gagarin

Jim

• Night Gator
• Senior Member
• Posts: 32428
• Cape Canaveral Spaceport
• Liked: 11172
• Likes Given: 331
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #35 on: 07/15/2012 05:59 PM »
PTT button

Kyra's kosmos

• Full Member
• Posts: 110
• Liked: 26
• Likes Given: 14
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #36 on: 07/15/2012 08:27 PM »
What is the purpose and function of the blue stick with the handgrip on top, which is installed on the "Kazbek" seats in the Soyuz descent module? (see first two photos)
There is one of these blue sticks on every seat, but they don't seem to be linked together. (see last photo I made of one of the Soyuz sims at TsPK)

ZG, While youre asking, theres another crucial accessory control (rarely seen) to be aware of: The Manual Descent Controller. (If you know of it just ignore this)
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/vehicles/soyuz/descent.asp
Credit: Originally posted by Chris Hadfield

« Last Edit: 07/15/2012 08:32 PM by Kyra's kosmos »

Zero-G

• Full Member
• Posts: 196
• Switzerland
• Liked: 7
• Likes Given: 17
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #37 on: 07/16/2012 01:16 PM »
PTT button

So, the only purpose of these sticks is to provide a place within reach of each crewmember where the PTT buttons can be mounted?

ZG, While youre asking, theres another crucial accessory control (rarely seen) to be aware of: The Manual Descent Controller. (If you know of it just ignore this)
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/vehicles/soyuz/descent.asp
Credit: Originally posted by Chris Hadfield

Thanks for your post. I was aware of the Manual Descent Controller, but have never seen one in reality. This leads me to another question: If it needs to be used, can it be attached somewhere for the time of the descent? Maybe to one of the blue sticks I mentioned above? (I figure the Controller is stowed away somewhere during the mission until reentry.)
I imagine that it could be quite difficult to hold on to it with the Sokol suit's gloves, while experiencing some Gs. It must be even more difficult in a scenario where the suit is pressurized for whatever reason. And I am sure you don't want to drop your only means of control during a manual descent of your spacecraft.
« Last Edit: 07/16/2012 01:37 PM by Zero-G »
"I still don't understand who I am: the first human or the last dog in space." - Yuri Gagarin

TJL

• Extreme Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1151
• Liked: 15
• Likes Given: 4
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #38 on: 07/22/2012 05:58 PM »
I'm not sure if this question has been asked before....it's a well known fact that the ride back to Earth in Soyuz has been paraphrased by some as being "pretty wild".

I've never heard those type of remarks from astronauts that flew on Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft.

Not including the actual touchdown, was the entry of the U.S. spacecraft much smoother than Soyuz, and if so...why?
« Last Edit: 07/22/2012 07:45 PM by TJL »

zt

• Member
• Posts: 89
• Liked: 10
• Likes Given: 17
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #39 on: 07/22/2012 08:35 PM »
Without any specific knowledge, I guess the times were more patriotic and the astronauts had not flown in Shuttle, so had nothing else (orbital) to compare against. I see no reason why Soyuz is worse than other capsules designed in the 1960s. Americans who have flown in Soyuz have also flown in Shuttle and so compare it to Shuttle which has a nicer landing, though supposedly shakier launch. What did John Glenn say about his two flights?

brahmanknight

• I don't have all the right answers, but I do have all the right questions
• Full Member
• Posts: 688
• Liked: 9
• Likes Given: 99
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #40 on: 03/04/2014 02:20 PM »
Why does the Soyuz undock from the ISS only when the station has changed attitude from Node 2 in the velocity direction to the Soyuz releasing in retrograde?

Nicolas PILLET

• Member
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2272
• Gien, France
• Liked: 427
• Likes Given: 58
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #41 on: 03/04/2014 06:59 PM »
I've just realized that EVERY Soyuz spaceships make a deorbit burn with Delta-V = 115,2m/s.

On the Soyuz Crew Operations Manual, available on L2, this value is also quoted.

But I don't understand why the Delta-V does NOT depends on the altitude of the orbit at the moment of the deorbit burn ?
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

anik

• Global Moderator
• Senior Member
• Posts: 7367
• Liked: 369
• Likes Given: 284
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #42 on: 03/04/2014 07:33 PM »
I've just realized that EVERY Soyuz spaceships make a deorbit burn with Delta-V = 115,2m/s

Soyuz TMA-09M - 128 m/s
Soyuz TMA-08M - 128 m/s
Soyuz TMA-07M - 128 m/s
Soyuz TMA-06M - 128 m/s
Soyuz TMA-05M - 128 m/s
Soyuz TMA-04M - 115 m/s
Soyuz TMA-03M - 115 m/s

Nicolas PILLET

• Member
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2272
• Gien, France
• Liked: 427
• Likes Given: 58
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #43 on: 03/04/2014 08:19 PM »
I've just realized that EVERY Soyuz spaceships make a deorbit burn with Delta-V = 115,2m/s

Soyuz TMA-09M - 128 m/s
Soyuz TMA-08M - 128 m/s
Soyuz TMA-07M - 128 m/s
Soyuz TMA-06M - 128 m/s
Soyuz TMA-05M - 128 m/s
Soyuz TMA-04M - 115 m/s
Soyuz TMA-03M - 115 m/s

OK, I was not correct ! :-)

But it is still very strange to me that the dV is so constant, given each of these spaceships had different orbits !
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

TJL

• Extreme Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1151
• Liked: 15
• Likes Given: 4
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #44 on: 05/28/2014 11:03 PM »
Of the four previous Soyuz spacecraft (TMA 8, TMA 9, TMA 10, and TMA 11) that docked with ISS on the 4th orbit, which flight holds the record for the quickest docking...hours / minutes MET?
Thank you!

anik

• Global Moderator
• Senior Member
• Posts: 7367
• Liked: 369
• Likes Given: 284
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #45 on: 05/29/2014 02:21 AM »
TMA-08M: 5h 44m 56s
TMA-09M: 5h 39m 00s
TMA-10M: 5h 46m 32s
TMA-11M: 6h 13m 37s
TMA-13M: 5h 46m 21s

TJL

• Extreme Veteran
• Full Member
• Posts: 1151
• Liked: 15
• Likes Given: 4
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #46 on: 05/29/2014 10:20 PM »
Excellent...thanks, Anik!

Nicolas PILLET

• Member
• Senior Member
• Posts: 2272
• Gien, France
• Liked: 427
• Likes Given: 58
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #47 on: 07/20/2014 08:25 PM »
In 1997, starting with Soyuz TM-25, the gyrostabilized AS-VKA antenna of Kurs system was replaced by 1ASF antenna, for mass savings.

But, today, Soyuz TMA-M spaceships have AS-VKA again. Do we know when they were put back in operation ?
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

OV135

• Full Member
• Posts: 221
• Liked: 11
• Likes Given: 1
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #48 on: 08/02/2014 10:11 PM »
Anyone have diagrams of the TMA flight instrument panel? I'm curious on how much the real thing matches the movie Gravity.

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #49 on: 01/19/2016 10:21 PM »
Anyone have diagrams of the TMA flight instrument panel? I'm curious on how much the real thing matches the movie Gravity.

Probably in L2.

ZachS09

Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #50 on: 02/24/2016 07:21 PM »

Why do nearly all of the ISS Soyuz launches take place at night? I mean, compared to the Space Shuttle, the lighting conditions for all logged flights are the opposite; the Shuttle launched more during the day (100 as opposed to 35 night launches).
« Last Edit: 08/07/2016 04:59 PM by longdrivechampion102 »
Because the Falcon Heavy Test Flight was successful, it has inspired thousands of people to consider changing the future of space travel.

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #51 on: 03/07/2016 11:21 AM »

Why do nearly all of the ISS Soyuz launches take place at night? I mean, compared to the Space Shuttle, the lighting conditions for all logged flights are the opposite; the Shuttle launched more during the day (99 as opposed to 36 night launches).

Launch time is a function of payload requirements.

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #52 on: 03/07/2016 03:41 PM »
And now for something different:

this is a short animation showing the nominal maneuver of the upper stage after separation of the Progress payload, as developed by the designers of the Soyuz rocket.  The movement is generated by some sort of gas system.

Stan Black

• Senior Member
• Posts: 2905
• Liked: 136
• Likes Given: 104
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #53 on: 03/10/2016 08:19 AM »
And now for something different:

this is a short animation showing the nominal maneuver of the upper stage after separation of the Progress payload, as developed by the designers of the Soyuz rocket.  The movement is generated by some sort of gas system.

You can see the pipe in this picture. It is used to vent the oxygen tank.
http://www.roscosmos.ru/media/gallery/big/22014/177239996.jpg

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33868.msg1180079#msg1180079

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #54 on: 03/10/2016 12:05 PM »
Which is the pipe? Are those things wrapped in silver plastic telemetry antennas?

Stan Black

• Senior Member
• Posts: 2905
• Liked: 136
• Likes Given: 104
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #55 on: 03/10/2016 07:45 PM »
Which is the pipe? Are those things wrapped in silver plastic telemetry antennas?

See page 16…
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17286.msg732670#msg732670

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #56 on: 03/11/2016 02:16 PM »
When the Soyuz rocket is mated to the Volga upper stage, the connecting ring between them is called SZB "standard payload section" by RussianSpaceWeb:

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

A similar item on Soyuz is called the "launch vehicle transfer compartment" when integrated with Progress or Soyuz spacecraft:

http://inspaceforum.ru/en/post/roscosmos-transfer-compartment-was-docked-with-sc-soyuz-tma-19m

Are the different terms for the same type of hardware simply a function of two different companies doing the processing (TsSKB vs RSC Energia) or are these adapter rings really that different?

« Last Edit: 03/11/2016 02:33 PM by Danderman »

Stan Black

• Senior Member
• Posts: 2905
• Liked: 136
• Likes Given: 104
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #57 on: 03/11/2016 02:59 PM »
When the Soyuz rocket is mated to the Volga upper stage, the connecting ring between them is called SZB "standard payload section" by RussianSpaceWeb:

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

A similar item on Soyuz is called the "launch vehicle transfer compartment" when integrated with Progress or Soyuz spacecraft:

http://inspaceforum.ru/en/post/roscosmos-transfer-compartment-was-docked-with-sc-soyuz-tma-19m

Are the different terms for the same type of hardware simply a function of two different companies doing the processing (TsSKB vs RSC Energia) or are these adapter rings really that different?

SZB is the combination of transfer compartment PKhO and fairing GO

Quote
Сборочно-защитный блок (СЗБ) предназначен для обеспечения защиты КА от воздействия внешней атмосферы и тепловых потоков и для сопряжения КА с РН. В состав СЗБ входят головной обтекатель (ГО) и переходной отсек (ПхО). Для запусков КА с помощью РН «Союз-2» в составе СЗБ планируется использование штатного ГО 11С529, массой 1050 кг и штатного ПхО массой 220 кг.Вместе с тем, в случае выведения КА с помощью РН «Союз-2» (этапа разработки «1б») в составе СЗБ может использоваться унифицированный ГО 14С74 массой 2100 кг и ПхО массой 350 кг.

Quote
борочно-защитный блок (СЗБ) в составе головного обтекателя (ГО) и переходного отсека, (ГО изготавливается по разделу II ФКПР-2015). Для выведения КА «Ресурс-П» № 2  используется сборочно-защитный блок 196КС, включающий головной обтекатель (ГО) 81КС диаметром 4,11м, c необходимой доработкой;

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #58 on: 03/11/2016 04:29 PM »

Quote
Сборочно-защитный блок (СЗБ) предназначен для обеспечения защиты КА от воздействия внешней атмосферы и тепловых потоков и для сопряжения КА с РН. В состав СЗБ входят головной обтекатель (ГО) и переходной отсек (ПхО). Для запусков КА с помощью РН «Союз-2» в составе СЗБ планируется использование штатного ГО 11С529, массой 1050 кг и штатного ПхО массой 220 кг.   Вместе с тем, в случае выведения КА с помощью РН «Союз-2» (этапа разработки «1б») в составе СЗБ может использоваться унифицированный ГО 14С74 массой 2100 кг и ПхО массой 350 кг.

What this tells us that is that during development of Soyuz 2-1b, there were versions of the payload fairing and transfer compartment that were much heavier than the standard units. Perhaps these were heavier due to requirements to maintain drop zones for the rocket consistent with Soyuz-U.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2016 04:30 PM by Danderman »

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #59 on: 03/11/2016 08:08 PM »
The whole interstage (a/k/a transfer compartment) issue is new to me; apparently, the interstage is the responsibility of either the payload provider or the upper stage provider. So, RSC Energia seems to provide the transfer compartment for Progress and Soyuz, whereas Lavochkin handles the interstage for launches using Fregat, and TsSKB for launches using their payloads.

It would be interesting to see the index numbers for the interstages, and also if there are any other providers besides those mentioned above.

Stan Black

• Senior Member
• Posts: 2905
• Liked: 136
• Likes Given: 104
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #60 on: 03/11/2016 09:17 PM »
The whole interstage (a/k/a transfer compartment) issue is new to me; apparently, the interstage is the responsibility of either the payload provider or the upper stage provider. So, RSC Energia seems to provide the transfer compartment for Progress and Soyuz, whereas Lavochkin handles the interstage for launches using Fregat, and TsSKB for launches using their payloads.

It would be interesting to see the index numbers for the interstages, and also if there are any other providers besides those mentioned above.

For Progress and Soyuz spacecraft the PKhO comes from RKTs-Progress, who also produce the Soyuz rocket and fairing too. (So confusing having satellites and factories and rockets all with the same name!) Same also for Resurs-P, Bars-M, Lotos-S, Pion-NKS. Note that an SZB is ordered for these satellites,
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17286.msg1500874#msg1500874

Lavochkin produce the Fregat upper stage, and it comes with a PKhO. They also produce the narrower fairings used with the Fregat.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15064.msg1394949#msg1394949

The 81КС is the large ST-type fairing which is based on article 14С738, the Persona fairing. It is used with the Fregat and is produced by RKTs-Progress.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17286.msg1500874#msg1500874

Now to launch Resurs-P № 2 on a Soyuz, it was decided to use the larger 81КС fairing. As that launch did not require a Fregat, which would have come with a PKhO, RKTs-Progress supplied one instead. It was referred to as 196КС.
http://www.samaratoday.ru/img/2014/12/KA-Resurs-P-2.jpg
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24942.msg1502258#msg1502258

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #61 on: 03/11/2016 10:54 PM »
Even within these companies, the masses of the transfer compartments must differ between classes of payloads. For example, the transfer compartment used on the 2 ton Soyuz 2-1V and the Volga stage/Kanopus ST must be much lighter than the transfer compartment used on the Soyuz 2-1B and the Volga stage for the Lomonsov spacecraft.

Finding the index numbers of these transfer compartments might be informative about the nature of the payload for some launches.

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #62 on: 03/12/2016 05:14 PM »

Now to launch Resurs-P № 2 on a Soyuz, it was decided to use the larger 81КС fairing. As that launch did not require a Fregat, which would have come with a PKhO, RKTs-Progress supplied one instead. It was referred to as 196КС.

Also, according to the NK Forum:

196КС - переходный отсек (ПхО) РН "Союз-2" для КА "Ресурс-П"

http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum14/topic12755/

In the samspace.xls file posted here some time ago, I found this:

Выдача заключения  по статической прочности БВ "Волга" и ПхО 98 КС

which is another index number for another ПхО.

"98KC" appears in another thread here in regards to the launcher for Kanopus-ST, so I am assuming that this is a light weight version of the ПхО.

At this site:

http://www.tenderguru.ru/planzakup_info_new.php?id=155593773

there is a tender called:

Выдача заключения о статической прочности изделия 218КС с БВ "Волга" и ПхО 220КС о допуске летным испытаниям

which refers to ПхО 220КС, yet another index number for one of these, used with Volga.

and then, as Stan pointed out, we have

http://docs.cntd.ru/document/901941098

with the statement:

Для КА 11Ф695М в составе РН "Союз-2" предусматривается использование СЗБ типа СЗБ 14С74 с диаметром ГО - 3,7 м и длиной ГО - 10,7 м. СЗБ 14С74 разрабатывается как вновь унифицированный для использования его в составе РН "Союз-2" с КА различного назначения. Масса ГО 14С74 составляет 2100 кг, масса ПхО - 350 кг.

which lists an unknown PxO as having a mass of 350 kg for this version of the Kobalt-M spacecraft.

« Last Edit: 03/12/2016 05:21 PM by Danderman »

Stan Black

• Senior Member
• Posts: 2905
• Liked: 136
• Likes Given: 104

Danderman

• Extreme Veteran
• Senior Member
• Posts: 9635
• Liked: 365
• Likes Given: 464
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #64 on: 03/12/2016 10:59 PM »
It is possible 196КС is a complete SZB too; it includes an 81КС GO.
http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum14/topic12755/message1316921/#message1316921

I think 81КС is just the GO.

Here is the verbiage for the above link:

Quote
По Договору застраховано следующее имущество: Головной обтекатель 81 КС (ГО 48/134) и Переходный отсек 196КС (ПхО 48/134) для КА "Ресурс-П" №2. (далее по тексту ГО 48/134 и ПхО 48/134 -"Груз") .

It's pretty explicit that 81KC is the fairing and 196KC is the PxO.  For whatever reason, the PxO is given a factory number of 48/134, same as the payload fairing.

The index numbering system for the PxO seems inconsistent.

« Last Edit: 03/12/2016 11:17 PM by Danderman »

Stan Black

• Senior Member
• Posts: 2905
• Liked: 136
• Likes Given: 104
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #65 on: 03/18/2016 06:41 AM »

alvie90s

• Member
• Posts: 3
• CMX-Baikonur
• Guatemala
• Liked: 1
• Likes Given: 2
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #66 on: 03/29/2017 02:11 AM »
Hello everyone,

Can you please tell me what Mission is this one (shown on the video) and when exactly occurred please. Thanks in advance.

Olaf

• Full Member
• Posts: 1591
• Germany
• Liked: 446
• Likes Given: 218
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #67 on: 03/29/2017 07:38 AM »
This was the launch of Soyuz TM-31 with the first Expedition Crew to the ISS on October, 31 2000.

alvie90s

• Member
• Posts: 3
• CMX-Baikonur
• Guatemala
• Liked: 1
• Likes Given: 2
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #68 on: 03/29/2017 01:47 PM »
You're great thanks! hey is there like a better video Quality for this mission? if yes can you share it please.

whitelancer64

Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #69 on: 04/11/2017 01:51 PM »
Does anyone know - is Soyuz' parachute reused?
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

DatUser14

• Full Member
• Posts: 495
• Liked: 119
• Likes Given: 418
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #70 on: 04/20/2017 01:14 PM »
Is there an Annotated image of what all the numbers mean on the HUD during docking? http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41705.0;attach=1422859;sess=45605
Titan IVB was a cool rocket

DatUser14

• Full Member
• Posts: 495
• Liked: 119
• Likes Given: 418
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #71 on: 09/11/2017 06:03 PM »
Not the best thread for this, but I didn't want to necrobump.

How can the baikonour range support launches by two different vehicle types on consecutive days?
Titan IVB was a cool rocket

Paper Kosmonaut

• Full Member
• Posts: 117
• Grunn NL
• Liked: 28
• Likes Given: 4
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #72 on: 09/15/2017 06:32 PM »
Another question: When a Soyuz capsule has landed, depending on whether the capsule is upright or on its side, an antenna/beacon pops out from a canister inside the hull of the spacecraft. It kind of looks a little like sturdy fly paper, and clearly looks like it isn't meant to be folded inward again when the salvage crew take over.
Is the antenna section (pointy bit and electronics) removed on location before it is hoisted onto one of the Zil 4906 crane vehicles? Or do they just cut off the pointy bit?

(I'm working on a 1/25 scale model of the Zil 4906 with a Soyuz capsule on its deck)
PK - dei t dut mout t waiten!

envy887

• Senior Member
• Posts: 4633
• Liked: 2553
• Likes Given: 1398
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #73 on: 09/19/2017 06:00 PM »
Not the best thread for this, but I didn't want to necrobump.

How can the baikonour range support launches by two different vehicle types on consecutive days?

Probably a heritage requirement from the soviet days.

If you're wondering why Baikonour can support this and the Cape cannot... it was never a requirement for the Cape.

penguin44

• Member
• Member
• Posts: 96
• Liked: 4
• Likes Given: 71
Re: Soyuz Q & A
« Reply #74 on: 10/17/2018 05:26 AM »
Sorry to necro this thread but I had a question about the soyuz and the boosters after the latest incident. Didn't think it belonged in the failure thread. Question. Why do the boosters separate bottom first? Would it not make sense to separate them like a traditional booster?

Tags: