|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #90 on: 10/27/2006 11:18 AM » |
|
From the ISS point of view, STS-88 was 1A. Since NTV was covering the Progress mission from the ISS POV, it is 23P.
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #91 on: 10/27/2006 12:24 PM » |
|
Jim - 27/10/2006 6:01 AM
From the ISS point of view, STS-88 was 1A. Since NTV was covering the Progress mission from the ISS POV, it is 23P. Jim, you are correct in what you are saying but in the ISS point of view. But you cannot ignore the fact that the REAL name, the REAL designation of the Progress is Progress M-58. Of course that for us that is not confusing because we know that ISS-23P refers to Progress mission 23 on the ISS program. But this can be confusing for someone that is not all aware of this kind of designations. And you also know that the media sometimes uses this ISS designations like if it was the real name given by the owners of the vehicle. This conversation was about the REAL name of the vehicle, not the name taking into account some point of view related to some program (sometimes it looks like the ISS program is a US domestic program only, when you use that kind of designations). If NTV wants to use this designations it's okay, but I think they should comment the fact that it is a ISS designation to not confuse the public. It's almost the same about the ISS designation. Why sometimes is used the Alpha designation for the ISS? Beta was more appropriate...
|
|
|
|
SpacemanSpiff
|
|
« Reply #92 on: 10/27/2006 03:24 PM » |
|
Jim, what is your problem? Half your posts are a waste of bandwidth. I don't think I'm alone in that opinion. I'm not going argue about your 'clarification', but it didn't add anything to the discussion.
Have a nice day...
|
|
|
|
SpacemanSpiff
|
|
« Reply #93 on: 10/27/2006 03:27 PM » |
|
Danderman, well it is certainly being pursued. Care to share any information about why you can't 'buy' one of these systems? I bet you told someone years ago that an American couldn't buy a Russian launch, or a Russian life support system; both have been achieved and more that I'm not aware of...
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #94 on: 10/27/2006 03:44 PM » |
|
SpacemanSpiff - 27/10/2006 11:07 AM
Jim, what is your problem? Half your posts are a waste of bandwidth. I don't think I'm alone in that opinion. I'm not going argue about your 'clarification', but it didn't add anything to the discussion.
Have a nice day... Then my other 2400 posts must be worth something Username Rank Location Posts 1 Chris Bergin NSF Managing Editor York, England 11521 2 Jim Actually, I am a rocket scientist FL 4841 3 Avron .- ...- .-. --- -. Toronto, Canada 2248
|
|
|
|
nathan.moeller
|
|
« Reply #95 on: 10/27/2006 04:47 PM » |
|
Jim - 27/10/2006 6:01 AM
From the ISS point of view, STS-88 was 1A. Since NTV was covering the Progress mission from the ISS POV, it is 23P. Not to get nit-picky but wasn't STS-88 2A? Every manifest I've ever read listed the flight as 2A, not 1A. I know for a fact the Zarya launch was designated "1A/R" in that it was a U.S. module launched by the Russians (or so I've read). So instead of having "1A" for STS-88 they went ahead and named it "2A" to avoid confusion. So the jist I'm getting from the thread now is that the correct designation for Progress 23 is actually Progress 23P?
|
|
|
|
jacqmans
|
|
« Reply #96 on: 10/27/2006 04:49 PM » |
|
http://www.roscosmos.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=190427-10-2006 "progress M-58" moored to S On 26 October, 2006, 18 it is hour 28 minutes 46 seconds of Moscow time (14:28.46 gmt) it is realized docking automatic cargo spacecraft "progress M-58" with the international space station (S). Space truck moored to the attachment point in the service module of module "star". However, after mechanical connection in the retraction of ship and station contingency situation arose and process was stopped. After the analysis of the prevailing situation the repeated tightening, which was successfully completed by the airtight jointing of automatic spacecraft, is carry ouied. Specialists TSUP and crew S acted in the contingency situation competently and it is confident. Into the composition of the 14th crew S enter Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Turin, American astronaut maykl Lopez -Alegri4, and also European astronaut Thomas rayter.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #97 on: 10/27/2006 04:51 PM » |
|
SpacemanSpiff - 27/10/2006 8:10 AM
Danderman, well it is certainly being pursued. Care to share any information about why you can't 'buy' one of these systems? I bet you told someone years ago that an American couldn't buy a Russian launch, or a Russian life support system; both have been achieved and more that I'm not aware of... Perhaps we could take this offline, send me email at: davida@cwo.com
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #98 on: 10/27/2006 10:52 PM » |
|
nathan.moeller - 27/10/2006 11:30 AM
So the jist I'm getting from the thread now is that the correct designation for Progress 23 is actually Progress 23P? ... that is correct if you are talking about the ISS Program. Progress 23 was launched on August 14th 1984 to the Salyut-7 space station. "Progress 23P" is an invention of the people that is preparing ISS documentation and it refers to Progress M-58. This spacecraft was used for mission ISS-23P, that is the 23rd Progress to be launched on the ISS program.
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #99 on: 10/27/2006 10:59 PM » |
|
As Anik says, isn't this article 11F615A55, number 358?
|
|
|
|
Suzy
|
|
« Reply #100 on: 10/27/2006 11:28 PM » |
|
Danderman - 28/10/2006 8:42 AM
As Anik says, isn't this article 11F615A55, number 358?
Just curious, what does the "3" represent in the 358? M-58 is the 58th Progress of the "M" type to be launched, so where does the "3" fit in? (List of all Progress launches at Manned Astronautics)
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #101 on: 10/27/2006 11:29 PM » |
|
Danderman - 27/10/2006 5:42 PM
As Anik says, isn't this article 11F615A55, number 358?
Yes it is... until it reaches Earth orbit. 11F615A55 is the article number and 7K-TGM is the manufacturer's designation. Like I've said before... I think that this kind of procedure is still in use. A russian spacecraft only gets it's definite designation when it get's into orbit. Maybe Anik can tell something about this? For example, when on July 19 1985 the Soviet Union launched the vehicle 11F615A15 number 126 this was suposed to be Progress 25. But after entering orbit there were some problems with the spacecraft (I think it was some sort of control problem) and them it got the Cosmos 1669 designation. Eventualy after regaining control of the vehicle it docked with the Salyut-7 space station. When 11F615A55 number 358 got into orbit it got the Progress M-58 name, but this name is already used for the vehicle before has one can see on the RSC Energia Serguey Korolev homepage. Confusing? 
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #102 on: 10/27/2006 11:45 PM » |
|
Suzy - 27/10/2006 6:11 PM
Danderman - 28/10/2006 8:42 AM
As Anik says, isn't this article 11F615A55, number 358?
Just curious, what does the "3" represent in the 358? M-58 is the 58th Progress of the "M" type to be launched, so where does the "3" fit in? (List of all Progress launches at Manned Astronautics) Let's see if I can answer this... Progress 1 to Progress 42 the serial number started with '1': Progress 1 was 11F615A15 number 102, Progress 42 was 11F615A15 number 150. Progress M-1 to Progress M-49 the serial number started with '2': Progress M-1 was 11F615A55 number 201, Progress M-49 was 11F615A55 number 249. Progress M1-1 to Progress M1-11 the serial number started counting from '250' until '260'. Starting with Progress M-50 we have the serial number starting with a '3', that is 350, 351, 352, etc...
|
|
|
|
Suzy
|
|
« Reply #103 on: 10/28/2006 03:13 AM » |
|
Now it makes sense, thanks! Does the Soyuz numbering system work the same way? (TMA-9 was number 219).
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #104 on: 10/28/2006 02:09 PM » |
|
Suzy - 27/10/2006 9:56 PM
Now it makes sense, thanks! Does the Soyuz numbering system work the same way? (TMA-9 was number 219).
Yes, it's similar. You can find all the Soyuz serial numbers here http://www.rka-statistics.com/ .
|
|
|
|
