NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Q&A Section => Topic started by: anik on 01/03/2007 10:55 am

Title: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 01/03/2007 10:55 am
I am creating this thread for questions and answers related to Soviet/Russian space programs... :)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 01/03/2007 12:21 pm
Quote
anik - 3/1/2007  5:38 AM

I am creating this thread for questions and answers related to Soviet/Russian space programms... :)

Congratulations Anik! You are doing a great job!!!!!!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: lbiderman on 01/03/2007 12:32 pm
OK then! Anik, do you know if they are already working on some of the hardware for the Phobos-Grunt mission? The only thing I could find is that they are advanced in the design review, but nothing else. Thanx!

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 01/03/2007 01:13 pm
Quote
lbiderman - 3/1/2007  4:15 PM

do you know if they are already working on some of the hardware for the Phobos-Grunt mission?

Alas, I do not know... :(

But I think that work has started already for a long time and now is continuing very slowly because of shortage of the qualified experts and lack of money... :( If the situation will not change, I doubt that Fobos-Grunt will be launched in 2009... :(
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/03/2007 03:57 pm
Oh this is going to be a lovely thread! :-) Can we ask technical questions on the manned spacecrafts (Soyuz,Vostok) as well? :-)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 01/03/2007 04:22 pm
Quote
DarthVader - 3/1/2007  7:40 PM

Can we ask technical questions on the manned spacecrafts (Soyuz, Vostok) as well?

Yes, certainly!... :) I am not sure that I can answer to these questions, but someone knows more than me and can do that... ;)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/03/2007 04:38 pm
Thanks Anik :-) Here's two for starter, related to the Vzor using on Soyuz.

- Is there some kind of controls on the panel (all Soyuz variant from the 7K-OK) for the crew to rotate the direction of the Vzor? It appears (at least on the old Soyuz) that it could be rotated upon commands from the KSU (Command-signal systems), but could the crew use a more manual way of modifying the pan (sort of like for a submarine periscope)?

- Obviously the Vzor cannot tilt itself, but I have read somewhere that the optical system on its head allow for a bit of tilt (+/- 15deg). Is that correct?

Thanks in advance :-)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/03/2007 06:54 pm
Here's an extra (albeit a bit naive) one, still on the Vzor:

- How does looking trough the Vzor looks like? Does it looks like peeking trough a Window, or does the Vzor optic apply a sort of zoom (in/out) effect?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: NotGncDude on 01/04/2007 12:41 am
I don't know if this qualifies for this thread, but I where can I find detailed information on the Soyuz spacecraft?

I've been looking for information on the Soyuz for a while and the best I've found is Mark Wade's page on it, but I am looking for something more detailed. In particular, I was curious about the Soyuz launch escape system, since it seems a little more complex than Apollo's.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 01/04/2007 07:34 am
Quote
ianmga - 4/1/2007  10:24 AM

I don't know if this qualifies for this thread, but I where can I find detailed information on the Soyuz spacecraft?

I've been looking for information on the Soyuz for a while and the best I've found is Mark Wade's page on it, but I am looking for something more detailed. In particular, I was curious about the Soyuz launch escape system, since it seems a little more complex than Apollo's.

Umm...I've got a little bit on my website - Russian spaceships section (http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/indexship.html) - with links to everything I could find on the Internet about the Soyuz. (I would like more details also - e.g. the official Soyuz flight manual would be nice!!!) :)

There's also some diagrams of the Soyuz (http://www.marscenter.it/eng/veicol.asp?pa=60214) at the MARS center.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 01/04/2007 01:26 pm
Quote
DarthVader - 3/1/2007  8:21 PM

- Is there some kind of controls on the panel (all Soyuz variant from the 7K-OK) for the crew to rotate the direction of the Vzor? It appears (at least on the old Soyuz) that it could be rotated upon commands from the KSU (Command-signal systems), but could the crew use a more manual way of modifying the pan (sort of like for a submarine periscope)?

- Obviously the Vzor cannot tilt itself, but I have read somewhere that the optical system on its head allow for a bit of tilt (+/- 15deg). Is that correct?

Quote
DarthVader - 3/1/2007  10:37 PM

- How does looking trough the Vzor looks like? Does it looks like peeking trough a Window, or does the Vzor optic apply a sort of zoom (in/out) effect?

I have found three wonderful PDF documents about design characteristics of Soyuz spacecraft on this (http://history.nasa.gov/astp/doc.html) page... :)

Part 1 (http://history.nasa.gov/astp/APSYZ-descharac1.PDF)
Part 2 (http://history.nasa.gov/astp/APSYZ-descharac2.PDF)
Part 3 (http://history.nasa.gov/astp/APSYZ-descharac3.PDF)

There, for example, you can find a very interesting information (see images below) about sighting device (periscope) on pages 51-52 (item. 2.3.3) and 70 (figure 3) of Part 3... :)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/04/2007 01:34 pm
Hi Anik,

Yes the ASTP documents have been a good source of information for me as well, but I believe it doesn't fully answer my above questions ;-)

Cheers,
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/05/2007 03:40 pm
Quote
I've been looking for information on the Soyuz for a while and the best I've found is Mark Wade's page on it, but I am looking for something more detailed. In particular, I was curious about the Soyuz launch escape system, since it seems a little more complex than Apollo's.

Hi ianmga, what kind of details are you looking for? I "may" know a bit about that system.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: NotGncDude on 01/05/2007 04:13 pm
Quote
DarthVader - 5/1/2007  11:23 AM

Quote
I've been looking for information on the Soyuz for a while and the best I've found is Mark Wade's page on it, but I am looking for something more detailed. In particular, I was curious about the Soyuz launch escape system, since it seems a little more complex than Apollo's.

Hi ianmga, what kind of details are you looking for? I "may" know a bit about that system.

Well, I am curious about the launch escape sequence, the timing, elements involved, separation points, what happens to the fairing, etc. Most descriptions I've come across are pretty superficial, and I haven't seen any diagrams. All of this is available at much higher detail for the Apollo and Shuttle aborts. I am looking for some repository of information that has this level of detail, and hopefully not just for the escape system but for the whole spacecraft.

 Ian
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/05/2007 06:53 pm

Sadly pretty much everything technical related to the Russian space program (even for systems used +40 years ago) is always rather sketchy ... clear contrast to the wealth of details and data available on any of the US launchers/spacecraft :-\ Anyhow, here's the little details I know on the launch escape sequence:

- upon activation, the shroud is separated horizontally at the level of the SA/PAO junction while the SA and PAO are been disconnected
- the solid engine fire and take the upper part of the shroud away from the launch vehicle, carrying the BO and the SA within it (the PAO stay behind still attached to the LV payload adapter)
- the 4 panels on the side of the shroud deploy to stabilize (dunno when they do deploy exactly)
- when the solid engine have done it's work, the SA separate from the BO and drop out off the shroud
- from there, the sequence is identical to post re-entry AFAIK

I hope someone with better knowledge of Soyuz can add/correct :-)

Here's a picture of ascale model showing the configuration of the launch escape system while in use:

 

 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/06/2007 05:42 am

Just remembered I had the following drawing on my HD:

 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/12/2007 01:08 pm
So .... about the Vzor? Anyone?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/12/2007 02:07 pm
I have a question about the TKS/VA
Apparently the TPS developed for the VA capsule was superior to the Soyuz shielding. If this is true, then why has it not been used on the Soyuz as part of the TM or TMA upgrades?
Is there any chance that the VA design could see a role in the CSTS program?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/12/2007 04:17 pm
Quote
Kaputnik - 12/1/2007  6:50 AM

I have a question about the TKS/VA
Apparently the TPS developed for the VA capsule was superior to the Soyuz shielding. If this is true, then why has it not been used on the Soyuz as part of the TM or TMA upgrades?
Is there any chance that the VA design could see a role in the CSTS program?

In what way was the TPS better? Mass? Reusability? Cheaper?

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/12/2007 06:58 pm
Quote
Danderman - 12/1/2007  5:00 PM
In what way was the TPS better?

That's something I'd like to know. It was reusable, for one thing, but other than that I can't find any information on it. Mark Wade says it was better and that's about all I've got:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tksva.htm
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: NotGncDude on 01/13/2007 07:28 pm
BTW DarthVader, thanks a lot. The picture is pretty helpful. I was never sure what were the square things on the side of the Soyuz shroud.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Eraser on 01/14/2007 04:50 am

Quote
Kaputnik - 11/1/2007  7:50 PM  I have a question about the TKS/VA Apparently the TPS developed for the VA capsule was superior to the Soyuz shielding. If this is true, then why has it not been used on the Soyuz as part of the TM or TMA upgrades? Is there any chance that the VA design could see a role in the CSTS program?

Different concepts of design. The TKS capsule had the hatch to BO directly in a heatshield and has been placed in the top part of a spacecraft. Advantage of such concept, was higher lift-over-drag ratio, and an opportunity of accommodation of engines of soft landing not under a heatshield, and above a capsule, with the subsequent VA reuse. Soyuz it will be necessary to redesign too strongly for use of similar scheme, easier at once to do Kliper.   And certainly it is the different firms competing among themselves. Soyuz is made by Energia, and TKS/VA is made by Khrunichev. Too difficultly. 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Eraser on 01/14/2007 04:56 am
Quote
Eraser - 13/1/2007  10:33 AM  

Quote
Kaputnik - 11/1/2007  7:50 PM  I have a question about the TKS/VA Apparently the TPS developed for the VA capsule was superior to the Soyuz shielding. If this is true, then why has it not been used on the Soyuz as part of the TM or TMA upgrades? Is there any chance that the VA design could see a role in the CSTS program?

Different concepts of design. The TKS capsule had the hatch to BO directly in a heatshield and has been placed in the top part of a spacecraft. Advantage of such concept, was higher lift-over-drag ratio, and an opportunity of accommodation of engines of soft landing not under a heatshield, and above a capsule, with the subsequent VA reuse. Soyuz it will be necessary to redesign too strongly for use of similar scheme, easier at once to do Kliper.   And certainly it is the different firms competing among themselves. Soyuz is made by Energia, and TKS/VA is made by Khrunichev. Too difficultly.

I am sorry, has not quite understood a question. But in any case the competition between firms-manufacturers will be an obstacle, and heat-shielding TKS/VA is possible the expensive to put it on disposable Soyuz capsules. 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/14/2007 05:50 am
Given that the Soyuz TPS has been proven under conditions of return from lunar missions, I doubt that many consider the TPS shielding to be "better". Moreover, the technical feat of putting the landing rockets in the parachute system was demonstrated on Voshkod prior to Soyuz by RSC Energia and discarded as an inferior system (among other problems, the nozzles can't point straight down at the capsule if they are located above the capsule).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Eraser on 01/14/2007 07:51 am

Quote
Danderman - 13/1/2007  11:33 AM  Given that the Soyuz TPS has been proven under conditions of return from lunar missions, I doubt that many consider the TPS shielding to be "better". Moreover, the technical feat of putting the landing rockets in the parachute system was demonstrated on Voshkod prior to Soyuz by RSC Energia and discarded as an inferior system (among other problems, the nozzles can't point straight down at the capsule if they are located above the capsule).

Landing rockets at TKS/VA are fixed on the rigid console unlike Voskhod. That Soyuz TPS is considerably more tested, I agree.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kaputnik on 01/15/2007 08:27 am
OK another question....
How many RD0120 engines exist and are flight servicable? Does anybody still have enough knowledge of how they are operated to ever use them in a launch vehicle?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/22/2007 04:52 pm
Here's a little cross-post from the "Advanced Concepts" forum:

Quote
cpooley - 7/7/2006  6:37 PM
two interesting methods:  1.  Soyuz (R-7)  a liquid nitrogen tank feeds one of 4 pumps on the trubopump shaft and runs it through a heat exchanger which used the turbine exhaust to evaporate it to pressurize the tanks.  Lighter than using high pressure bottles.

Is the gaseous nitrogen used to pressurize both the Fuel and LOX tanks during the flight or just the Fuel tank? What is used before the engine is started? Ground supplied gaseous nitrogen?

Similarly, how is the pressurization of the tanks of the Blok I (3rd stage) done prior to liftoff and also prior to ignition of its engine?

Thanks :-)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kyra's kosmos on 01/22/2007 09:58 pm
Darth, I understand your troubles regarding technical information and "board" documents.

Regarding the early VZOR used on Vostok there were several toggle switches on the control panel to the left of the cosmonaut. I can look to see if the swicth labels are visible to see what these did.

Regarding a source of detailed information on control panels the best site I have found is a collection of papers by Yuri Tiapchenko. In fact I once had a chance to e-mail him directly with questions, but the e-mail server to him didn't work ! Check out Alexander Zheleznyakov's encyclopedia of cosmonautics online under publications.

Here are some gems in my hunt:
Bortovoi Zhurnal Kosmicheskogo Korabl Vostok-6 (Onboard Journal Vostok 6)
Vostok-6 flight transcript
Vostok Flight Manual (yes, one did exist)
Any panel information for SIS-1-3KA (Vostok), the best I have is slightly blurry pictures, and one high res of the instrument panel that is slightly too dark to make out the light tablo, or indicator lights board labels.

Its kind of funny how close I've gotten to some of this information, yet so far. The quest is almost like something from Giligan's Island or Lost in Space where the objective is within your reach, but something always fouls it up - or those that can make the objective possible are simply too busy, or just plain perplexed as to why one would want the documents. Hopefully there will be some archivist or benefactor that will understand and will truly create on online Russian space library. RGANDT is getting better it seems. We can still only dream of a mass collection of online .pdfs with transcripts, flight manuals, specifications, journals, on-board checklists, science result papers, FAI type documents.





Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/22/2007 10:40 pm
Howdy Krya, please let us know if you find any of these documents .. they are indeed gems I'd love to get my hands on.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/23/2007 02:55 pm

Here's are the best pictures of the instruments panel of Vostok I have found so far in my quest(s):

 

 

Which aren't too bad .... but still no close enough to be able to real all the labels :-( 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kyra's kosmos on 01/23/2007 04:25 pm
Wow Darth Thanks !

I bought the top picture in hi-res from Novosti Kosmonavtiki some months back. Some of the lights were still unreadable due to shadowing.

The bottom pic however is interesting because for the first time I can read a portion of the side of the Control Panel. We can see a switch for the "signal system" and Spusk (Descent III) which was manual presumably logically tied to the red covered switch that would fire the TDU-1. The logical lock opened the clear cover allowing access to the switches on the side of this black panel.
For those readers out there that don't know about the Vostok it had two main panels. One of which is the instrument panel with the Globus "Globe", guages, and lights, and the other panel was the control panel with toggle and rotary switches. The control switch panel sat to the left of the cosmonaut.
All other functions were performed automatically by onboard logic and timers or by radio command using the MRV-2M system as I understand it. It had a cabability of 20 commands  which went to an upgrade of 63 commands which about 50 were utilized. After jettison of the PO instrument section after retrofire the command capability was no longer relevant and the automatic system waited for input from barometric switches and timers to jettison hatches, deploy the parachutes and eject the cosmonaut, and activate the "Peleng" recovery signals.  

The Voskhod had these same panels plus a third in the case of Voskhod-2 which had a panel for the airlock with additional indicator lights and switches. (And revised logic from ejection to firing the reserve rocket)

This is to the best of my knowledge...

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 01/25/2007 09:45 pm
I have a question regarding the Progress vehicle re-entry.
Does the spacecraft separate into 3 sections (as the Soyuz) after the breaking rockets fire?
Thank you.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/25/2007 10:09 pm
AFAIK no. Progress isn't designed to have an active separation of the BO and PAO (it doesn't have a real SA).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/26/2007 05:50 pm
Here's another question :-) On Vostok Block E (Ye), were the 4 verniers gimbaled, or was pitch & yaw controlled by variating the output of each individual vernier? If so, how was the roll controlled?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Carl G on 01/30/2007 12:55 pm
What is the budget of the Russian space program?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Eraser on 01/31/2007 11:41 am

Quote
Carl G - 29/1/2007  6:55 PM  What is the budget of the Russian space program?

Head of the Federal Space Agency, Anatoly Perminov, at a meeting of the Federation Council announced that, in 2007 for the Russian space programme will be allocated 0.8 billion dollars 30 times less than the budget of NASA.

 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Martin FL on 02/01/2007 03:12 am
Quote
Eraser - 31/1/2007  6:41 AM

Quote
Carl G - 29/1/2007  6:55 PM  What is the budget of the Russian space program?

Head of the Federal Space Agency, Anatoly Perminov, at a meeting of the Federation Council announced that, in 2007 for the Russian space programme will be allocated 0.8 billion dollars 30 times less than the budget of NASA.


That's amazing. A very very good space program for only $800m.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 02/01/2007 11:43 am
the exchange rate is artificial
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Eraser on 02/01/2007 12:12 pm

Quote
Martin FL - 31/1/2007  9:12 AM

That's amazing. A very very good space program for only $800m.

Nothing amazing, rockets are inexpensive owing to a batch production and a cheap labour. Technology have become outdated. Russian satellite group is very small in comparison with the United States. 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Eraser on 02/01/2007 12:20 pm

Quote
Jim - 31/1/2007  5:43 PM  the exchange rate is artificial

Offtopic: You have in view of a exchange rate of rouble to dollar? The Rouble now is is hard currency, the Central Bank of Russia has removed all restrictions on an exchange and export of currency. 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 02/02/2007 02:09 pm
A question about the cosmodromes: Baykonur is GIK-5, Kapustin Yar is GTsP-4, Plesetsk is GIK-1, Svobodniy is GIK-2... what about Dombarovskiy?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 02/02/2007 03:40 pm
Quote
Satori - 2/2/2007  6:09 PM

A question about the cosmodromes: Baykonur is GIK-5, Kapustin Yar is GTsP-4, Plesetsk is GIK-1, Svobodniy is GIK-2... what about Dombarovskiy?

Dombarovskiy cosmodrome has not such designation... Dombarovskiy is simply the name of 13th Rocket Division (near Yasniy city in Orenburg region) of Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: meiza on 02/03/2007 11:21 pm
Is there information where the Oural program is going now? The one where they are looking at hydrocarbon engines with the French?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: juice on 02/09/2007 02:33 pm
Does anyone have detailed information about the consolidation of the Russia space industry?  There was some press about consolidation in July 2006 including with NPO PM in a new Information Satellite Systems and some consolidation under Khrunichev among others.  I understand a presidential decree was signed earlier this week to finalize some of these changes.  Anyone know which companies are where now?
Thanks
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: sammie on 02/09/2007 02:40 pm
I can only offer you a bit of news on the consolidation under Krunichev, its in this rather large pdf-file (http://www.ilslaunch.com/media/spacenews11-06-06.pdf) The biggest advantage of the consolidation is that they can invest in the C-58/59M engine manufacturer. Currently the number of Breeze M and Fregat upper stages that can be launched are limited due to inadequate capacity.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 02/09/2007 02:43 pm
Quote
juice - 9/2/2007  6:33 PM

Does anyone have detailed information about the consolidation of the Russia space industry? There was some press about consolidation in July 2006 including with NPO PM in a new Information Satellite Systems and some consolidation under Khrunichev among others. I understand a presidential decree was signed earlier this week to finalize some of these changes. Anyone know which companies are where now?

Quotes from http://www.khrunichev.ru/khrunichev_eng/live/full_news.asp?id=14717

"Four Russian launch vehicle and spacecraft component manufacturers were consolidated under the control of Khrunichev Space Center this month by presidential decree.
 
On February 3, 2007, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin signed Decree #127, On the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "The M.V. Khrunichev Space Research & Production Center."

Under the Decree, four state-run rocket and space enterprises become branches of the Khrunichev Space Center. These are the Voronezh Mechanical Plant, A.M.Isaev Chemical Engineering Design Bureau (also known as "Khimmash," in Korolev, Moscow Region), Moscow Enterprise for Equipment Configuration "Dlina" and Production Association "Polyot" (in Omsk.)"
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: sammie on 02/09/2007 03:40 pm
Polyot is the producer of the Cosmos 3M, I know that production was suspended for some time in the 1990s to get rid of a huge backlog of spare rockets. Has production restarted already, considering that they have quitte a number of launches scheduled. I wonder whether there will be a shift, from Cosmos 3M to Rockot, now that both competition rockets are produced by centres controlled by Khrunichev Space Center.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: juice on 02/09/2007 04:21 pm
What's Dlina?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: juice on 02/09/2007 06:03 pm
Also, does anyone know if Energomash or RSC Energia are going to be consolidated?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 02/09/2007 06:05 pm
Quote
juice - 9/2/2007  2:03 PM

Also, does anyone know if Energomash or RSC Energia are going to be consolidated?

They already were at one time in the 80's and split back up.  

It would be highly doubtful.  Rocket engines are a small part of  Energomash's business
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: juice on 02/14/2007 03:10 pm
FYI, Khrunichev held a press conference on Monday.  Two articles covering it are available here:
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=11244467&PageNum=0

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070212/russia_rockets.html?.v=1
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: sammie on 02/14/2007 03:48 pm
Here is another press release, by ILS themselves link (http://www.ilslaunch.com/zmedia/newsarchives/newsreleases/rec14/)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 02/28/2007 03:14 pm
I'm trying to confirm the mission ot the Cosmos 21 (3MV-1A No. 2) probe launched 11 November 1963. Was this a Mars or a Venus fly-by mission. Internet sources differ on this. Thanks!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Eraser on 02/28/2007 04:56 pm
It was a test launch, testing design space probes. Kosmos-21's target was to photograph the back side of the Moon. The overall design was intended to Venus flyby.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Eraser on 02/28/2007 05:28 pm
But Kosmos-21 had a designation 3MV-1A (No. 1.) I summarize:
Design: Venus flyby space probe.
Target: Test of systems of a space probe, photographing the back side of the Moon. Simulated Mars flyby.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 02/28/2007 11:21 pm
So, it had a double porpuse and it was used to test techniques for both the venusian and mars probes!

Thank you very much! Your comments were very useful! :)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 03/02/2007 12:31 pm
I'm searching for actual images of the soviet Mars probes and their launches (not the models that are available on the web). Any help would be great! Thanks!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/03/2007 03:35 am
Quote
Satori - 2/3/2007  5:31 AM

I'm searching for actual images of the soviet Mars probes and their launches (not the models that are available on the web). Any help would be great! Thanks!

How about the 2MV:  http://www.russianspaceweb.com/1m_2.jpg

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/27/2007 04:18 pm
Question about Tsyklon-2 launches:

For the naval reconnaissance satellite launches, such as Cosmos 2383, 2405, etc, the "initial orbit" is typically 425 X 410 km (more or less). However, the upper stage of the Tsyklon is invariably reported as decaying the first day of launch. This means that either the upper stage performs an immediate de-orbit burn (since objects in 400 km orbits don't decay naturally in 24 hours) or the payload immediately after separation maneuvers to the higher orbit, which is odd, since the launch announcement gives the orbital data as the "initial orbit" not the working orbit.  

So, is the "initial" orbit really the initial orbit, and if so, does the Tskylon-2 somehow de-orbit itself immediately, and if so, why?

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 03/27/2007 04:49 pm
The answer from Jonathan's Space Report No. 566 (http://host.planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/news.566):

Kosmos-2421
A Russian Navy US-PU satellite for ocean electronic surveillance was launched from Baykonur on Jun 25 and codenamed Kosmos-2421. The Tsiklon-2 rocket put it in an approximately 100 x 400 km transfer orbit, and the US-PU onboard engine performed the insertion burn to a 405 x 415 km x 65.0 deg operational orbit.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/27/2007 06:21 pm

Quote
anik - 27/3/2007  9:49 AM  The answer from Jonathan's Space Report No. 566 (http://host.planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/news.566):  Kosmos-2421 A Russian Navy US-PU satellite for ocean electronic surveillance was launched from Baykonur on Jun 25 and codenamed Kosmos-2421. The Tsiklon-2 rocket put it in an approximately 100 x 400 km transfer orbit, and the US-PU onboard engine performed the insertion burn to a 405 x 415 km x 65.0 deg operational orbit.

Thanks, that 100 km perigee explains why not too many Tsyklon-2 upper stages are seen in orbit. 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: NotGncDude on 04/25/2007 02:50 pm
Does anybody know the trajectory profile, burn schedules, etc, for the Soyuz or Progress when going up to the ISS? Or maybe a pointer to where to find this info? I'm curious about how it compares to the Shuttle.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 04/25/2007 03:49 pm
Quote
ianmga - 25/4/2007  6:50 PM

Does anybody know the trajectory profile, burn schedules, etc, for the Soyuz or Progress when going up to the ISS?

Two-day rendezvous: two burns on 3rd-4th orbits, one burn on 17th orbit, five-six burns on 32nd-33rd orbits, docking on 33rd-34th orbits...

For example, Soyuz TMA-9:
Launch - 18.09.2006 04:08:42.133 UTC
First burn (3rd orbit) - 18.09.2006 07:45:01 UTC
Second burn (3rd orbit) - 18.09.2006 08:15:42 UTC
Third burn (17th orbit) - 19.09.2006 05:03:32 UTC
Fourth burn (32nd orbit) - 20.09.2006 03:28:48 UTC
Fifth burn (32nd orbit) - 20.09.2006 03:52:04 UTC
Sixth burn (32nd orbit) - 20.09.2006 04:12:54 UTC
Seventh burn (33rd orbit) - 20.09.2006 04:55:39 UTC
Eighth burn (33rd orbit) - 20.09.2006 05:00:37 UTC
Ninth burn (33rd orbit) - 20.09.2006 05:03:17 UTC
Docking (34th orbit) - 20.09.2006 05:21:20 UTC

Three-day rendezvous: two burns on 3rd-4th orbits, one burn on 33rd orbit, five-six burns on 48th-49th orbits, docking on 49th-50th orbits...

For example, Progress M-58:
Launch - 23.10.2006 13:40:35.849 UTC
First burn (3rd orbit) - 23.10.2006 17:31:37 UTC
Second burn (4th orbit) - 23.10.2006 17:56:33 UTC
Third burn (33rd orbit) - 25.10.2006 14:19:54 UTC
Fourth burn (48th orbit) - 26.10.2006 12:32:04 UTC
Fifth burn (48th orbit) - 26.10.2006 12:56:20 UTC
Sixth burn (49th orbit) - 26.10.2006 13:17:42 UTC
Seventh burn (49th orbit) - 26.10.2006 13:58:38 UTC
Eighth burn (49th orbit) - 26.10.2006 14:04:49 UTC
Ninth burn (49th orbit) - 26.10.2006 14:07:12 UTC
Docking (50th orbit) - 26.10.2006 14:29:18 UTC
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: NotGncDude on 04/25/2007 04:17 pm
Awesome! That's incredible. Thanks. I also found some info in L2 in the Soyuz Crew Ops Manual, with some diagrams that make a good complement to these burn schedules. I think it describes the 2 day rendezvous.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kyra's kosmos on 05/08/2007 03:39 am
Hi Everyone,

Ok, here's what I'm up to: My goal is to write a Vostok Crew Operations Manual with the same type of content and material with the same level of detail as the Soyuz Crew Operations manual some of you have seen.
Right now I'm in the information gathering stage. This is far from an easy task as little information exists online. Yuri Tiapchenko has published more about the controls on the cosmoworld site.

The gold mine of information seems to exist at RGANDT. The trouble is they will not respond even if I write out what I'm looking for in Russian. One was for a picture in high resolution they have already published online !! (one month no reply to the photolab address)
http://rgantd.ru/vzal/korolev/pics/018_010.jpg
A photo that would be usefull if it were in high resolution !

The other regards the Vostok's thrusters - were  there 2 sections (of 4) (8 thrusters) or 2 sections of 8 (16 thrusters total) - the wording here is unclear about the "2 blocks for 8 sopla (thrusters)?"
http://bibliotekar.ru/index.files/2/0-40.htm
How can a ship steer well on three axis (roll pitch yaw) with backups on 8 thrusters ? This system had to be duplicated !

Are there any special protocols for asking for info I may have not known ?

Thanks in advance for any ideas or help here !

Kyra

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: MKremer on 05/08/2007 06:10 am
Might I suggest writing/emailing the largest Russian embassy to where you are - after you get someone to contact concerning space science/engineering, tell them about what you want and ask about further information and/or contacts about asking for more detailed design engineering, diagrams, and even anecdotes they've heard about or experienced in developing/manufacturing/flying the hardware and people involved.
Heck, tell whoever you talk to you'll give them credit in the introduction to your publication. :)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: sammie on 05/12/2007 12:12 am
taken the liberty to answer this question in the Q&A, instead of the launch schedule section

from mainengine:
Quote
Is it possible to watch any launch at baikonur ? Can one go as a tourist there ?

It is possible to view a rocket launch from Baikonur, it's actually what a number of forum members are planning to do, for more information here (http://www.buran-energia.com/blog/baykonur-tour-2008/lang-pref/en/) and here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=7236&posts=2&start=1).

Without joining a tour things get a bit more complicated. The main problem is that travelling independently in Kazakstan isn't done very often. There aren't any scheduled flights to Baikonur, so either you have to join a some sort of tour or take the train. The problem with either approach is that launch dates tend to slip, so if you scheduled a visit, you have no garantue to see an actual launch. In general flights to ISS are pretty reliable timewise, so your best bet is to try and catch one of those
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Ankle-bone12 on 06/23/2007 03:59 am
Has anybody heard any news whatsoever of Kliper. Are Energia and RSC currently building it or is it just not taking off like I wish it were. I know ESA is involved with it pretty well and the Russian Govt. dosn't care much and probably barely knows what it is. Will someone with knowlege please inform me. ;)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: sammie on 07/03/2007 12:36 pm
I think the Kliper is one of the paper projects that is being worked on by Energia. They are definitly not getting any government (EU or Russia) funding for the project. So my best guess is that Energia claims to be working on the Kliper, but its not cutting any metal yet.


I have another question about a different space programme, the Nadezhda/CosPas programme. This is a satellite constalation that started in the seventies and features the cooperation between Russia, the USA, France and India. Its a set of satellites that pick up distress signals. (more here (http://www.cospas-sarsat.org/MainPages/indexEnglish.htm)). The last Russian launch of an improved Nadezhda M was in 2002. Are there plans for another similar satellite in the next years? Or is the task being taken over by different constellations and satellites?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 07/03/2007 02:00 pm
Quote
sammie - 3/7/2007  4:36 PM

Are there plans for another similar satellite in the next years? Or is the task being taken over by different constellations and satellites?

There will not be one more Nadezhda satellite in future... It is planned that new Sterkh satellites will replace Nadezhda satellites... Sterkh No. 1 launch is planned in 2007 aboard Kosmos-3M rocket, Sterkh No. 2 launch - in 2008...

Information about Sterkh satellite (in Russian) is on http://www.polyot.su/main.php?id=96
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 07/04/2007 06:41 pm
Quote
anik - 3/7/2007  6:00 PM

Sterkh No. 1 launch is planned in 2007 aboard Kosmos-3M rocket, Sterkh No. 2 launch - in 2008...

According to http://www.space.com.ua/gateway/news.nsf/hronolR/91E94B40916AC9D8C225730E002721C3!open (in Russian), both Sterkh satellites will be launched in 2008 now...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: faustod on 08/30/2007 11:53 am
I believe that there is a mistake in the most Satellite Launch Tables .

On April 15, 1960 a Luna probe was launched from Baykonur.
The probe failed to reach the Moon.
But I notice that all the parameters of the  flight,were in all similar to those
of USA Pioneer 1 and 3 in 1958.
So if in 1958 USA have 7 orbital launches, in 1960 URSS have 4 launches.
Otherwise if URSS in 1960 have 3 launches, in 1958 USA have only 5 launches.

Jonathan McDowell, in his site is correct:

1958 Oct 11 1958 ETA  Pioneer 1
1958 Dec  6 1958 THE  Pioneer 3
1960 Apr 15 1960-U01  [Luna-4]

Note hat the Luna launch is listed as Unannounched one.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Olaf on 08/30/2007 12:30 pm
According to astronaut.ru, the object ?-3 ?1, which was launched on Apr 15, 1960 to the moon only reached a hight of 200km and then fell down to earth.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: faustod on 08/30/2007 01:19 pm
From Enciclopedia Astronautica - by Mark Wade:

15 April 1960 Nation: USSR. Launch Site: Baikonur . Launch

Complex: LC1. Launch Vehicle: Luna 8K72 . LV Configuration:

Luna 8K72 s/n L1-9. FAILURE: The third stage RO-5 engine

either did not reach full thrust or shut down early.
Luna Program: Luna. Payload: E-3 s/n 1. Class: Planetary.

Type: Lunar. Spacecraft: Luna E-3. COSPAR. Summary: Reached

an altitude of 200,000 km before plunging back to earth.
 

From Russian SpaceWeb.com - by  Anatoly Zac

April 15, 1960 E-3 No. 1 - Flyby  8K72/I1-9 3rd stage

failure. Reached 200,000 km distance.


From www.zarya.info:
1960 Apr 15
 15:06
 E-3-1 spacecraft launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome by

Vostok rocket on a mission to hit the Moon by way of a

direct ascent trajectory - under-performance of the final

rocket stage means that it has insufficient velocity to

reach the Moon
 
1960 Apr 16
 ---
 E-3-1 spacecraft reaches a distance of 200,000 kilometres

from the Earth and then falls back
 
1960 Apr 16
 ---
 E-3-1 spacecraft re-enters the Earth atmosphere where it is

destroyed by frictional heating
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 09/03/2007 11:46 pm
How can the Russians make using staged combustion engines work economically?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: meiza on 09/04/2007 12:10 am
Cause they don't use hydrogen engines like USA, they've chosen staged combustion hydrocarbon engines instead.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 09/04/2007 12:25 am
Why does that help? Besides, the RD-0120 is oxygen/hydrogen and has SSME performance.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 09/04/2007 01:05 am
Quote
tnphysics - 3/9/2007  7:46 PM

How can the Russians make using staged combustion engines work economically?

cheaper labor rates which applies to all russian hardware
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: meiza on 09/04/2007 01:32 am
They seem to want to stay away from hydrogen, at least in first stages. I don't know about the price of RD-0120 compared to RD-191, or the complexity differences. Afaik RD-0120 runs oxidizer rich too, no?
At least dealing with hydrogen on the pad is hard and expensive.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: pippin on 09/04/2007 09:40 am
Quote
tnphysics - 4/9/2007  1:46 AM

How can the Russians make using staged combustion engines work economically?

long heritage, lots of experience, keeps development costs for new projects (mainly derivatives, like RD-180 and RD-191) down.
Been  there, done that helps a lot on complex developments.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 09/04/2007 10:57 pm
What about operational costs?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 09/04/2007 11:48 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 4/9/2007  6:57 PM

What about operational costs?

no difference between staged and gas generator
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 09/07/2007 02:02 am
Then why would an expendable SSME be more expensive than the RS-68?

It should then only be two-thirds as expensive (lower thrust).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 09/07/2007 02:15 am
Quote
tnphysics - 6/9/2007  10:02 PM

Then why would an expendable SSME be more expensive than the RS-68?

It should then only be two-thirds as expensive (lower thrust).

thrust doesn't not equate to cost

The development costs of the expendable SSME prevent it from reducing the total costs
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 09/07/2007 02:17 am
Why did Proton go with hypergolic propellants?

I would have used peroxide/methylacetylene, if storability was a requirement, or else an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 09/07/2007 02:22 am
Quote
tnphysics - 6/9/2007  10:17 PM

Why did Proton go with hypergolic propellants?

I would have used peroxide/methylacetylene, if storability was a requirement, or else an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.

Not all decisions are based on performance.

Because hypergols were a favorite of Glusho, the engine designer and the soviets had the infrastructure for hypergols.  .

Peroxide has storage issues
so does methylacetylene
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 09/07/2007 02:25 am
Quote
tnphysics - 6/9/2007  10:17 PM

 an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.

RP-1 would be better than methylacetylene
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 09/07/2007 02:30 am
Quote
Jim - 6/9/2007  10:22 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 6/9/2007  10:17 PM

Why did Proton go with hypergolic propellants?

I would have used peroxide/methylacetylene, if storability was a requirement, or else an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.

Peroxide has storage issues
so does methylacetylene

What are they?

I know that you would need to dilute the peroxide, but why would that be an issue?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 09/09/2007 06:24 pm
Quote
Jim - 6/9/2007  10:25 PM
Quote
tnphysics - 6/9/2007  10:17 PM an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.
RP-1 would be better than methylacetylene
Methylacetylene has higher Isp.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2007 08:35 pm
Quote
tnphysics - 9/9/2007  2:24 PM

Quote
Jim - 6/9/2007  10:25 PM
Quote
tnphysics - 6/9/2007  10:17 PM an LOX/methylacetylene first stage and LOX/LH2 upper stages.
RP-1 would be better than methylacetylene
Methylacetylene has higher Isp.

That is not the only parameter than matters
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 09/12/2007 06:25 pm
The 11A511U Soyuz-U launcher for the Foton-3 will be transported to the pad PU-5 September 13th. Imagine that we have a major accident with this launch resulting on pad damaged. Was pad PU-6 ready to support manned launches?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 10/04/2007 12:19 am
Could a LH2/LOX upper stage be added to Proton?

Could 3 Proton first stages be clustered a la Delta IVH?

Together those upgrades give 150 metric tons to LEO.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 10/04/2007 12:25 am
Quote
tnphysics - 3/10/2007  8:19 PM

Could 3 Proton first stages be clustered a la Delta IVH?

How would you attach them
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 10/04/2007 12:34 am
Could Zenit be stretched to increase the payload?

What about the Energia core? (If it was rebuilt)

What about combining 3 Energia cores?

Stretched Energia core with stretched strap-on boosters could put 160 metric tons in LEO (if there was enough thrust in the core after staging)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 10/04/2007 12:41 am
what if, what if, what it.   All it take is money
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 10/04/2007 12:46 am
My question is: If there was a market, would they be cost-effective?

Are these good ideas?

Probable market would be Soviet manned Moon mission (if done).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 10/04/2007 12:49 am
Quote
tnphysics - 3/10/2007  8:46 PM

My question is: If there was a market, would they be cost-effective?

Are these good ideas?


nobody on here could answer those questions
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/13/2007 02:00 pm

Quote
tnphysics - 3/10/2007  5:19 PM  Could a LH2/LOX upper stage be added to Proton?

This is a long term plan for Khrunichev, so the answer is yes.

 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: William Graham on 10/13/2007 04:37 pm
Quote
Danderman - 13/10/2007  3:00 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 3/10/2007  5:19 PM  Could a LH2/LOX upper stage be added to Proton?

This is a long term plan for Khrunichev, so the answer is yes.

 


"Long term"? I thought Proton was up for retirement by 2010 or whenever.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: edkyle99 on 10/13/2007 05:04 pm
Quote
GW_Simulations - 13/10/2007  11:37 AM

Quote
Danderman - 13/10/2007  3:00 PM

Quote
tnphysics - 3/10/2007  5:19 PM  Could a LH2/LOX upper stage be added to Proton?

This is a long term plan for Khrunichev, so the answer is yes.


"Long term"? I thought Proton was up for retirement by 2010 or whenever.

The plan is to start test flights with Angara (which will be built by the merged Krunichev/PO Polyot company) in 2011, according to recent news reports.  Angara will eventually replace Proton.  It will use the Briz M upper stage initially, but long term plans call for a liquid hydrogen upper stage.  This stage is for Angara, however, and not for Proton to the best of my knowledge.

My guess is that there will be some overlap, with both vehicles flying during a several-year transition period.  (Russia, for example, it still flying both Proton K and Proton M vehicles, seven years after the first Proton M launch.)  Proposed plans to build a Baikonur complex for Angara might play a role in the transition timing.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 10/15/2007 12:48 am
How much delta-V will the KVRB (cryo stage) provide?

If it is optimised correctly then it will provide the majority.

This assumes that it is only for Angara-5.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Citabria on 10/16/2007 04:26 pm
About the two-day Soyuz or Shuttle approach to ISS: Why does it take two days? Is there a technical reason or is it for space-adaptation time for the crew? I doubt that it is for fuel efficiency - the total delta vee is about the same for a two-burn Hohmann transfer as for multiple intermediate transfers, is it not?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Citabria on 10/16/2007 04:33 pm
A question that Korolev's team answered more than fifty years ago, but I have not seen a satisfactory answer: How do the R-7/Soyuz strap-on boosters separate in flight? Do they simply slip backward out of their forward sockets when thrust is cut off? (I saw a film once of a failed launch where one of the boosters lost thrust and slid downward and the rest of the rocket flew for some time before failing!) Does the release of LOX tank pressure push the boosters' noses away from the core? Are there pyrotechnics involved?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 10/16/2007 05:12 pm
Quote
Citabria - 16/10/2007  11:26 AM

About the two-day Soyuz or Shuttle approach to ISS: Why does it take two days? Is there a technical reason or is it for space-adaptation time for the crew? I doubt that it is for fuel efficiency - the total delta vee is about the same for a two-burn Hohmann transfer as for multiple intermediate transfers, is it not?

Maximize launch window and standardize the terminal part of the rendezvous.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Citabria on 10/16/2007 05:38 pm
Quote
Jorge - 16/10/2007  1:12 PM

Maximize launch window and standardize the terminal part of the rendezvous.

So you're saying that a launch delay would cost little extra fuel and cause no docking delay if the error is spread over two days? I guess that makes sense. Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 10/16/2007 06:54 pm
I believe one of the reason is that it also help the cosmonaut to get used to "living" in 0g. Which is apparently much easier to get used to if you are in a small area such as the Soyuz.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 10/18/2007 04:23 pm
Hello!

I'm searching for the launch time of a 11K77 Zenit-2 launch vehicle that failled to launch a Tselina-2 sat on February 5, 1992. Any help?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: William Graham on 10/18/2007 08:14 pm
Hi, I'm interested about carrier rockets which are currently in service, but out of production, and specifically how many of each are left. As I see it:

Tsyklon-3: 1-2 launches remaining
Molniya-M: 3 launches remaining
Proton-K: 5 launches remaining

Could somebody please check the accuarcy of the above, and give me information on the numbers of launches believed to be remaining for any other types approaching the end, particuarly the following:

Tsyklon-2
Kosmos-3M
Soyuz-U (if it is on the way out)

Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: sammie on 10/18/2007 10:20 pm
I believe Kosmos 3M production has restarted. During the mid-nineties only 14 remained in stock, and I'm pretty sure that at their current launch rate, they would have run out of stockpiled rockets long ago.

I'm not so sure whether there is a big difference between the Tsyklon 3 and 2, other then the upper stage. I think it's safe to say that only a few remain in stock and that there is the option to launch to as a either a 2 or a 3.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/19/2007 01:24 pm
Quote
sammie - 19/10/2007  12:20 AM
I'm not so sure whether there is a big difference between the Tsyklon 3 and 2, other then the upper stage. I think it's safe to say that only a few remain in stock and that there is the option to launch to as a either a 2 or a 3.

No, these are not interchangeable.

Tsiklon-2 uses RD-251 (= 3 x RD-250) engine on the first stage, while Tsiklon-3 uses RD-261 (= 3 x RD-260)  - don't ask me for the differences.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: darkenfast on 10/22/2007 03:38 pm
I noticed that no one has answered this question, so I'll give it a shot from memory (and I may be wrong).  The strap-ons (Blocks B, V, G and D), are attached by a ball and socket at the forward tip, and straps at the base.  The straps are blown when there is still some residual thrust, and the boosters rotate up and out, causing the ball to come out of the socket.  There is also some venting of residual oxygen to aid in separation.  This discription was from a history that was referring to the original R-7 rocket, and I'm assuming that the method is still used.  Others, with better information may correct me.

Edited: this is in reply to a previous question about strap-on separation on the Soyuz launcher.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 10/22/2007 05:22 pm
Quote
Satori - 18/10/2007  6:23 PM

Hello!

I'm searching for the launch time of a 11K77 Zenit-2 launch vehicle that failled to launch a Tselina-2 sat on February 5, 1992. Any help?

Encyclopedia Astronautica has no information.
United Nations have no information.
Jonathan McDowell has no information.
Novosti Kosmonavtiki has no information.

Sorry... :frown:
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 10/22/2007 05:32 pm
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 22/10/2007  12:22 PM

Quote
Satori - 18/10/2007  6:23 PM

Hello!

I'm searching for the launch time of a 11K77 Zenit-2 launch vehicle that failled to launch a Tselina-2 sat on February 5, 1992. Any help?

Encyclopedia Astronautica has no information.
United Nations have no information.
Jonathan McDowell has no information.
Novosti Kosmonavtiki has no information.

Sorry... :frown:

Yes, that's strange I have also look for it there but no info there... humm, a mistery to be resolved!!!!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mark147 on 10/22/2007 06:11 pm
Can someone explain the difference between a normal Suyuz re-entry and a ballistic re-entry?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 10/22/2007 06:19 pm
Ballistic entry means aerodynamics are not involved with the flight path.  Soyuz, Apollo and Gemini use a lift entry to modify the flight path with the lift generated by an offset CG.

 A guidance system is a requirement to manipulate the lift vector.  A way of canceling the lift force is to roll the vehicle.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Citabria on 10/23/2007 05:11 pm
Quote
darkenfast - 22/10/2007  11:38 AM

The straps are blown when there is still some residual thrust, and the boosters rotate up and out, causing the ball to come out of the socket.  There is also some venting of residual oxygen to aid in separation.  This discription was from a history that was referring to the original R-7 rocket...


Thank you for replying to my question. I read that same explanation in Asif Siddiqi's history but I don't believe it (his history is not very technically oriented). If they rotate up and out with some residual thrust, the boosters would likely have different levels of thrust and different angles of rotation and the nose of the core would get pushed to one side. That seems like it would interfere too much with stability of the core.

Also, I saw a close-up photo of a booster nose and socket on a museum R-7 and it is definitely not ball-shaped, although there was not enough detail visible to fully explain the mechanism.

It seems more likely that cutting booster thrust and blowing the aft-end straps would cause the nose to depart the socket rearward, but I'm not sure. No one else has replied, so maybe it's still a Soviet secret. Just kidding! Is this kind of info available on L2? Or anywhere in English?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: NotGncDude on 10/23/2007 06:28 pm
Also, in ballistic entry you have little control of where you land, and higher G's.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: darkenfast on 10/24/2007 04:14 am
Oh, well...I was remembering the same source!  I quite enjoyed Siddiqi's book, but I wouldn't mind a better explanation either.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for replying to my question. I read that same explanation in Asif Siddiqi's history but I don't believe it (his history is not very technically oriented). If they rotate up and out with some residual thrust, the boosters would likely have different levels of thrust and different angles of rotation and the nose of the core would get pushed to one side. That seems like it would interfere too much with stability of the core.

Also, I saw a close-up photo of a booster nose and socket on a museum R-7 and it is definitely not ball-shaped, although there was not enough detail visible to fully explain the mechanism.

It seems more likely that cutting booster thrust and blowing the aft-end straps would cause the nose to depart the socket rearward, but I'm not sure. No one else has replied, so maybe it's still a Soviet secret. Just kidding! Is this kind of info available on L2? Or anywhere in English?
[/QUOTE]
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 11/02/2007 10:17 pm
AFAIK there's no clear and definitive description of how the strap-ons detach. Personally, I think that your are correct darkenfast since there is some video evidence which show clearly how a strap-on simply fell away during a launch (in the 60s I'll said). So what I think happen is that once the thrust in the booster start to decline and that it's time to let them go, the straps that hold them at the bottom is blown, allowing them to simply fall down from the core, all the while some venting at the top of each strap-on push them gently away of the core .. so they rotate  head first away from the core. The bottom line is that it's not like the SRB on the shuttle that are bolted to the tank. On a Soyuz rocket, the strap-ons are only hold in place because they push the core and that the strap at the bottom avoid them from rotating up-wards while pushing the core .... also I seem to recall that the strap-ons reach full thruste before the core ... If that is correct, that'll could confirm this theory since you will not want the core to start building thrust before the strap-on ... anyhow .. I'm no rocket scientist so I could be (very) wrong ...

I wish we could have some definitive explanation on the subject.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: tnphysics on 11/05/2007 01:04 am
Why does the Breeze-M have such a low thrust/weight ratio?

I assume that it is almost in orbit prior to engine start.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: William Graham on 11/05/2007 01:11 am
Quote
tnphysics - 5/11/2007  2:04 AM
I assume that it is almost in orbit prior to engine start.

I think it probably is. Without an upper stage, Proton can still make LEO, and has been seen to do so with some pretty heavy loads (Salyut, Zarya, Zvezda, etc).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/05/2007 01:12 am
Quote
tnphysics - 4/11/2007  8:04 PM

Why does the Breeze-M have such a low thrust/weight ratio?

I assume that it is almost in orbit prior to engine start.

It only performs a final short burn to reach a parking orbit, then performs all of the on-orbit transfer burns.  Since the transfer burns add velocity horizontal to the gravity vector, essentially no gravity losses result and there is no need to worry too much about thrust-to-weight ratios.  The only negative thing about the low thrust is that the transfer orbit burns have to be broken into a series of burns, extending the length of the mission.  The payback is terrific, however, since Briz-M has one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient, hypergolic propulsion systems ever flown.

Also keep in mind that Briz-M uses drop tanks.  The tankage is dropped after it is emptied, decreasing the dry mass and increasing the thrust-to-weight ratio for the latter burns.

Why the low thrust?  I've heard it expressed this way.  Thrust costs money.  If you can perform a mission with less thrust, it should cost less.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 11/30/2007 05:12 pm
I have a little question about Cosmos-3M.

In the scheme displayed on this web page : http://www.roscosmos.ru/Roket1Show.asp?RoketID=21

What means the sentence "pribornyi otsek" ?

Thank you very much for help !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 11/30/2007 05:24 pm
If I'm not mistaken "pribornyi otsek" means "Service Module" (e.g Soyuz' service module located "after" the Re-entry module). Might be different meaning for thet particular schema ...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 11/30/2007 06:01 pm
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 30/11/2007  9:12 PM

What means the sentence "pribornyi otsek"?

Priborniy otsek means compartment, which contains equipment (instruments) of control system and unites the second stage with fairing...

But priborniy otsek is not that denoted by two arrows on scheme...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 11/30/2007 06:11 pm

Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 30/11/2007  10:12 AM  I have a little question about Cosmos-3M.  In the scheme displayed on this web page : http://www.roscosmos.ru/Roket1Show.asp?RoketID=21  What means the sentence "pribornyi otsek" ?  Thank you very much for help ![/QUOTE]

 

It could mean "compartment for devices" or "instrument compartment".

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 11/30/2007 06:25 pm
By the way, the explanation of this scheme in English is more correct than in Russian...

http://www.roscosmos.ru/Roket1Show.asp?Lang=ENG
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 11/30/2007 06:26 pm
Quote
anik - 30/11/2007  8:01 PM

But priborniy otsek is not that denoted by two arrows on scheme...

OK, it was that point which looked strange to me !  :)

But in this case, what are the two objects pointed by the two arrows ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 11/30/2007 06:44 pm
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 30/11/2007  10:26 PM

But in this case, what are the two objects pointed by the two arrows?

See the image above... :)

It is low-thrust system, which contains tanks and engines for stabilization of rocket during flight between the first and second burns of engine 11D49 of the second stage...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: meiza on 11/30/2007 07:42 pm
Gas deflectors!? Does this rocket use jet vanes, in 2007?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skyrocket on 11/30/2007 09:52 pm
Quote
meiza - 30/11/2007  9:42 PM

Gas deflectors!? Does this rocket use jet vanes, in 2007?

Yes!

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 12/15/2007 02:25 pm
This is definitely the wrong place to ask, but what is the difference between the Zenit 2SLB and Zenit 3SLB now described in the launch calendar? Isn't Zenit2-SLB an inappropriate designator, and shouldn't it be "Zenit 2M"?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 12/15/2007 02:37 pm
Quote
Danderman - 15/12/2007  10:25 AM

This is definitely the wrong place to ask, but what is the difference between the Zenit 2SLB and Zenit 3SLB now described in the launch calendar? Isn't Zenit2-SLB an inappropriate designator, and shouldn't it be "Zenit 2M"?

No, the 2SLB uses the 3SLB fairings and adapters, which Boeing provides
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 12/15/2007 02:51 pm
Quote
Danderman - 15/12/2007  6:25 PM

what is the difference between the Zenit 2SLB and Zenit 3SLB now described in the launch calendar?

On Novosti kosmonavtiki forum I was told Zenit-2SLB is Zenit with Fregat-SB upper stage and Zenit-3SLB is Zenit with DM-SLB upper stage...

Quote
Danderman - 15/12/2007  6:25 PM

Isn't Zenit2-SLB an inappropriate designator, and shouldn't it be "Zenit 2M"?

I saw both names... I shall wait official designation of rocket for Elektro-L or Spektr-R launches and use Zenit-2SLB for now...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 12/15/2007 02:55 pm
Quote
Jim - 15/12/2007  6:37 PM

the 2SLB uses the 3SLB fairings and adapters, which Boeing provides

You did not read this: http://www.sea-launch.com/land-launch/index.html

"In place of the Boeing-made fairing used on Sea Launch, the Zenit-3SLB adopts a 4-meter fairing made by NPO Lavochkin. It is in current production and has been flight-proven with the Block DM. The Zenit-2SLB fairing is an improved version of the heritage Zenit-2 fairing"
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 12/15/2007 03:06 pm
Quote
anik - 15/12/2007  10:55 AM

Quote
Jim - 15/12/2007  6:37 PM

the 2SLB uses the 3SLB fairings and adapters, which Boeing provides

You did not read this: http://www.sea-launch.com/land-launch/index.html

"In place of the Boeing-made fairing used on Sea Launch, the Zenit-3SLB adopts a 4-meter fairing made by NPO Lavochkin. It is in current production and has been flight-proven with the Block DM. The Zenit-2SLB fairing is an improved version of the heritage Zenit-2 fairing"

oops!  I was wrong.  I was recalling some old info
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 12/19/2007 03:36 pm
Quote
anik - 15/12/2007  6:51 PM

Quote
Danderman - 15/12/2007  6:25 PM

what is the difference between the Zenit 2SLB and Zenit 3SLB now described in the launch calendar?

On Novosti kosmonavtiki forum I was told Zenit-2SLB is Zenit with Fregat-SB upper stage and Zenit-3SLB is Zenit with DM-SLB upper stage...

Quote
Danderman - 15/12/2007  6:25 PM

Isn't Zenit2-SLB an inappropriate designator, and shouldn't it be "Zenit 2M"?

I saw both names... I shall wait official designation of rocket for Elektro-L or Spektr-R launches and use Zenit-2SLB for now...

According to Novosti kosmonavtiki forum, Zenit with Fregat-SB upper stage will be named Zenit-3SLBF... It is approved already by rocket's manufacturer...

But it is unclear, for now, how Zenit with Fregat-SB will be named officially...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: William Graham on 12/19/2007 08:30 pm
Quote
Danderman - 15/12/2007  3:25 PM
Isn't Zenit2-SLB an inappropriate designator, and shouldn't it be "Zenit 2M"?

My (limited) understanding of matters is that the 2SLB and 2M are the same rocket, but the 2SLB is the designation used for commercial missions (SL = Sea Launch, parent company of the Land Launch consortium), and 2M for government launches (M=Modernised). Not sure though, can't remember where I read that.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: sammie on 12/19/2007 10:19 pm
The 2M and 2SLB are not the same, the former is a 2 stage version used to lift large payloads into LEO, while the latter uses the same first two stages, but a third Block DM-SL to put payloads into GTO. It's just that the Zenit will essentially fly in 4 different versions, a 2 stage version for Russian military, a 3 stage version from Oddesey, and two 3 stage versions from Baikonur. One with a fregat upperstage, the other with a Block DM-SL.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skyrocket on 12/20/2007 05:56 am
Following versions of the Zenit are existing or planned

Zenit-2: original two stage land launched zenit
Zenit-2M (governmental flights) = Zenit-2SLB (commercial flights): Two stage version of Zenit-3SLB
Zenit-3SL: Sea launched improved Zenit with Blok-SL upper stage
Zenit-3SLB: land launched version of Zenit-3SL
Zenit-2M Fregat-SB = Zenit-2SLB Fregat-SB = Zenit-3SLBF (?): land launched improved Zenit with Fregat-SB upper stage

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: William Graham on 12/20/2007 07:03 am
Quote
sammie - 19/12/2007  11:19 PM

The 2M and 2SLB are not the same...the latter uses the same first two stages, but a third Block DM-SL

2SLB is a 2-stage rocket. See http://www.sea-launch.com/land-launch/index.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 12/24/2007 02:46 pm
I have a little off-topic question...

Has someone read the book "The MIR Space Station: A Precusor to Space Colonization", by David M. Harland published in 1997 ?

I have found it on Astrobooks.com, but it costs 70$ and I would be sure it worth it before paying !

Thank you very much for your help !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: sammie on 12/24/2007 04:22 pm
same author wrote "The story of space station MIR" from 2005 which is probably an updated version. (this is something Praxis publisher has done quite often with books, republish the updated content under a different name). So I suppose you're better off buying the new book.

By the way, this 2005 version goes into quite a bit detail on the salyut stations, not bad, just don't expect the whole book to deal with MIR
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 12/24/2007 06:54 pm
OK, I've just ordered the updated version !

Thank you very much Sammie !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 12/30/2007 03:45 pm

Hello,

I'm wondering if anyone could help me identify the purpose of that red cylinder which is affixed to the rear of the Soyuz strap-ons & core blocks (see attached image, blue circle). The black tube coming off the top of it is plugged on one of the interface plates which is located on the side of the 'engine section' of the block. That device is removed at some point once the rocket is erected on the launch pad (or so it seems).

Thanks in advance.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/01/2008 03:37 pm
Anyone? Could it be a compressed air tank? a Gaseous Nitrogen tank?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: meiza on 01/01/2008 04:20 pm
Maybe it's some conditioning equipment that's removed before launch.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/01/2008 04:49 pm
Yes, it's most definitely a 'remove before flight' item. But the thing is that it doesn't seems to be powered since the only visible cable coming out of it is plugged to one of the 'umbilical plates' of the strap-on.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 01/01/2008 06:17 pm
Quote
DarthVader - 1/1/2008  12:49 PM

Yes, it's most definitely a 'remove before flight' item. But the thing is that it doesn't seems to be powered since the only visible cable coming out of it is plugged to one of the 'umbilical plates' of the strap-on.

desiccant containers?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/01/2008 07:27 pm
Quote
Jim - 1/1/2008  11:17 AM

Quote
DarthVader - 1/1/2008  12:49 PM

Yes, it's most definitely a 'remove before flight' item. But the thing is that it doesn't seems to be powered since the only visible cable coming out of it is plugged to one of the 'umbilical plates' of the strap-on.

desiccant containers?

Good suggestion Jim. But wouldn't you need some way of circulating the air on it in order to extract the humidity from it?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 01/01/2008 09:54 pm
Quote
DarthVader - 1/1/2008  3:27 PM

Quote
Jim - 1/1/2008  11:17 AM

Quote
DarthVader - 1/1/2008  12:49 PM

Yes, it's most definitely a 'remove before flight' item. But the thing is that it doesn't seems to be powered since the only visible cable coming out of it is plugged to one of the 'umbilical plates' of the strap-on.

desiccant containers?

Good suggestion Jim. But wouldn't you need some way of circulating the air on it in order to extract the humidity from it?

I have seen them without a circulation system.  It is mostly for changes in atmospheric pressure (if the tank is not sealed)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/02/2008 01:17 pm
Thanks Jim.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/05/2008 08:24 pm
Somebody knows if this book is available for buying ?

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_127/127-2/index.html

I think it should be fantastic to read it !

Thank you very much !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 01/06/2008 07:06 am
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 6/1/2008  12:24 AM

Somebody knows if this book is available for buying?

This book has been issued in 4000 copies and intended only as gift for veterans and high officials...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/09/2008 07:56 pm
Howdy,

It's me again with my Soyuz related question(s). This time, I'm wondering if someone could help me (yes, again) identify the purpose of a device visible in (at least) 4 locations on the Soyuz' boosters. In the attached image, I have marked the "device" with a pink arrow and added in an insert, a picture showing a similar area with a "remove before flight" cover.

Thanks in advance for any tips/hints.

Cheers,
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2008 09:08 pm
Quote
DarthVader - 9/1/2008  3:56 PM

Howdy,

It's me again with my Soyuz related question(s). This time, I'm wondering if someone could help me (yes, again) identify the purpose of a device visible in (at least) 4 locations on the Soyuz' boosters. In the attached image, I have marked the "device" with a pink arrow and added in an insert, a picture showing a similar area with a "remove before flight" cover.

Thanks in advance for any tips/hints.

Cheers,

Lift points for assembly in the MIK?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/09/2008 09:47 pm
hmm ... but then why will the cover be removed before flight then?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 01/09/2008 09:53 pm
Turbo pump exhaust?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/09/2008 10:04 pm
Quote
Jim - 9/1/2008  2:53 PM

Turbo pump exhaust?

I'm afraid not, AFAIK the turbo-pump exhaust is routed by two pipes downward and exit in two exhaust ports located on the heat shield "in between the nozzles".
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/11/2008 03:12 pm
"bump!"
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/12/2008 02:02 pm
The website of GKNPTs Khrounitchev has been updated with very interesting pictures and a nice video :

http://www.khrunichev.ru/khrunichev/live/foto.asp
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 01/12/2008 03:13 pm
Good catch Nicolas, thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 02/04/2008 11:51 am
Dear forumers,

I have just acquired from a source a picture of the launch of Progress-1, in january 1978. But on this picture, an escape system is visible above the Soyouz launcher...

Could someone tell me if this is normal ?

Thank you !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skyrocket on 02/04/2008 12:00 pm
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 4/2/2008  1:51 PM

Dear forumers,

I have just acquired from a source a picture of the launch of Progress-1, in january 1978. But on this picture, an escape system is visible above the Soyouz launcher...

Could someone tell me if this is normal ?

Thank you !

Yes, the early Progress launches used the same Fairing as the Souyz launches. To keep the same aerodynamic properties, a dummy launch escape system was carried on top. The only difference is, that the rectangular stabilzers are absent from the fairing:

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jester on 02/04/2008 03:07 pm
Quote
DarthVader - 9/1/2008  9:56 PM

Howdy,

It's me again with my Soyuz related question(s). This time, I'm wondering if someone could help me (yes, again) identify the purpose of a device visible in (at least) 4 locations on the Soyuz' boosters. In the attached image, I have marked the "device" with a pink arrow and added in an insert, a picture showing a similar area with a "remove before flight" cover.

Thanks in advance for any tips/hints.

Cheers,

maybe check here:
http://www.sondasespaciales.com/public/imagenes/zemiorka5.jpg

or maybe its a pressure release valve, I'm going there in about 3 weeks, i'll ask around....
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 02/05/2008 02:19 pm
Quote
Skyrocket - 4/2/2008  2:00 PM

Yes, the early Progress launches used the same Fairing as the Souyz launches. To keep the same aerodynamic properties, a dummy launch escape system was carried on top. The only difference is, that the rectangular stabilzers are absent from the fairing:


OK, thank you very much Skyrocket ! The picture of Progress-1 is here :

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lancements/1978/20011978/20011978.html

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 03/09/2008 11:07 am
Hello,

Somebody know when this picture of Mir was taken ? Since there is no Soyouz docked, it should be during a fly-around and/or a spacecraft relocation...

Thank you very much for help !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 03/09/2008 01:18 pm
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 9/3/2008  3:07 PM

Somebody know when this picture of Mir was taken?

There is the truss base for future installation of drive for the solar array on Kvant module, so it was after January 26, 1991. There is no Sofora truss on Kvant module, so it was before July 27, 1991.

So there are two variants: Soyuz TM-11 relocation on March 26, 1991 or Soyuz TM-12 relocation on May 28, 1991.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 03/09/2008 04:08 pm
Thank you Anik,

I have a very similar picture with the caption "A view of Mir from Soyuz TM-11 during a fly around"...

So I imagine that both pictures were taken on 26th March 1991...

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 03/30/2008 01:42 pm
Dear group,

I am doing some researches about the former head of TsUKOS (the ancestor of Space Forces), Andreï Grigorievitch Karass.

I have found two biographies of him in two reliable websites :

http://www.rtc.ru/encyk/biogr-book/10K/1211.shtml

http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spacehistory/baykonur/karas.html

Each article features a picture of Karass. My problem is that the two pictures show different men !!!
Do someone know which one is the real Karass ?

Thank you very much !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 03/30/2008 02:00 pm
That's OK, I have found the answer myself !

In the picture below, Karass is the third, starting from the left. Despite poor quality, it is clear that the "good" photograph is the one of cosmoworld.ru.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/13/2008 12:39 pm
Hello,

I have a little question concerning the organisation of Baïkonour.

Do someone know if there is any difference between "Kosmodrom Baikonour" and "Federalnoye Kosmitcheskii Tsentr Baikonour" ?

I know that Roskosmos and Space Forces are both owners of the center, but do they share the same facilities, or is the center separated into two parts (one for FKA and one for KS) ?

Thank you very much for help !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 04/13/2008 03:24 pm
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 13/4/2008  4:39 PM

Do someone know if there is any difference between "Kosmodrom Baikonour" and "Federalnoye Kosmitcheskii Tsentr Baikonour"?

"Kosmodrom Baikonur" is the name of cosmodrome. "Federal'niy Kosmicheskiy Tsentr "Baikonur"" is the name of main enterprise, which maintains objects of Baikonur cosmodrome and organizes works on preparation and performing of launches.

Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 13/4/2008  4:39 PM

I know that Roskosmos and Space Forces are both owners of the center, but do they share the same facilities, or is the center separated into two parts (one for FKA and one for KS)?

Since 2007 all objects of Baikonur cosmodrome belong to Roskosmos.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/13/2008 04:17 pm
Mmmmh... Almost three hours between question and answer !

Are you tired today Anik ?   :laugh:  :laugh:

Thank you very much for clarification !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: whitewatcher on 04/17/2008 05:39 pm
I would like to know how a sojus is flown at docking time. As far as I know they have two sticks, but ...
- how many axis' per stick?
- which stick axis is linked to which one of the 6 DOF?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 04/17/2008 06:13 pm
Quote
whitewatcher - 17/4/2008  12:39 PM

I would like to know how a sojus is flown at docking time. As far as I know they have two sticks, but ...
- how many axis' per stick?
- which stick axis is linked to which one of the 6 DOF?

The rotational hand controller has three axes, and controls all three corresponding rotational degrees of freedom.

The translational hand controller has two axes and a toggle switch. The toggle switch controls translation in the longitudinal (X) axis) and the two-axis stick controls the other two.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 04/17/2008 06:14 pm
Is it possible to know when the orginal PU-1 launch platform was renamed PU-5 and the original PU-2 was renamed PU-6?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 04/17/2008 06:19 pm
Quote
anik - 13/4/2008  10:24 AM

(...)

Since 2007 all objects of Baikonur cosmodrome belong to Roskosmos.

So, the Assembly and Fueling Complex (MZK) at Site 112A and the Vibration and Test Building also belong to Roskosmos? I thought it was Kazakhstan that owned the two buildings?!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 04/17/2008 06:35 pm
Quote
Satori - 17/4/2008  10:19 PM

So, the Assembly and Fueling Complex (MZK) at Site 112A and the Vibration and Test Building also belong to Roskosmos? I thought it was Kazakhstan that owned the two buildings?!

Rui, thanks for this question. I should correct my sentence. I wanted to say that "Since 2007 all objects (rented by Russia) of Baikonur cosmodrome belong to Roskosmos". :)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: whitewatcher on 04/17/2008 08:02 pm
Quote
Jorge - 17/4/2008  8:13 PM

Quote
whitewatcher - 17/4/2008  12:39 PM

I would like to know how a sojus is flown at docking time. As far as I know they have two sticks, but ...
- how many axis' per stick?
- which stick axis is linked to which one of the 6 DOF?

The rotational hand controller has three axes, and controls all three corresponding rotational degrees of freedom.

The translational hand controller has two axes and a toggle switch. The toggle switch controls translation in the longitudinal (X) axis) and the two-axis stick controls the other two.

Thank you!

Which one is the  left/right hand stick?
Is there a "low thrust" mode for small adjustments?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zond on 04/17/2008 08:20 pm
Excalibur Almaz claims they own several TKS capsules and that they will use these capsules to launch people into space. Has anybody heard any rumours of Krunichev (or somebody else) actively working on refurbishing these capsules?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: roguerobot on 04/17/2008 11:04 pm
I'm making a short film about early soviet spaceflight.  It's a zero budget personal project, but I didn't realise when I wrote it that there was so little technical information about Vostok available.  I'm hoping someone on this thread can help with some questions regarding the Vzor.
In the film, the main character - a fictional female cosmonaut - must use the Vzor to realign the Sharik/Capsule for reentry.  The craft hasn't hit the correct orbit so she has to manually set the trajectory for reentry.
Anyway - I believe Vzor is used for this purpose but I cannot find out exactly what it looks like or how it works.  Can someone give me a layman's explanation of its workings and how it would be used to correctly align a craft?  I particularly need visual explanation and, even better, some hires images of the Vzor.
Any help would be greatly appreciated and credited on the final film - if I ever get the damn thing finished!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 04/18/2008 07:59 pm
Quote
whitewatcher - 17/4/2008  3:02 PM

Quote
Jorge - 17/4/2008  8:13 PM

Quote
whitewatcher - 17/4/2008  12:39 PM

I would like to know how a sojus is flown at docking time. As far as I know they have two sticks, but ...
- how many axis' per stick?
- which stick axis is linked to which one of the 6 DOF?

The rotational hand controller has three axes, and controls all three corresponding rotational degrees of freedom.

The translational hand controller has two axes and a toggle switch. The toggle switch controls translation in the longitudinal (X) axis) and the two-axis stick controls the other two.

Thank you!

Which one is the  left/right hand stick?

Translation on left, rotation on right.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/21/2008 12:11 am

Quote
Zond - 17/4/2008  1:20 PM  Excalibur Almaz claims they own several TKS capsules and that they will use these capsules to launch people into space. Has anybody heard any rumours of Krunichev (or somebody else) actively working on refurbishing these capsules?
 

FWIW, I have heard no such rumors. There have been plans in the past to do so, but were never funded.

The capsules from time to time have been relocated, that is about all I know.

 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/22/2008 04:40 pm
Soyuz T-13/Salyut 7

This mission was the first totally manual docking of a Soyuz to a space station. Since Salyut 7 was frozen dead for the first days after docking, my question is: where and how did Soyuz manage its power supply? Normally, a Soyuz may draw power from a docked space station. In free flight, Soyuz maintains a solar inertial reference, and is usually in a flat spin with the solar panels facing the sun. So, how did Soyuz T-13 maintain this inertial reference while docked to Salyut 7?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: silver t on 04/24/2008 04:01 pm
Does the Soyuz TMA descent module release a base heatshield before using its landing thrusters? I didn't think it did but all the images seem to show a really clean looking base. Perhpas the charring comes off when it hits the ground?!?!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 04/24/2008 04:34 pm
Quote
silver t - 24/4/2008  11:01 AM

Does the Soyuz TMA descent module release a base heatshield before using its landing thrusters?

Yes.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DarthVader on 04/24/2008 04:36 pm
Quote
silver t - 24/4/2008  9:01 AM

Does the Soyuz TMA descent module release a base heatshield before using its landing thrusters? I didn't think it did but all the images seem to show a really clean looking base. Perhpas the charring comes off when it hits the ground?!?!

Yes, the heat-shield is discarded while the descent module is coming down, after the opening of the main parachute. See the following image for a bit mode details on the sequence:

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k166/suzymchale/mars-center/soyuz-reentry-2grande.jpg
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: silver t on 04/24/2008 07:07 pm
thanks people, that explains the appearance of the base of the vehicle
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 04/27/2008 07:50 am

Quote
Jorge - 19/4/2008  5:59 AM  
Quote
whitewatcher - 17/4/2008  3:02 PM  
Quote
Jorge - 17/4/2008  8:13 PM  
Quote
whitewatcher - 17/4/2008  12:39 PM  I would like to know how a sojus is flown at docking time. As far as I know they have two sticks, but ... - how many axis' per stick? - which stick axis is linked to which one of the 6 DOF?
 The rotational hand controller has three axes, and controls all three corresponding rotational degrees of freedom.  The translational hand controller has two axes and a toggle switch. The toggle switch controls translation in the longitudinal (X) axis) and the two-axis stick controls the other two.
 Thank you!  Which one is the  left/right hand stick?
 Translation on left, rotation on right.

Couple of diagrams:

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 04/27/2008 08:53 am

What is the fuel that limits the Soyuz's stay-in-space time? Is it the Hydrogen Peroxide oxidizer? Extract from the 2 September 2004 ISS On-Orbit Status Report:  

Update on Soyuz 9S: Launch of CDR Leroy Chiao and FE Salizhan Sharipov continues to be set for 10/9. Their Soyuz TMA-5 spacecraft is the first with two new features that are welcome improvements of the reliable old crew transport: two additional forward-pointing braking thrusters (#27, #28) besides the two engines (#17, #18) already near the Orbital Module’s docking ring; and a thermo-electric cooler for the Descent Module’s Hydrogen Peroxide tankage, to extend the life of the H2O2 which tends to deteriorate in time to H2O and O. (H2O2 is one of the most powerful oxidizers known – stronger than chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and potassium permanganate, but it has been [and still is, until certification] limiting Soyuz’ orbital stay time).

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/27/2008 10:23 am
Do you know what is the origin of the number "7" in the Soyouz official designation ("7K") ?
The number 7 was also used for the "Vostok-7" project... But why ???

Thank you very much !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Michael Cassutt on 04/27/2008 07:07 pm
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 28/4/2008  4:23 AM

Do you know what is the origin of the number "7" in the Soyouz official designation ("7K") ?
The number 7 was also used for the "Vostok-7" project... But why ???

Thank you very much !

"7" was a program designator. There were a pair of Vostok models -- 1 and 3 -- and unmanned spy satellite versions of same (Zenits 2 and 4).  The 7 was one of three vehicles in the Soyuz program -- there was a spacecraft 9 (a tanker) and an 11 (an upper stage), I believe.  

There was also an interim design for a manned vehicle -- a #5 spacecraft called "Sever".

I'm going from memory here, so don't take this as reliable even to Wikipedia level.  But the essential information should hold up.

Michael Cassutt
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/27/2008 08:39 pm
Yes, I know it, but why there wasn't spacecrafts dubbed 6K, or 8K ?

1K, 2K, 3K and 4K refer to different versions developped for the "Vostok" program.
5K refer to "Sever".
7K refer to "Soyouz"

But where is "6K" ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Michael Cassutt on 04/27/2008 08:54 pm
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 28/4/2008  2:39 PM

Yes, I know it, but why there wasn't spacecrafts dubbed 6K, or 8K ?

1K, 2K, 3K and 4K refer to different versions developped for the "Vostok" program.
5K refer to "Sever".
7K refer to "Soyouz"

But where is "6K" ?


Probably for some military vehicle that never got beyond the design stage.  I interviewed Feoktistov once, and he suggested that the "odd" numbers were for ostensibly civilian developments, with the even for military.  (I say "suggested" because he said this with a big smile and a gesture that made it obvious he wasn't going to say more, or really didn't know.)

MC
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Michael Cassutt on 04/27/2008 08:57 pm
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 28/4/2008  2:39 PM

Yes, I know it, but why there wasn't spacecrafts dubbed 6K, or 8K ?

1K, 2K, 3K and 4K refer to different versions developped for the "Vostok" program.
5K refer to "Sever".
7K refer to "Soyouz"

But where is "6K" ?
Do you know what is the origin of the number "7" in the Soyouz official designation ("7K") ?
The number 7 was also used for the "Vostok-7" project... But why ??? "

Just out of curiosity, why do you ask a question when you already know the answer?

MC

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 04/28/2008 04:25 am
What are the descent modes of the Soyuz? According to this post  there are 4: controlled automatic, controlled manual, and two ballistic - but what are the specifics of each? I can't find clear details of these anywhere (including the "SoyCOM" Manual).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/28/2008 08:15 am
Quote
Michael Cassutt - 27/4/2008  10:57 PM

Just out of curiosity, why do you ask a question when you already know the answer?

MC


 :)  Actually, my question was : why Soyouz is refered to as "7K" and not "6K" !...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2008 04:40 am
Here is an implied question from another thread: is the Argon-16 computer located in the Soyuz descent module? If not, what is the flight computer for Soyuz re-entry?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 04/29/2008 01:49 pm
Argon-16 computer is in PAO (Instrumentation/Propulsion Module). It operates Soyuz flight from launch to PAO separation. KS-020M computer is in SA (Descent Module). It operates Soyuz flight after PAO separation.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2008 02:41 pm

Quote
anik - 29/4/2008  6:49 AM  Argon-16 computer is in PAO (Instrumentation/Propulsion Module). It operates Soyuz flight from launch to PAO separation. KS-020M computer is in SA (Descent Module). It operates Soyuz flight after PAO separation.
 Thank you for the response.

Will KS-020M be replaced at the same time as Argon-16?

Answered my own question, from Suzy's web site:

http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/soyuz.html

"The TsVM-101 will initially be installed in the forward Orbital Module of the Soyuz and Progress, but it is planned to later move it to the Descent Module to take over re-entry control functions from the KS-020M computer that currently handles this, and enable the TsVM-101 to be reused. This will not happen before 2010."

 

 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 04/29/2008 03:44 pm
Quote
Danderman - 29/4/2008  6:41 PM

Answered my own question, from Suzy's web site:

http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/soyuz.html

"The TsVM-101 will initially be installed in the forward Orbital Module of the Soyuz and Progress, but it is planned to later move it to the Descent Module to take over re-entry control functions from the KS-020M computer that currently handles this, and enable the TsVM-101 to be reused. This will not happen before 2010."

This description has big mistake. TsVM-101 will be initially installed in place of Argon-16 in the Instrumentation/Propulsion Module (PAO), not in the Orbital Module (BO).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 04/29/2008 05:07 pm
Another Soyuz question, how and where do the cosmonauts sleep in the 3 days between launch and ISS docking, do they have sleeping bags or do they sleep in the crew couches?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/29/2008 06:11 pm
Quote
Spacenick - 29/4/2008  7:07 PM

Another Soyuz question, how and where do the cosmonauts sleep in the 3 days between launch and ISS docking, do they have sleeping bags or do they sleep in the crew couches?

I don't know if they have sleeping bags, but generally they don't sleep in the Kazbek-UM couches. They like to put their body in the longitudinal axis of the spacecraft, in order not to feel its rotation (due to the "barbecue" mode).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 04/29/2008 06:44 pm
do you have any links about this mode, doesn't sound too comfortable
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 04/29/2008 08:32 pm

Oops, made the correction, thanks!  :o   

Quote
anik - 30/4/2008  1:44 AM  
Quote
Danderman - 29/4/2008  6:41 PM  Answered my own question, from Suzy's web site:  http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/soyuz.html  "The TsVM-101 will initially be installed in the forward Orbital Module of the Soyuz and Progress, but it is planned to later move it to the Descent Module to take over re-entry control functions from the KS-020M computer that currently handles this, and enable the TsVM-101 to be reused. This will not happen before 2010."
 This description has big mistake. TsVM-101 will be initially installed in place of Argon-16 in the Instrumentation/Propulsion Module (PAO), not in the Orbital Module (BO).

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2008 09:11 pm

Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 29/4/2008  11:11 AM  
Quote
Spacenick - 29/4/2008  7:07 PM  Another Soyuz question, how and where do the cosmonauts sleep in the 3 days between launch and ISS docking, do they have sleeping bags or do they sleep in the crew couches?
 I don't know if they have sleeping bags, but generally they don't sleep in the Kazbek-UM couches. They like to put their body in the longitudinal axis of the spacecraft, in order not to feel its rotation (due to the "barbecue" mode).

My understanding is/was that Soyuz does not perform a barbeque roll like Apollo after TLI, instead, Soyuz maintains a solar inertial attitude, with the solar arrays pointed at the sun, and the radiator hidden in shadow. This requires a slow spin around the X axis, not the Y axis.

I could be wrong, though. However, if I am wrong, and Soyuz spends half its time in the sunlit portion of each orbit with the solar arrays pointed away from the sun, well, wow, that would be stupid.

 

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 05/01/2008 02:24 am

Quote
Suzy - 28/4/2008  2:25 PM  What are the descent modes of the Soyuz? According to this post  there are 4: controlled automatic, controlled manual, and two ballistic - but what are the specifics of each? I can't find clear details of these anywhere (including the "SoyCOM" Manual).

Found the answer in the SoyCOM Manual:

Automatically Controlled Descent (AUS, Avtomaticheskii Upravlyaemyi Spusk)

This is the nominal and preferred descent mode, where the spacecraft lands in a preselected landing area. The crew input the trajectory before descent, and the onboard computer takes care of the actual descent.

Manually-Controlled Descent (RUS, Ruchnoe Upravlenie Spuskom)

The crew can transfer to this mode from the AUS mode anytime during the autonomous flight of the SA, Descent Module. Transfer to the RUS mode is irreversible. In manually-controlled descent the cosmonaut using the RUS Handle buttons issues commands for the basic roll angle decrements of 15 degrees each, the maximal possible decrement being 45 degrees. In case of the attitude control equipment sensor failure the RUS mode is impossible.

Ballistic Descent (BS, Ballisticheskii Spusk)

The BS is the descent with the average-integral zero lift. The BS is a backup descent mode used in case of the RUS mode failure or “nominally” is most emergency descent modes. However this mode, just like the AUS mode, can be selected in advance or can be transferred to from the controlled descent procedure in case off-nominal deviation occurs in the SA or its system operation. The latter case is called the “fall into BS”.

The ballistic descent can be executed in case of the descent control system failures resulting in loss of the spacecraft or the SA attitude control, failures in the descent reaction control system (the SA attitude control thrusters) etc. In all such cases the SA is driven into rotation about its velocity axis Oxv with the rate of ω.x=12.5 degr./s. The BS trajectory mainly features the atmosphere part range decrease by approximately 400 km with respect to the controlled descent and also the axial acceleration increase up to n.x=8.5 g.

In case of a failure in the primary equipment set used in the ballistic descent, transfer to the backup ballistic mode (BSP – Ballisticheskii Spusk Rezervnyi) is executed.

Unconditional compulsory selection of the ballistic descent is provided for the urgent descent from orbit in case of off-nominal situations jeopardizing the crew safety (depressurization, fire etc.). The ballistic (trajectory) support for such situations is envisaged: once a day (if no dynamic operations are accomplished) form #23-14 is uplinked to the crew onboard the ISS, that form containing data on the engine ignition and the retrofire impulse value for each revolution. The ignition time is selected so as to ensure landing in areas which are called backup landing areas and which are selected in advance taking into account the arbitrary position of the orbital path with respect to the Earth’s surface.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TALsite on 05/09/2008 03:13 pm
Posted in “Plan of Russian space launches”
Quote
anik - 1/5/2008  8:32 AM

May 25 – Soyuz TMA-15 (No. 225) – Soyuz-FG – Baikonur

October 1 – Soyuz TMA-16 (No. 226) – Soyuz-FG – Baikonur

November 16 – Soyuz TMA-01M (No. 701) – Soyuz-FG – Baikonur


Two questions for you, Anik:

Does the spacecraft denomination TMA-xx will change to TMA-xxM, with the 700 series ?

and

Does Soyuz No.701 fly before Soyuz No.227 (TMA-17)?

Thanks
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 05/09/2008 03:29 pm
Quote
TALsite - 9/5/2008  7:13 PM

Does the spacecraft denomination TMA-xx will change to TMA-xxM, with the 700 series?

Yes, I suppose, because Progress designation has been officially changed from Progress M-XX to Progress M-XXM with the changing of computer from Argon-16 to TsVM-101.

Quote
TALsite - 9/5/2008  7:13 PM

Does Soyuz No.701 fly before Soyuz No.227 (TMA-17)?

Yes, I have heard RSC Energia will try to launch ship no. 701 in November 2009 before ships nos. 227, 228, 229 and 230.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zpoxy on 05/11/2008 04:03 am
I have a question about the Soyuz booster launch sequence. Are there any on pad cut-off modes in the final 60 seconds of the countdown? I notice that there are two umbilical masts that separate at 45 and 15 seconds. I assume one of the uses is  LOx fill, press and vent  for the stages of the rocket. Can they be remotely reconnected if the countdown should stop after they disconnect but before liftoff? Or, is an on pad cutoff just not part of the Soyuz operations?

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Citabria on 05/13/2008 02:39 pm
Here's a diagram from a 1975 ASTP NASA press kit. It shows that the OM has no proper hatch where it connects to the DM - just a swing-down grill (#23) to cover the opening (obviously the DM has a proper hatch there). Could it be that the end-of-mission OM separation thrust is powered merely by air escaping the OM through the grill?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Capt. David on 05/14/2008 03:54 am
Quote
Zond - 17/4/2008  4:20 PM

Excalibur Almaz claims they own several TKS capsules and that they will use these capsules to launch people into space. Has anybody heard any rumours of Krunichev (or somebody else) actively working on refurbishing these capsules?

Excalibur Almaz is working with NPO Mash on updating the VA capsules (as well as other "bigger" Almaz components ;) ) to make them "tourist friendly".

Khrunichev does have one of the old unlaunched capsules (I'm pretty sure it would have been the bottom capsule of the canceled LVI-5 Proton/Dual VA launch test), but the actual process of refurbishing these capsules is proprietary information of NPO Mash.


Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 05/17/2008 10:24 am
Here is a picture took in the MIK-254 on 6th april 2008 by Vassili Petrovitch, a French guy who was in the same trip that Rui Barbosa...

Do you know what it is ???

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 05/17/2008 10:43 am
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 17/5/2008  2:24 PM

Do you know what it is?

DM-SLB upper stage, obviously.

http://www.tsenki.com/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=565
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 05/17/2008 11:52 am
But I thought that The DM-SLB was in area 31 ? Was it temporarily stowed in MIK-254 ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 05/17/2008 12:16 pm
Quote
Nicolas PILLET - 17/5/2008  3:52 PM

But I thought that The DM-SLB was in area 31? Was it temporarily stowed in MIK-254?

In MIK on area 254 - tests of DM-SLB systems are performing; in MIK-40D on area 31 - the satellite is testing and the ascent unit (KGCh: transfer compartment + upper stage + adapter + satellite + fairing) is assembling; in MIK on area 42 - stages of Zenit-3SLB rocket are assembling and the docking with ascent unit is performing.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 05/17/2008 12:29 pm
OK, thank you very much Anik !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 05/25/2008 05:55 pm
What is the current maximum altitude for Soyuz and what limits it?
Will it be increased with TMA-T* because they are lighter? And what information is available on the new flight computer and the old one, why does the old one week 80 kgs?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 05/25/2008 07:11 pm
What is the current maximum altitude for Soyuz and what limits it?

Approximately 425 km.
 
And what information is available on the new flight computer and the old one, why does the old one week 80 kgs?

Old computer is Argon-16, which has weight of 70 kg. See more about it in Russian on http://www.argon.ru/?q=node/6

New computer is TsVM-101, which has weight of 8.5 kg. See more about it in Russian on http://www.submicron.ru/products/1/
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 05/25/2008 07:57 pm
The new one still looks quite big, it's a real pity that Russia couldn't keep up with microprocessor development while China has quite a few plants for wafer production and has even developed indigenous designs. Hopefully, Russia will catch up, it's time some people in the military and government will understand that using computer systems manufactured under the potential influence of foreign agencies and especially the use of the Windows Operating system, where you have absolutely no control over what it really does, might be extremely dangerous. I don't want to sound distrusting of American companies, but it's an open secret that there is work being done on cyberwar weapons in the USA and there was official CIA involvement in developing the security system for Windows Vista.
If people understand that their computer might actually turn villain on them, I bet there will be a lot of funding for indigenous hardware and software design and the use of open verifiable software solutions.
Never the less this looks like a good development.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 05/27/2008 06:13 am
Can the Soyuz be flown in unmanned/automated mode - i.e. controlled from the ground?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 05/27/2008 02:24 pm
Can the Soyuz be flown in unmanned/automated mode - i.e. controlled from the ground?

Strange question. Soyuz has carried out many automated flights in past. This capability has not changed since then.

Soyuz can perform all stages of the spaceflight in automated mode without crew participation, even if crew is aboard. Maneuvers during two-day flight to ISS, docking to ISS, relocation, undocking from ISS, the deorbit burn and landing - all these events can be done automatically.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: dchill on 05/28/2008 09:44 pm
I ran across some discussion about the software for the TMA's Neptune IDS on a Russian site (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7050&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=121) that seemed to indicate that Neptune had 100 KSLOC in Pascal and 30 KSLOC in assembly language.  (I won't comment on what I think about those decisions :o)

Have you ever seen any similar discussions regarding the software that's being written to go in the TsVM-101 for the 700-Series+ Soyuz vehicles?  I'd like to get some understanding of the complexity and the magnitude of the effort - particularly if the 101 is going to eventually replace both the ARGON-16 in the instrumentation/prop module and the KS020M in the descent module.

According to posts at the same site (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7050&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=121) the TsVM-101 is a homegrown computer with a 1B812 processor (24 MIPS, 2MB, 50W) - which seemed to be a 486 derivative.   Is that the same processor type that was used in the Neptune's Integrated Control Consoles (ICCs)?  Are both of these newer flight computers evolved from the KSO20M currently in the DM?  Do all 3 boxes share software developers from the same shop using the same s/w dev tools, etc.?

(BTW - the website for the TsVM-101 vendor seems to be down.  I hope that doesn't imply anything in regards to their flight products  ;))

Thanks in advance for any answers to this deluge of questions!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 05/29/2008 01:40 am
Strange question. Soyuz has carried out many automated flights in past. This capability has not changed since then.

Soyuz can perform all stages of the spaceflight in automated mode without crew participation, even if crew is aboard. Maneuvers during two-day flight to ISS, docking to ISS, relocation, undocking from ISS, the deorbit burn and landing - all these events can be done automatically.

Thanks, I just wasn't sure if the Soyuz could be flown without a crew!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/29/2008 06:39 pm
What is the status of the Tsyklon and/or Kosmos 3M launch vehicles?  Both appear to be on the way out, with only a few launch vehicles remaining.  Will we know ahead of time when the final launches actually take place?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: koennecke on 06/05/2008 10:53 am
What is the status of Angara? From a heavy lift angle, it has me hooked. But, I find it hard to find details on project progress.
Thanks
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/06/2008 08:21 pm
What is the status of Angara? From a heavy lift angle, it has me hooked. But, I find it hard to find details on project progress.
Thanks

Here is a news report.  In it, Anatoly Perminov, head of the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos), says that the first Angara test launches are planned to take place in 2010-2011 (from Plesetsk Northern Cosmodrome).  The small Angara will fly in 2010, followed by the heavy Angara in 2011.  Perminov also says that construction of the "Baiterek" Angara pad at Baikonur will begin in 2012 if initial flight tests are successful.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1401491/construction_of_angara_rocket_launch_pad_at_baikonur_to_start/

Last Fall, the first Angara test stage was erected in a test stand at Peresvet near Moscow for propellant loading tests.  It is supposed to be test fired in a test stand sometime this year.

There have been recent reports of substantial budget allocations for Russian military purchases of Angara launches.  This, coupled with the recent Krunichev purchase of ILS, is consistent with Angara becoming a largely defense-related launch vehicle like EELV.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: MikeM. on 06/12/2008 10:46 pm
This is both a question about Russian launches as well as Ariane 5 one. Why does it seem almost every Russian or Ariane 5 launch happens at night? Is there any specific reason or just a difference between the US way of launching and Russian and ESA launches?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 06/12/2008 11:08 pm
This is both a question about Russian launches as well as Ariane 5 one. Why does it seem almost every Russian or Ariane 5 launch happens at night? Is there any specific reason or just a difference between the US way of launching and Russian and ESA launches?

That are GTO launches of western comsats.  Orbital mechanics drives the launch time
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: MikeM. on 06/12/2008 11:43 pm
Thanks for the quick answer Jim.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/15/2008 05:02 pm
Dear friends,

I am presently writing an article about the history of the Soyouz spacecraft, and I am encoutering a problem with the designation of one of its earlier versions.

The very first version was called 7K-OK. No problem with that.
The version used after the Soyouz-11 disaster was called 7K-T. No problem.

But what about the version used for Soyouz-10 and Soyouz-11 ?

- According to Asif Siddiqi's books, it was already called 7K-T.

- According to Mark Wade's wabsite, it was called 7KT-OK, or 7K-OKS (the two designations are equivalent).

- There is a big confusion in the Kamanine's diary.

          + 16th july 1970 : 7KS is the internal designation of the future "Soyouz-T" spacecraft, which would eventually begin operation in 1979.

          + In several articles written later, he calls "7KS" the ships which will reach DOS n°1 and DOS n°2.

          + 17th march 1971 : he calls these ships "7KT"  (without the "-")


Could someone help me ? Anik, do you have further informations (I hope your holydays were fine !)

Thank you very much !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 06/15/2008 09:46 pm
But what about the version used for Soyouz-10 and Soyouz-11?

Soyuz-10 and Soyuz-11 had 7K-T designation, 11F615A8 index and numbers 31 and 32 respectively, according to Sergey Shamsutdinov's article in Novosti kosmonavtiki magazine 4(231)/2002.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 06/16/2008 05:43 am
But what about the version used for Soyouz-10 and Soyouz-11?

Soyuz-10 and Soyuz-11 had 7K-T designation, 11F615A8 index and numbers 31 and 32 respectively, according to Sergey Shamsutdinov's article in Novosti kosmonavtiki magazine 4(231)/2002.

Available online here (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtml) (in Russian)   :)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/16/2008 04:11 pm
Soyuz-10 and Soyuz-11 had 7K-T designation, 11F615A8 index and numbers 31 and 32 respectively, according to Sergey Shamsutdinov's article in Novosti kosmonavtiki magazine 4(231)/2002.

Indeed, it is the version I have retained for my article... It would mean that Kamanine was wrong in his journal, or that another designation has been considered at the time...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 07/14/2008 05:35 am
Could a Soyuz equipped with APAS instead of probe and cone dock with a PMA at the US segment of ISS, and attach for a nominal six month period? Apart from the mass penalty of APAS, why is this option never considered?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 07/14/2008 11:06 am
Could a Soyuz equipped with APAS instead of probe and cone dock with a PMA at the US segment of ISS, and attach for a nominal six month period? Apart from the mass penalty of APAS, why is this option never considered?


No KURS on the PMA's
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 07/14/2008 06:55 pm
Could a Soyuz equipped with APAS instead of probe and cone dock with a PMA at the US segment of ISS, and attach for a nominal six month period? Apart from the mass penalty of APAS, why is this option never considered?


No KURS on the PMA's

That's a good point, but I would assume that the existing Russian segment Kurs system could allow a Soyuz to get to 100 meters out safely, conduct a fly-around, and the remaining non-Kurs maneuvers would be similar to Soyuz relocation maneuvers.

As a concrete example, if there were no Node 3 (for whatever reason), Soyuz could get to within 100 meters of FGB nadir using Kurs, and then close to PMA-3 manually.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: maxx on 07/18/2008 06:51 pm
Hope this is on topic; I know the Russians are rolling their launchers at 6:30AM to commemorate something but I do not remember what. I'm almost sure it is the time of a "Russian First".

[edit]
Found the answer: the launch vehicle is rolled out at 6:30 to commemorate the rollout of Yuris Gargarine' spacecraft (Vostok-1) on April 11, 1961.
[/edit]
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 07/19/2008 03:47 pm
This posting relates to an issue which was raised many pages ago: the role of Cosmos 21.   We know from Soviet/Russian statements that this was a launch of a Molniya booster carrying a first generation Venera/Mars spacecraft bus, and there has been the suggestion that this was going to fly past the Moon (like Zond 3) to perform lunar photography.

Calculations suggest that this is incorrect.

As I have discussed at length elsewhere over the years, launches to the Moon can be identified by the Greenwhich Hour Angle at launch: see for example JBIS/Space Chronicle vol 57, Supplement 1, pp 3-41.   The first generation Lunas with transit times of ~40 hours had launch GHAs of around 160 deg: the later Lunas with transit times of 80-105 hours had launch GHAs of 220-260 deg (the variation is caused by a combination of parking orbt inclinations and transit times).

The GHA analysis allowed me to bore everyone with claims that Zond 4 was launched directly AWAY from the Moon when everyone else seemed to claim that it was an intended circumlunar mission: subsequently, Russian literature backed up the mathematics.

Zond 3 had a launch GHA of 165 deg and shared the same fast transit time to the Moon with the first generation Lunas.

The two-Line orbital elements for Cosmos 21 alow its launch time to be calculated as 06:24 UT on November 11, 1963 and at this time the lunar GHA was ~338 deg.   So, Cosmos 21 was NOT going to be launched towards the Moon.

I would guess that Cosmos 21/Zond was simply intended to enter a heliocentric orbit without any fly-by of the Moon intended, and then be used as a communications/instrumentation test.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 07/19/2008 05:04 pm
Concerning Cosmos 21:

Why would the Soviets not wait until the Moon were accessible to Baikonur to launch Cosmos 21? Surely, their schedule could have accommodated a launch delay of a couple of weeks until the Moon could be photographed by Cosmos 21? There must be more to the story. Perhaps the spacecraft camera was dead prior to launch, and the mission planners wrote off the lunar mission.
 ???
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 07/19/2008 06:53 pm
If Cosmos 21 was going to fly to the Moon with launch on November 11, 1963 then the launch would simply have been at the time of day when the lunar GHA was in the range which the mission parameters dictated.   No need to delay to another day because of that.

The launch time was similar to the times used for missions to Venus (although at the time there was not a Venus launch window open - that would be Feb-Apr 1964), so it would seem reasonable that the Soviets were simulating a Venus launch for tracking and telemetry reliability tests, without an actual physical target intended.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kaputnik on 08/16/2008 05:48 pm
A few questions:

1) Is the RD0120 a viable engine for future use? i.e. was tooling preserved, and are there any flight-ready units in storage?

2) On a different topic, would it be possible for Russia to 'domesticate' the Zenit booster, i.e. clone the design for its own use, as an alternative to developing the Angara Proton replacement.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 08/17/2008 12:12 am
A few questions:

1) Is the RD0120 a viable engine for future use? i.e. was tooling preserved, and are there any flight-ready units in storage?

2) On a different topic, would it be possible for Russia to 'domesticate' the Zenit booster, i.e. clone the design for its own use, as an alternative to developing the Angara Proton replacement.

I am sure that the answer is "sure, if you have the money to pay to take it out of storage". The second answer is similar, "sure if you are willing to pay for it, anything is possible".
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kaputnik on 08/18/2008 08:46 pm
A few questions:

1) Is the RD0120 a viable engine for future use? i.e. was tooling preserved, and are there any flight-ready units in storage?

2) On a different topic, would it be possible for Russia to 'domesticate' the Zenit booster, i.e. clone the design for its own use, as an alternative to developing the Angara Proton replacement.

I am sure that the answer is "sure, if you have the money to pay to take it out of storage". The second answer is similar, "sure if you are willing to pay for it, anything is possible".


OK, I'll rephrase that.
Given that is appears to be economically feasible to use the existing stock of NK33 engines, could the RD0120 stock be used in a similar manner, if there was such a need? And how big is the stock?

Secondly, noting that Russia already produces the first and second stage engines, and the whole of the 3rd stage, of the Zenit rocket, I'm curious about whether they could clone the remaining parts of the vehicle as an alternative to the Angara development. Of course Ukraine might not be too happy about that- do they have intellectual property rights?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 08/18/2008 09:04 pm

OK, I'll rephrase that.
Given that is appears to be economically feasible to use the existing stock of NK33 engines, could the RD0120 stock be used in a similar manner, if there was such a need? And how big is the stock?

Secondly, noting that Russia already produces the first and second stage engines, and the whole of the 3rd stage, of the Zenit rocket, I'm curious about whether they could clone the remaining parts of the vehicle as an alternative to the Angara development. Of course Ukraine might not be too happy about that- do they have intellectual property rights?

The NK-33 was a special case, as there were plans to fly many lunar missions, as so the engine was mass produced, and later put into storage. There was never mass production of the RD-0120 in the same manner. However, the manufacturer could certainly restart production of the RD-0120, once the money were available.

Concerning the Zenit, a two stage rocket, the Russians could certainly produce the tooling to reproduce the launcher, if the money were available.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 08/19/2008 12:36 am

Concerning the Zenit, a two stage rocket, the Russians could certainly produce the tooling to reproduce the launcher, if the money were available.


Not if they don't have the drawings
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manlymissileman on 08/19/2008 01:34 am
I have no means to verify/confirm this now, but some years ago I read that prior to the dissolution of the USSR, the Zenit tankage (the Energia's booster 'leftover') tooling/welding/tank wall fabrication blueprints had been handed to the Samara plant, RF (the Soyuz LV folks) as well as to the Yuzhnoe, Ukraine where the tank tooling and the stage assembly line was ultimately built.  Of course, it doesn't mean they can rebuild it fast (or given the state of archiving there they may have lost the design altogether).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/27/2008 06:01 pm
Just out of curiosity, why did the USSR/Russia not go with a Tracking and Data relay system?  Seems to add much more coverage time.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: siatwork on 09/27/2008 06:05 pm
Just out of curiosity, why did the USSR/Russia not go with a Tracking and Data relay system?  Seems to add much more coverage time.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/luch.htm  Apparently there is a plan for the Luch followup for the ISS, but the status is unknown (to me)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 09/27/2008 06:08 pm
Just out of curiosity, why did the USSR/Russia not go with a Tracking and Data relay system?  Seems to add much more coverage time.

They had one (Luch, aka Altair), couldn't afford to maintain it.

The large antenna at the back of Zvezda, never deployed, was intended to communicate with Luch.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: brahmanknight on 09/27/2008 06:12 pm
Jorge, anymore information you have on Luch would be great.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 09/27/2008 06:48 pm
Yuzhnoe, Ukraine where the tank tooling and the stage assembly line was ultimately built

It was there in the first place.  It was designed there and never left.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 09/27/2008 07:30 pm
Jorge, anymore information you have on Luch would be great.

siatwork posted a link to the astronautix.com page on Luch.

Beyond that I don't have much to add. In the very early Shuttle-Mir days the Russians were going to use Luch for Mir comm (the Mir base module had a Luch antenna similar to the one on Zvezda). When reality set in that Luch wouldn't be available, they fell back on ground stations and that was the beginning of the requirement that Shuttle-Mir dockings occur during a 4-minute window over Russian ground stations. This requirement was carried over to early ISS flights through 3A prior to the first crew.

Russian comm with ISS can now be relayed through TDRSS, which greatly reduces the Russians' incentive to revive Luch.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 09/28/2008 06:29 am
http://www.iss-reshetnev.ru/?cid=58

"Now experts of the JSC Information Satellite Systems – Reshetnyov Company work over creation of multipurpose space system of relaying Luch, the base of which will become Luch-5A and Luch-5B geostationary relay satellites."

"According to the Federal space program of Russia for 2006-2015 and the state contract between JSC Information Satellite Systems – Reshetnyov Company and the State Customer (Russian Federal Space Agency), Luch-5A and Luch-5B data relay satellites should be created in 2009 and 2010 respectively. Their launches into a geostationary orbit are planned on 2010 and 2011 respectively."

http://www.iss-reshetnev.ru/?cid=66

"Luch-5A and Luch-5B geostationary data relay satellites are designed on the basis of the unpressurized platform Ekspress-1000 of working out of JSC Information Satellite Systems – Reshetnyov Company."

"On both satellites are provided channels of relaying of the information in S- and Ku-band, which through the main channels of each of these satellites will be connected with reception-information transfer points"

"One of antennas of each satellite works in Ku-band (capacity up to 150 Mbit/s), another – in a S-band (up to 5 Mbit/s)."

"The possibility of reception of signals of KOSPAS/SARSAT system in P-band and their relaying in L-band to land points of reception of the information also is provided on Luch-5A satellite. In the same bands the possibility of gathering and transfer of the hydrometeorological information of Planeta-S system is provided. On Luch-5B satellite the laser-radio engineering communication channel instead of this will be established."

"During developing of Luch-5A and Luch-5B satellites will be realised various new technical decisions, including:
- the onboard relaying complexes created by JSC Information Satellite Systems – Reshetnyov Company with attraction of the domestic organisations (NII Radio, NPP Radiosvyaz and NII PP) and also foreign firms Thales Alenia Space and NEC TOSHIBA Space Systems;
- design of satellite on the basis of cellular panels with the built in thermal pipes;
- spokes from composite materials, a radio fabric from the gilt microwire on user's antennas;
- photoconverters of solar batteries on the basis of gallium arsenide;
- the high-precision star device in orientation system."
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: siatwork on 09/28/2008 06:48 am
Thanks for the extra info on this, Jorge and anik
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: EE Scott on 09/28/2008 02:11 pm

Concerning the Zenit, a two stage rocket, the Russians could certainly produce the tooling to reproduce the launcher, if the money were available.


Not if they don't have the drawings

However if the Soviets could reverse-engineer the B-29, the Russians could certainly reverse-engineer the Zenit (if they had access to a completed Zenit).  That being said, it seems the Russians are finally getting traction on the Angara effort.  It will be interesting to see it come together (if it ever does).

An interestingly written article regarding Angara:

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Outside_View_Reusable_rocket_breakthrough_999.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 09/28/2008 06:46 pm
Well Russia has just increased their space budget a lot (I heard they doubled it but I'm not sure) that doesn't sound too bad for Angara and maybe some Soyuz follow on. Even if Russia has probably lost many good engineers they should still be able to build good space hardware.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DMeader on 09/28/2008 07:21 pm
Well Russia has just increased their space budget a lot (I heard they doubled it but I'm not sure) ...

And your source of this info is?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: pm1823 on 09/28/2008 08:36 pm
(in Russian)
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8623&start=0

In 2009 Roskosmos expecting 79701.8 mln rubles against 43410.0 mln rubles (with additions) in 2008. Expected dollar rate in that budget project 24.9, so this is 3201 mln $.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: EE Scott on 09/28/2008 08:57 pm
Any chance Russian space science will get something interesting (unmanned probes)?  Or will the additional funding go into Soyuz/ISS, etc. expenditures?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: pm1823 on 09/29/2008 01:42 am
Money mostly on Soyuz/ISS, GLONASS and other LEO and GSO SCs and LVs by the Federal Space Program. Not much chances for the Space Science in 2009, for sure will only KORONAS-Photon launch, there are Fobos-Grunt and four Spectrs(R, UF, G, M) but it's Lavochkin's projects, means it's almost hopeless to do, and esp. to do on time. :(
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: eeergo on 09/29/2008 09:39 pm
I'm not familiar with Spectrs and their designations, could you expand on those?

Also, is Phobos-Grunt one of those "Lavochkin's projects" with problems to go ahead? Note I'm clueless about who is Lavochkin ;)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: siatwork on 09/29/2008 10:39 pm
An established design house - http://www.laspace.ru/rus/projects.php (only in russian, but online translators work for me)  Spectr-R and Spectr-UF are 3rd and 5th from the top, Fobos-Grunt is on that page too.

(known for "issues" with their spacecraft, but that's my personal take ;) )
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: pm1823 on 09/29/2008 11:46 pm
Quote
Note I'm clueless about who is Lavochkin
Joking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: EE Scott on 09/30/2008 11:54 am
This is a bit frustrating for me.  I am probably in the minority on this board, but getting pictures/data from unmanned probes from Venus/Mercury/Jupiter et. al. is way more interesting than sending men around in circles above the earth (i.e., ISS/STS/Soyuz).  And Russia has the capability to do very impressive stuff if they could just get the funding.  The Venera probes to Venus were great!  The proposed missions to Mars' moons sound fantastic - if only I had a few billion to donate to the effort.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 09/30/2008 01:31 pm
The large antenna at the back of Zvezda, never deployed, was intended to communicate with Luch.

Certainly the Altair antenna is "deployed", but it isn't in use.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 09/30/2008 01:32 pm
Well Russia has just increased their space budget a lot (I heard they doubled it but I'm not sure) that doesn't sound too bad for Angara and maybe some Soyuz follow on. Even if Russia has probably lost many good engineers they should still be able to build good space hardware.

With the drop in the price of oil, don't be surprised if the promised increase is not as great as advertised.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 09/30/2008 01:33 pm
Russian comm with ISS can now be relayed through TDRSS, which greatly reduces the Russians' incentive to revive Luch.

My understanding is that Russia comm is transmitted via TDRSS, but not command signals, which still creates a constraint on docking opportunities with ISS.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 09/30/2008 03:42 pm
Russian comm with ISS can now be relayed through TDRSS, which greatly reduces the Russians' incentive to revive Luch.

My understanding is that Russia comm is transmitted via TDRSS, but not command signals, which still creates a constraint on docking opportunities with ISS.


Only for RS dockings (Soyuz, Progress, ATV). Shuttle dockings are no longer constrained by RS commanding.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 09/30/2008 04:18 pm
Only for RS dockings (Soyuz, Progress, ATV). Shuttle dockings are no longer constrained by RS commanding.

WAS there a constraint for Shuttle dockings for Russian command link? I can't think of TsUP having a requirement to control anything during a Shuttle docking, nor why that requirement would now be eliminated.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 09/30/2008 04:22 pm
"Now experts of the JSC Information Satellite Systems – Reshetnyov Company work over creation of multipurpose space system of relaying Luch, the base of which will become Luch-5A and Luch-5B geostationary relay satellites."

Bottom line: there is going to be a much smaller, more advanced version of Luch to be deployed shortly, principally for Russian national requirements. ISS may be able to take advantage of this system, assuming funding is available to TsUP, but Luch is not to be launched primarily for ISS.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 09/30/2008 04:31 pm
Only for RS dockings (Soyuz, Progress, ATV). Shuttle dockings are no longer constrained by RS commanding.

WAS there a constraint for Shuttle dockings for Russian command link? I can't think of TsUP having a requirement to control anything during a Shuttle docking, nor why that requirement would now be eliminated.


There was (and is) a requirement to be able to mode the station to free drift post-capture if the auto-moding fails to do so.

For all Shuttle-Mir dockings, and for Shuttle-ISS dockings through 3A (prior to the arrival of the Expedition 1 crew), TsUP backed up auto-moding via ground commands, hence the requirement for shuttle dockings to occur not just over Russian ground stations, but that subset of ground stations with command capability.

Since the arrival of the Expedition 1 crew, Shuttle-ISS dockings starting with 4A have relied on the crew to manually mode ISS to free drift if the auto-moding fails. At that point the requirement for timed approaches to meet the Russian comm windows was dropped.

Starting with 5A.1 (first shuttle docking after US lab activation), MCC-Houston is also capable of backing up auto-moding and the ISS crew for the free drift command. Since this is a redundant backup there is no US comm requirement at docking unless there is a prior known failure to either the auto-moding or the capability for the ISS crew to command it.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: eeergo on 09/30/2008 09:58 pm
Quote
Note I'm clueless about who is Lavochkin
Joking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin)

I wish I could say I was kidding, but until you pulled me from my ignorance, I was really clueless.  :-[ Thanks for the link (though I could have been a bit less lazy and looked it up!) and to siatwork for the answer too.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 10/13/2008 07:39 pm
I am wondering what was the first ever manned night landing ?

Soyouz-15 ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 10/25/2008 08:46 pm
I am wondering what was the first ever manned night landing ?

Soyouz-15 ?

Soyuz 10, I think.

S 10 was certainly the last time that a piloted Russian launch was postponed with the crew sitting on top of the launch vehicle.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 10/26/2008 02:38 pm
Thank you Phillip !

Another question : does anyone know why the numbering of Soyouz TM vehicles is so confuse ?

The first crafts are n°51, n°52, etc...

Soyouz TM-29 is n°78, and Soyouz TM-30 is n°204... Don't you think it is strange ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 10/26/2008 04:54 pm
Soyouz TM-29 is n°78, and Soyouz TM-30 is n°204... Don't you think it is strange?

Nothing strange. Soyuz #204 was built for the using in ISS program. But it was used in Mir program, because of the ending of Soyuzes, which were built for Mir program.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 10/26/2008 09:41 pm
OK, but what about 7K-STM n°1 to 50 ? And how were used 7K-STM n°201 to 203 ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 10/27/2008 02:22 pm
what about 7K-STM n°1 to 50?

There were not such Soyuzes TM, because their plant numbering has begun from 51.

how were used 7K-STM n°201 to 203?

Soyuzes TM #201, #202 and #203 should have hybrid docking units. Spacecraft #201 was built, then its hybrid docking unit was replaced by usual docking unit and spacecraft's plant number was changed to 206. Spacecrafts #202 and #203 were not built at all.

All my information is based on article "Legendary spacecraft Soyuz" by Sergey Shamsutdinov in Novosti kosmonavtiki magazines ##4-7, 2002.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 10/27/2008 04:55 pm
OK, thank you very much Anik !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 11/01/2008 02:37 pm
Dear friends,

Do you know who are the two persons between Kirk Douglas and Gueorgui BEREGOVOÏ ?

The picture was took in 1969, during a visit of BEREGOVOÏ and FEOKTISTOV to the States.

Thank you very much !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 12/15/2008 08:43 pm
I have a little question about the Molnia launcher.

Do you know what is the OFFICIAL name of the Molnia when it is fitted with the SO-L upper stage (for Prognoz launches) ?

Is it Molnia-SOL or simply Molnia-M ?

Thanks !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 12/16/2008 12:32 pm
Since the STS 116 glove incident, EVA crew members were instructed to periodically check their gloves during spacewalk activity.
Are crewmembers using Orlon suits asked to do the same?
Thank you.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 12/16/2008 03:11 pm
Do you know what is the OFFICIAL name of the Molnia when it is fitted with the SO-L upper stage (for Prognoz launches)?

Molniya-M, I think. There should not be change of name of rocket with changing of modification of L upper stage. Launches of Molniya-M rocket with 2BL and ML upper stages are good examples.

Are crewmembers using Orlon suits asked to do the same?

No, gloves of Orlan spacesuits do not require such checks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Lars_J on 12/23/2008 12:44 am
I've got a question.... Perhaps thing belongs in History but I'm trying here:

Since the R-7 rocket was originally developed as an ICBM - how many R-7 launch pads were constructed over the Soviet Union? The relative complexity of an R-7 launch pad plus supporting infrastructure (compared to ICBM's that followed) makes it seem like a daunting task to build all of that in many locations.

Or was the R-7 never operational as an ICBM?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 12/23/2008 12:54 am
I've got a question.... Perhaps thing belongs in History but I'm trying here:

Since the R-7 rocket was originally developed as an ICBM - how many R-7 launch pads were constructed over the Soviet Union? The relative complexity of an R-7 launch pad plus supporting infrastructure (compared to ICBM's that followed) makes it seem like a daunting task to build all of that in many locations.

Or was the R-7 never operational as an ICBM?

The only R-7 operational pads were at Plesetsk
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: MBK004 on 12/23/2008 02:29 am
]how many R-7 launch pads were constructed over the Soviet Union?
Two at Baikonur, LC-1/5 and LC-31/6.
Five at Plesetsk, LC-16/2, two at LC-41 and two at LC-43
I think a third location was planned for Krasynoyarsk (sic) but was never constructed.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 12/23/2008 03:45 pm
Five at Plesetsk, LC-16/2, two at LC-41 and two at LC-43

Four: 41/1, 16/2, 43/3 and 43/4.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: William Graham on 12/23/2008 07:18 pm
Do you know what is the OFFICIAL name of the Molnia when it is fitted with the SO-L upper stage (for Prognoz launches)?

Molniya-M, I think. There should not be change of name of rocket with changing of modification of L upper stage. Launches of Molniya-M rocket with 2BL and ML upper stages are good examples.

I have seen it listed as Molniya-M/[Upper Stage] (eg. Molniya-M/SO-L, Molniya-M/2BL, Molniya-M/ML, etc), but I have also seen the term Molniya-M used to encompass all the variants. Not sure which is official.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: eeergo on 02/01/2009 10:38 am
Question regarding the assembly strategy in Mir. I had always assumed the modules were docked at their final location from the beggining, but to my amazement I found they would always dock to the front port in the Base Block, to be swung into its final position by a "robotic" arm, the Lyappa.

I've done a quick research about this arm and it isn't exactly what you would think of as a 'robotic arm' nowadays, having getting used to Canadarm or Strella. But I think it should present the same problem as the latest ISS arms: it's been said in other threads an arm would not be able to impart enough docking force for the drogue to perform capture (though this leads to the question of how the MRM-1 will be docked, or Pirs relocated). Why was the Lyappa able to do it?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: The-Hammer on 02/01/2009 09:28 pm
All of the Mir modules except the Base Block, Kvant-1, and the Docking Module were based on the TKS-FGB. They had their own permanent engines which they used to actuate the docking mechanism when they relocated.

Pirs/MRM1/MRM2 are completely different. Pirs used a Progress service/propulsion module which was jettisoned a couple of days after docking. MRM2 is quite similar to Pirs and will also use a Progress service module.

When the Pirs relocation was still planned they were going to leave a Progress docked to Pirs and use the Progress's engines to actuate the docking mechanism.

As for MRM1... it's based on the pressurized section of the now-canceled Science Power Platform. IANAE, but it's possible that it will have its own thrusters, purely to actuate the docking mechanism.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: eeergo on 02/02/2009 10:20 am
I see, it didn't occur to me they might use thrusters, even though it's quite a reasonable procedure :) Thank you!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: William Graham on 02/02/2009 10:43 pm
What is the current status of United Start Corporation?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 02/24/2009 03:22 pm
A little question about the separation sequence of the Soyuz spacecraft.

Nowadays, BO is jettisonned after the reentry burn, for safety reasons. This flight rule is a consequence of the Soyuz TM-5 incident, in 1988.

Before Soyuz TM-5, BO was jettisonned before the burn, in order to save fuel.

But I've read something I need you to confirm :

Quote
For the first Soyuz flights, the BO was jettisonned before the burn. Since Soyuz-9, it has been jettisonned AFTER the burn, and with the introduction of Soyuz T variant, BO was again jettisonned BEFORE the burn.

So it seems that during the period between Soyuz-9 and Soyuz T-1, the sequence was the same that today's one... Do you have information about that ?

Thank you very much !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 02/24/2009 07:08 pm
I'd like to know how much mass one could shed from the Current Soyuz when rebuilding it with modern materials/electronics. I'd guess it would be quite a lot. And if not sizing it up how feasible would it be to use a Soyuz derived spacecraft for lunar missions using a Zond like skip reentry, modern navigation technology and some technology upgrades? I'd guess Soyuz 2 would need more delta-v (should be easy when investing the mass gained into fuel)...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 02/25/2009 12:06 am
I'd like to know how much mass one could shed from the Current Soyuz when rebuilding it with modern materials/electronics. I'd guess it would be quite a lot. And if not sizing it up how feasible would it be to use a Soyuz derived spacecraft for lunar missions using a Zond like skip reentry, modern navigation technology and some technology upgrades? I'd guess Soyuz 2 would need more delta-v (should be easy when investing the mass gained into fuel)...

http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Lunar.welcome (http://www.spaceadventures.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Lunar.welcome)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 02/25/2009 07:15 pm
I know space adventures is thinking about doing lunar flybies for tourists, but what about the potential of a Soyuz upgrade for Roskosmos and serious lunar missions like a lunar landing? Could it be feasible to make Soyuz lighter and then use it with an orbital tug like Parom or something with even more delta-v to fullfill a Orion like role. Could mastering skip reentry make a stronger heat shield (as used by orion) obsolete?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 02/25/2009 07:30 pm
I know space adventures is thinking about doing lunar flybies for tourists, but what about the potential of a Soyuz upgrade for Roskosmos and serious lunar missions like a lunar landing? Could it be feasible to make Soyuz lighter and then use it with an orbital tug like Parom or something with even more delta-v to fullfill a Orion like role. Could mastering skip reentry make a stronger heat shield (as used by orion) obsolete?

Its all feasible and possible, if you can write a check to pay for it.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Bill White on 02/25/2009 07:52 pm
I know space adventures is thinking about doing lunar flybies for tourists, but what about the potential of a Soyuz upgrade for Roskosmos and serious lunar missions like a lunar landing? Could it be feasible to make Soyuz lighter and then use it with an orbital tug like Parom or something with even more delta-v to fullfill a Orion like role. Could mastering skip reentry make a stronger heat shield (as used by orion) obsolete?

I recall reading somewhere here at nasaspaceflight that Orion shall also do a skip re-entry upon lunar return.

And I agree with danderman - funding is the obstacle.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 02/28/2009 02:24 pm
Does anyone have a link to a gallery of photos of the MAI laboratory in Moscow?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Generacy on 03/06/2009 12:37 am
I know that the Soyuz can dock to several locations on the ISS; I was wondering though, do they usually dock to the same location?  Thanks for the info!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/06/2009 04:31 pm
I know that the Soyuz can dock to several locations on the ISS; I was wondering though, do they usually dock to the same location?  Thanks for the info!

No. Soyuzes have docked at FGB Nadir, SM Aft, and Pirs nadir.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Generacy on 03/07/2009 01:17 pm
No. Soyuzes have docked at FGB Nadir, SM Aft, and Pirs nadir.

Is there any reason to dock at to one location rather than another?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/07/2009 02:38 pm
No. Soyuzes have docked at FGB Nadir, SM Aft, and Pirs nadir.

Is there any reason to dock at to one location rather than another?

Yes. For one thing, at times SM Aft will be occupied by ATV. For another, its not really desired to have Soyuz at Pirs nadir, since Pirs contains an airlock, and during EVAs, a member of the crew would be cut off by the vacuum of space from the Soyuz lifeboat.

Also, its a little harder for Progress to dock at FGB Nadir, so Soyuz is preferred there.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: erioladastra on 03/08/2009 05:42 am
No. Soyuzes have docked at FGB Nadir, SM Aft, and Pirs nadir.

Is there any reason to dock at to one location rather than another?

We prefer to have either a Progress or nothing at SM aft to allow for resboost.  As noted, on DC1 is undesireable since that is also the Russian airlock.    We have our first zenith docking coming up this year I believe.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 03/09/2009 01:10 am
No. Soyuzes have docked at FGB Nadir, SM Aft, and Pirs nadir.

Is there any reason to dock at to one location rather than another?

We prefer to have either a Progress or nothing at SM aft to allow for resboost.  As noted, on DC1 is undesireable since that is also the Russian airlock.    We have our first zenith docking coming up this year I believe.

Consolidated Launch Manifest has listed:

Quote
10 November - Progress M-SO2/MRM-2 - Soyuz-FG - Baikonur

Although it is so far back in the calendar that I would not be surprised if it were to be delayed until next year 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/09/2009 01:43 am
Regardless of when MRM-2 is launched, it will present a problem for the SSP. My understanding is that -R bar dockings with the Russian segment will not be easy, and the preferred architecture would be to relocate Soyuzes from other ports to SM Zenith. This leads to the situation - again - where a crew member will have to sit inside the Soyuz DM during EVAs from MRM-2.

What I don't really know is the plan to dock Progress S02 to SM Zenith, on the surface, that would seem to be a dicey maneuver.

 ???
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kaputnik on 03/11/2009 11:36 am
Re: Soyuz mass savings.
The strange thing is, the earliest versions of Soyuz actually had the lowest mass. I presume that the current spacecraft has much increased capabilities in some repsects, but nevertheless the old ones with their clunky computers and stone-age materials remain the lowest mass versions ever flown.
Maybe it's a bit like what happens with cars- a modern Polo is heavier than a MkI Golf was, despite being one class smaller.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 03/11/2009 07:39 pm
But on planes it's the other way around, most modern planes are much lighter today than older plains in the same class. At least, if class is defined by speed, number of passengers and capability.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/11/2009 11:58 pm
Re: Soyuz mass savings.
The strange thing is, the earliest versions of Soyuz actually had the lowest mass. I presume that the current spacecraft has much increased capabilities in some repsects, but nevertheless the old ones with their clunky computers and stone-age materials remain the lowest mass versions ever flown.
Maybe it's a bit like what happens with cars- a modern Polo is heavier than a MkI Golf was, despite being one class smaller.

The reason that Soyuzes today are heavier is because the launcher is slightly more capable today, thus allowing more systems to be flown, or more consumables. As an example, the propulsion system today carries 880 kg of prop vs 700 for Soyuz-T, and as low as 500 kg for Soyuz OK.

Moreover, Soyuz carries 3 crew in full spacesuits, whereas first generation did not provide for spacesuits, with tragic results.

And, as Jim Oberg has told us, during the 1980's, Soyuz could only carry 3 crew to a space station if that space station were in a very low orbit.
 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 03/12/2009 07:45 pm
So, can you tell us any figures how this changed Soyuz delta-v budget?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/13/2009 11:12 pm
So, can you tell us any figures how this changed Soyuz delta-v budget?

I believe that both Mir and ISS have a requirement that Soyuz is capable of 3 docking attempts, whereas the original Soyuz was only capable of one or two, depending on how bad the first miss was. Moreover, the newer stations fly much higher than the early Salyuts. You can figure some of this out yourself by the rule of thumb that each additional kilometer of station altitude requires a kilogram of prop for altitude raising (more or less).

Soyuz T-15, with only 700 kg of prop, performed all sorts of magical orbital maneuvers, and many redockings, but I have always believed that the Russians were using alien technology for that mission.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/14/2009 08:14 pm
Question:

When Soyuz leaves ISS and fire its retrorockets to return to Earth, I believe that retrofire occurs near the west coast of Africa. If so, how is this monitored by Mission Control, how does the radiolink work?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: hygoex on 04/09/2009 01:03 am
How do Soyuz crews get in the spacecraft when it is on the launchpad?   
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 04/09/2009 01:25 am
How do Soyuz crews get in the spacecraft when it is on the launchpad?   

Elevator on the service tower.  The tower retracts long before launch
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: MKremer on 04/09/2009 01:47 am
How do Soyuz crews get in the spacecraft when it is on the launchpad?   

You can see the two halves of the service tower in place here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14507.msg381834#msg381834
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: gwiz on 04/09/2009 10:56 am
How do Soyuz crews get in the spacecraft when it is on the launchpad?   
Through hatches to pass through the launch fairing, into the orbital module then down into the descent module.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: agman25 on 04/09/2009 01:26 pm
What kind of writing instruments does the Soviet/Russian space program actually use during spaceflight ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 04/09/2009 09:07 pm
pen and paper?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 04/09/2009 09:17 pm
What kind of writing instruments does the Soviet/Russian space program actually use during spaceflight ?

Fisher space pens, same as NASA.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: agman25 on 04/10/2009 01:47 pm
What kind of writing instruments does the Soviet/Russian space program actually use during spaceflight ?

Fisher space pens, same as NASA.

Thanks for the reply. I read this ... http://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1 and wondered what the Russians actually use. Fisher space pen too. :)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 04/22/2009 09:01 pm
Why does Soyuz use pressure equalisation valves during landing? Why don't they keep the decend module hermetically sealed until opened by the recovery crew or spacecraft crew manually?
What was the vlave used for that resulted in the Soyuz 11 disaster?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Patchouli on 04/22/2009 09:19 pm
Why does Soyuz use pressure equalisation valves during landing? Why don't they keep the decend module hermetically sealed until opened by the recovery crew or spacecraft crew manually?
What was the vlave used for that resulted in the Soyuz 11 disaster?

I think it's because the decent vehicle does not have much reserve battery power and reserve O2.
It's not a vehicle like the Shuttle, Orion and possibly Dragon where that is in the mass budget.
Also none of those are exactly minimalist designs like Soyuz's descent module which is probably as minimalist as you can get and still have a safe vehicle.
Even Apollo had more redundancy in the guidance department.
Plus equalizing pressure allows a quick exit of the vehicle though I can see the argument to delay it's opening as much as possible.
 See the Apollo Soyuz test project which was the worst American accident involving such a valve it nearly killed the crew.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Orion and Dragon delay it's opening until after it's below 3,000' or even after splash down.
But then they both operate at close to sea level pressure 14.7psig nominally with a 10psig mode for spacewalks.
Well I'm not sure if Dragon has the low pressure mode but it likely has it as well.
Soyuz also operates at 1 ATM but I don't know the altitude it normally opens the pressure equalization valve.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 04/22/2009 10:16 pm
I think a pressure equalisation valve is especially bad for a vehicle doing splashdowns. If you keep your vehicle sealed as long as possible it might not be comfortable to tumble in the water but it can't kill you.
I think someone in another topic mentioned the possibility of using lung powered rebreathers for electricty independent live support, maybe this would be an option for landings as well, if incorporated in the decsent suit it would be to uncomfortable and it keeps the astronauts save in both depressurisation and toxic fume scenarios. For a land landing vehicle there would also be the sceneario of the landing rockets igniting a fire and getting toxictaed by the fumes created there. I guess a Soyuz capsule hermetically sealed wouldn be the worst thing you'd wnat to be in when sitting in the middle of a forest fire.
The best thing in my opinion would be to have two layers, one hermetcially sealed spacecraft with live support for a few hours or even days (don't know how much co2 scrubbers one would need for 3 people and 3 days but it shouldn't be possible to integrate that into the mass budget of a vehicle.
Then if the spacecraft live support system would be augmented by an additional independent suit live support that might use the spacecraft co2 scrubbers during normal operation but can manually be switched to an open circuit live support system with oxygen for an hour or so.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 04/23/2009 04:03 am
I think a pressure equalisation valve is especially bad for a vehicle doing splashdowns.

Not true.  All US capsules had them
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 04/23/2009 06:24 pm
I suspected they had but I wanted to know what is the reason?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danny Dot on 04/23/2009 09:28 pm
I suspected they had but I wanted to know what is the reason?

To equalize the pressure ;-)

Danny Deger

P.S.  I think this is needed before hatch opening.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Spacenick on 04/23/2009 09:33 pm
I'm talking about the valves used during decend not during docking.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danny Dot on 04/23/2009 10:17 pm
I'm talking about the valves used during decend not during docking.

So am I.  You have to equalize the pressure before opening the hatch after touch down.  Why it is done before touchdown, I don't know.  Maybe it is to prepare for an emergency egress if it is needed?

Danny Deger
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: bodge on 06/07/2009 03:27 pm
Question: What was the pressurized volume of the Vostok 3KA spacecraft ?

I've seen the diameter advertised as 2.3m, and given the pressurized section of the spacecraft is spherical, I'm guessing that ~6.4m^3 is a good estimate? So far, no one has directly listed it's pressurized volume (while most other manned spacecraft do). If 6.4m^3 is correct, that actually makes it larger (by volume) than the Apollo Command Module (~6.2m^3).





Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/07/2009 06:50 pm
I've got a little, unusual question. On his website, Talgat Musabayev advertises for several books written by himself. Do you know were I could find them ?

http://www.musabayev.ru/space/space1.shtml

http://www.musabayev.ru/space/space2.shtml

http://www.musabayev.ru/space/space3.shtml

Thank you very much for help !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: pberrett on 08/01/2009 10:13 am
Is there any credible information or evidence that supports the contention of the Judica-Cardiglia brothers that there were several secret space missions in which cosmonauts were lost including one which they claim to have taped in which a female cosmonauts claims that her ship is getting very hot and that she is entering the atmosphere?

I realise that evidence has been  put forward that suggest that the claims are either false or incorrect but is there evidence or credible information the other way that does suggest the existence of such missions and of lost cosmonauts?

Regards Peter
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 08/01/2009 12:14 pm
Is there any credible information or evidence that supports the contention of the Judica-Cardiglia brothers that there were several secret space missions in which cosmonauts were lost including one which they claim to have taped in which a female cosmonauts claims that her ship is getting very hot and that she is entering the atmosphere?

I realise that evidence has been  put forward that suggest that the claims are either false or incorrect but is there evidence or credible information the other way that does suggest the existence of such missions and of lost cosmonauts?

Regards Peter

All false.  Talk to Jim Oberg

http://www.jamesoberg.com/ufo.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: pberrett on 08/02/2009 06:55 am
I have read Oberg's contentions but it doesn't answer my question.

My question was, or now is - is there any evidence out there that might back up the Judica-Cardiglia brothers' claims of Lost Cosmonauts?

Surely the evidence isn't all one way?

Regards Peter
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: hop on 08/02/2009 07:28 am
Surely the evidence isn't all one way?
Why not ? If they are wrong (as indeed they appear to be) why should there be evidence to support them ? The information that came out after the fall of the USSR makes the whole theory untenable.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Lab Lemming on 08/02/2009 08:16 am
Would it be either technically or politically feasible to qualify and launch the Soyuz spacecraft on a different launcher, should the Soyuz rocket fail?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: hop on 08/02/2009 09:00 am
Would it be either technically or politically feasible to qualify and launch the Soyuz spacecraft on a different launcher, should the Soyuz rocket fail?
It would be technically possible. Zond was essentially a Soyuz variant that flew on Proton.

However, it's hard to imagine where this would be a useful response. There have been many Soyuz booster failures (nearly 100 R7 family flights have failed, despite having a reliability among the best in the industry!), and they generally haven't lead to long stand-downs. The time taken to qualify Soyuz on a new booster, along with making all the necessary modifications to booster, spacecraft and ground support equipment would exceed any reasonable failure investigation time by a large amount.

edit:
wikipedia has a nice picture of a proton sporting an LAS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Proton-K_rocket_with_Zond_spacecraft.jpg
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 08/15/2009 02:48 pm
Progress M-2. a Soyuz variant, was designed to fly on Zenit. The interface between Soyuz and its launch vehicle, is pretty "clean" so that integration with a new LV is not the big problem, its the ground support equipment that is the biggest obstacle. In other words, to launch Soyuz on a rocket from a site other than Baikonur would be difficult.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 08/25/2009 10:37 pm
Does anyone have a link to a gallery of photos of the MAI laboratory in Moscow?


http://tvroscosmos.ru/frm/kosmostv/vesti/2009/vesti220809.php (http://tvroscosmos.ru/frm/kosmostv/vesti/2009/vesti220809.php)

Roskosmos now has a video up showing the MAI exhibition.

 ;D ;D
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: aquarius on 09/03/2009 07:32 pm
Did the Mir space station ever perform DAM and did the Russians track debris as closely as NASA does?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 09/09/2009 03:28 pm
Someone know how the blocks B/V/G/D of the Soyuz launchers are linked to the four arms of the launch pad ? And how the separation is physically made a the moment of liftoff ?

Thank you !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2009 03:35 pm
Someone know how the blocks B/V/G/D of the Soyuz launchers are linked to the four arms of the launch pad ? And how the separation is physically made a the moment of liftoff ?

Thank you !

I believe it is not blocks B/V/G/D but block A
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 09/09/2009 05:40 pm
I believe it is not blocks B/V/G/D but block A

I don't think so. As far as I understand, the four lateral are attached to the block A only with their upper cone. During the ascent, they "push" the rest of the launcher upward.

If the blocks B/V/G/D/ stop their engines during the ascent, they simply fall on the ground.

So, on the pad, if the launcher was sustained through the Block A, the lateral blocks would fall !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 09/09/2009 06:30 pm
I believe it is not blocks B/V/G/D but block A

I don't think so. As far as I understand, the four lateral are attached to the block A only with their upper cone. During the ascent, they "push" the rest of the launcher upward.

If the blocks B/V/G/D/ stop their engines during the ascent, they simply fall on the ground.

So, on the pad, if the launcher was sustained through the Block A, the lateral blocks would fall !

They would fall off before then, when the vehicle is erected on transporter.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 09/09/2009 06:33 pm
No, because they are not fueled at this moment, and there is a system to sustain the dry mass of the blocks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 09/11/2009 01:30 pm
Did the Mir space station ever perform DAM?

Never.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 09/19/2009 02:35 pm
Concerning the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI) musuem, I found this web page with lots of photos:

http://www.buran-energia.com/blog/mai-museum/

The question is: is this museum now open to the public?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zpoxy on 10/01/2009 02:07 am
I asked this once before with no response. Maybe yesterday's Soyuz launch will jog someone's memory.

 I've noticed the two umbilical towers that drop away in the last minute of the countdown. Do they have the capability to re-mate automatically should there be some kind of on pad abort? Does Soyuz even have abort modes on the pad? I would think there would need to be some way to vent or drain the LOx tank in the upper stage if the vehicle doesn't launch.
Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: buran.fr on 10/01/2009 08:56 pm
Concerning the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI) musuem, I found this web page with lots of photos:

http://www.buran-energia.com/blog/mai-museum/

The question is: is this museum now open to the public?


Unfortunatly this "museum" is not open to the public, and it's a shame, because there is really many interesting pieces there. :)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: nathan.moeller on 10/01/2009 09:19 pm
I asked this once before with no response. Maybe yesterday's Soyuz launch will jog someone's memory.

 I've noticed the two umbilical towers that drop away in the last minute of the countdown. Do they have the capability to re-mate automatically should there be some kind of on pad abort? Does Soyuz even have abort modes on the pad? I would think there would need to be some way to vent or drain the LOx tank in the upper stage if the vehicle doesn't launch.
Thanks in advance.

Soyuz has a Launch Abort System (LAS) similar to that of Apollo and now Orion.  The crew can be launched away from the rocket inside their capsule if something goes wrong and land a few miles away.  Although I cannot remember the flight as this moment, they had to do this once in 1983 when fuel lines ruptured, creating a blaze that consumed the booster.  They were launched away from the pad just seconds before the rocket exploded beneath them and parachuted to safety a few minutes later.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: William Barton on 10/01/2009 09:28 pm
I asked this once before with no response. Maybe yesterday's Soyuz launch will jog someone's memory.

 I've noticed the two umbilical towers that drop away in the last minute of the countdown. Do they have the capability to re-mate automatically should there be some kind of on pad abort? Does Soyuz even have abort modes on the pad? I would think there would need to be some way to vent or drain the LOx tank in the upper stage if the vehicle doesn't launch.
Thanks in advance.

Soyuz has a Launch Abort System (LAS) similar to that of Apollo and now Orion.  The crew can be launched away from the rocket inside their capsule if something goes wrong and land a few miles away.  Although I cannot remember the flight as this moment, they had to do this once in 1983 when fuel lines ruptured, creating a blaze that consumed the booster.  They were launched away from the pad just seconds before the rocket exploded beneath them and parachuted to safety a few minutes later.

I mentioned this in another thread, and it appears that was Soyuz T-10a.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zpoxy on 10/02/2009 01:32 am
I asked this once before with no response. Maybe yesterday's Soyuz launch will jog someone's memory.

 I've noticed the two umbilical towers that drop away in the last minute of the countdown. Do they have the capability to re-mate automatically should there be some kind of on pad abort? Does Soyuz even have abort modes on the pad? I would think there would need to be some way to vent or drain the LOx tank in the upper stage if the vehicle doesn't launch.
Thanks in advance.

Soyuz has a Launch Abort System (LAS) similar to that of Apollo and now Orion.  The crew can be launched away from the rocket inside their capsule if something goes wrong and land a few miles away.  Although I cannot remember the flight as this moment, they had to do this once in 1983 when fuel lines ruptured, creating a blaze that consumed the booster.  They were launched away from the pad just seconds before the rocket exploded beneath them and parachuted to safety a few minutes later.

Thanks, I know about the LAS. I guess my post made me sound like a newbie, I'm not. Been working in the shuttle program 30+ years. What I was asking about would be similar to a Shuttle RSLS abort. Is that even an option with Soyuz? Or do they just press on with a launch commit after the umbilicals retract. Seems to me you would need some way to safely vent and drain the LOx tanks should some type of abort occur. Can those umbilicals be remated remotely?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DiggyCoxwell on 10/02/2009 08:38 pm
   Hi, Anik.

Thanks for this Q&A thread for Soviet-era space activities, etc.
Cpaseeba!

  First, I am aware that in the early 1950's the Soviet rocket designer,
Sergei Korolev, and his chief rocket-motor expert, Valentin Glushko,
transitioned from alcohol-LOX for propellant to kerosene-LOX
for use in the failed R3 missile project.
 
  My question is: What did both Glushko and Korolev have against
mixing ammonia with kerosene (or alcohol) to increasing the specific impulse of their rocket motors in those early years?

  I recall reading that Glushko's 1.2 million Newton RD-110 rocket motors
kept blowing up or suffering burn through on the test stands between 1950-1953,
forcing the cancellation of the R3 missile project.
I am CONVINCED that if Glushko had used a mixture of kerosene
and ammonia for fuel on the rocket motor in question, he would have
solved the problems of cooling that large powerful rocket motor
before 1953.
 


Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 10/03/2009 07:36 am
Quick question:

Why did Valeri Polyakov stay up on Mir for so long?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 10/03/2009 11:17 am

I am CONVINCED that if Glushko had used a mixture of kerosene
and ammonia for fuel on the rocket motor in question, he would have
solved the problems of cooling that large powerful rocket motor
before 1953.
 

And that is based on what research or data?   Use of uppercase doesn't provide any more credibility.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 10/03/2009 11:30 am
Why did Valeri Polyakov stay up on Mir for so long?

Valeriy Polyakov said (http://www.imbp.ru/webpages/win1251/Articles/2002/bojalsja.htm): "I had a target flight: it was required to prove basic medical and biologic possibility of flight of the person to Mars"
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DiggyCoxwell on 10/03/2009 06:11 pm

I am CONVINCED that if Glushko had used a mixture of kerosene
and ammonia for fuel on the rocket motor in question, he would have
solved the problems of cooling that large powerful rocket motor
before 1953.
 

And that is based on what research or data?   Use of uppercase doesn't provide any more credibility.

   Ahhhh, you're the NASA engineer on this website, eh?

My question to you, Jim is: How much do you know about Valentin Glushko's work?
 
 


Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DiggyCoxwell on 10/03/2009 06:15 pm
  Anik?

Tovarish!

Shto ti nee slishit ooo moeee slova?
Kakoee prroeblem?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 10/03/2009 06:27 pm
Anik? Tovarish! Shto ti nee slishit ooo moeee slova? Kakoee prroeblem?

No problem at all, I saw your question, but unfortunately I can not answer to it, that is why I am silent.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: aquarius on 10/03/2009 06:51 pm
I have a question about the soviet cosmonaut Anatoli Levchenko. He died of brain tumour in August 1988, just eight months after completing a space flight. How come his condition hadn´t been detected prior to launch?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 10/03/2009 07:15 pm
I have a question about the soviet cosmonaut Anatoli Levchenko. He died of brain tumour in August 1988, just eight months after completing a space flight. How come his condition hadn´t been detected prior to launch?

Here (http://www.astronaut.ru/as_rusia/lii/text/04.htm) is reported that brain tumour was developed owing to rigid landing of Soyuz TM-3 spacecraft.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: aquarius on 10/03/2009 07:41 pm
Thanks, anik.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 10/06/2009 07:37 pm

My question to you, Jim is: How much do you know about Valentin Glushko's work?
 

It doesn't matter, history shows that cooling was solved without resorting to additives in kerosene
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: AlexInOklahoma on 10/06/2009 11:35 pm
Hmmmmm...a tumor from a traumatic 'impact'?  Only if it was indirect result (side-effect, so to speak) from a hemorrhage or 'bleed' maybe.  I have never heard of a bona-fide tumor from a traumatic impact - may be from a loose or non-literal translation of the word tumor?  I saw such many times when I worked Trauma Radiology - though here in the USA it would not be called 'tumor', but a 'mass'.  Usually, tumor means cancerous or growth of a physiologic change in tissue(s), not from a 'simple impact'.  Just sounds wrong to me...  tumor usually means a neoplasm, and impacts don't do that to tissue afaik.

aquarius: if its meant to mean a 'mass', then it was likely *not* in existence pre-impact...but I am only guessing, and have no idea of what type tissue 'tumor' was the culprit.  Make sense?

Alex
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: aquarius on 10/11/2009 03:52 pm
Hmmmmm...a tumor from a traumatic 'impact'?  Only if it was indirect result (side-effect, so to speak) from a hemorrhage or 'bleed' maybe.  I have never heard of a bona-fide tumor from a traumatic impact - may be from a loose or non-literal translation of the word tumor?  I saw such many times when I worked Trauma Radiology - though here in the USA it would not be called 'tumor', but a 'mass'.  Usually, tumor means cancerous or growth of a physiologic change in tissue(s), not from a 'simple impact'.  Just sounds wrong to me...  tumor usually means a neoplasm, and impacts don't do that to tissue afaik.

aquarius: if its meant to mean a 'mass', then it was likely *not* in existence pre-impact...but I am only guessing, and have no idea of what type tissue 'tumor' was the culprit.  Make sense?

Alex

The translation is correct, it says "brain tumour" in Russian in that link.

What surprises me is that he died so quickly. Being a layman, I always thought it takes more time for tumour to develop into a lethal condition.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 10/12/2009 12:38 am
With Gennady Padalka now listed 6th for accumulated time in space, I started looking at other actice cosmonauts / astronauts.
It seems that the only cosmonaut that has a chance of breaking Krikalevs (803 days) record would be Aleksandr Kaleri.
I belive he would need to be in space about 200 days in order to do it.
Anyone here know if his next flight is scheduled to be that long?
Thank you...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 10/12/2009 03:51 pm
Anyone here know if his next flight is scheduled to be that long?

For now, Expedition 25/26 lasts from September 29, 2010 to March 17, 2011, so 169 days.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 10/18/2009 08:48 pm
I always wondered why with the unsuccessful docking of Soyuz 33, why wasn't the back-up crew for that mission assigned to fly the (unmanned) Soyuz 34 to Salyut?
Thank you.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/18/2009 11:27 pm
Soyuz 33 failed to dock because of a major malfunction in its main engine. TPTB at the time were unwilling to risk a crew on Soyuz 34, and so used the mission to test the new, improved main engine.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 10/19/2009 03:28 pm
I always wondered why with the unsuccessful docking of Soyuz 33, why wasn't the back-up crew for that mission assigned to fly the (unmanned) Soyuz 34 to Salyut?

If we launched that crew on Soyuz-34, then they would return on Soyuz-32, because his on-orbit lifetime finished at the end of May 1979. But our specialists had doubts in safety of engine of Soyuz-32, which was of the same series that Soyuz-33 had. So we have launched unmanned Soyuz-34 with checked engine for a replacing of Soyuz-32, which was landed unmanned.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/20/2009 02:22 pm
If we launched that crew on Soyuz-34, then they would return on Soyuz-32, because his on-orbit lifetime finished at the end of May 1979. But our specialists had doubts in safety of engine of Soyuz-32, which was of the same series that Soyuz-33 had. So we have launched unmanned Soyuz-34 with checked engine for a replacing of Soyuz-32, which was landed unmanned.

IIRC, this is the descent module of Soyuz 34, currently at Kaluga.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: sdsds on 10/20/2009 05:32 pm
Soyuz TMA/Soyuz FG Capability

Does a modern Soyuz launching from Baikonur have maneuvering capability sufficient to reach a 28.6° LEO rendezvous?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 10/20/2009 05:38 pm
Soyuz TMA/Soyuz FG Capability

Does a modern Soyuz launching from Baikonur have maneuvering capability sufficient to reach a 28.6° LEO rendezvous?

No.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/21/2009 01:20 am
Soyuz TMA/Soyuz FG Capability

Does a modern Soyuz launching from Baikonur have maneuvering capability sufficient to reach a 28.6° LEO rendezvous?

For comparison, a Progress with a small load could be sent to 28.6 degree, if launched on a Proton, and there is some overflight of China. Note that a Proton has 3 times the capability of Soyuz-FG.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 10/22/2009 05:57 am
Searched this site, couldn't find.

Are there any images from the inside of a Soyuz orbital module? Not the command module they ride up to orbit in? (I'm unsure what it's called. ESA's site lists it as the Utility module).

The reason I ask is for 3d modeling.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Fuji on 10/23/2009 01:32 am
Searched this site, couldn't find.

Are there any images from the inside of a Soyuz orbital module? Not the command module they ride up to orbit in? (I'm unsure what it's called. ESA's site lists it as the Utility module).

The reason I ask is for 3d modeling.

Here you are.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 10/23/2009 01:12 pm
Thanks, it looks roomier in there than I expected.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/23/2009 03:08 pm

Aren't fish eye lenses great ;)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 10/24/2009 03:14 pm

Aren't fish eye lenses great ;)

The first and second images are fish-eyed?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 10/24/2009 08:39 pm
Links to two inflight photos from Soyuz TMA-6: 1 (http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/eneide/050419_3xsoyuz_01_H.jpg), 2 (http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/eneide/050419_3xsoyuz_02_H.jpg) (ESA)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 10/25/2009 04:39 pm
Prior to the Columbia accident, Soyuz TMA 2 was to be a "taxi flight" in April 2003.
Who was scheduled to fly on that mission?
Thank you.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 10/25/2009 05:29 pm
Who was scheduled to fly on that mission?

Gennadiy Padalka (back-up: Sergey Krikalyov) and Pedro Duque (back-up: Oleg Kotov) were officially confirmed as Soyuz TMA-2 crew on January 31, 2003. For third seat RSC Energia has offered cargo container, GCTC has offered Oleg Kotov. But it was not decided.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Orbital Debris on 11/04/2009 09:51 pm
Can anyone tell me (or give me a reference) for the type of material that the Russians use for their thermal blankets.  I have a segment of material which covered the inside of the Mir docking mechanism.  The ISS version uses Beta cloth, but this is the orange thermal blanket that lined the Shuttle-Mir version.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 11/08/2009 07:14 pm
Whenever a manned Soyuz is launched, it is explained that the crew was launched from the same launch complex as Yuri Gagarin back in 1961.

My question is, has any manned Soyuz been launched from a pad other than the one Gagarin used?
If so, which one(s)?
Thank you.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 11/08/2009 07:47 pm
Whenever a manned Soyuz is launched, it is explained that the crew was launched from the same launch complex as Yuri Gagarin back in 1961.

My question is, has any manned Soyuz been launched from a pad other than the one Gagarin used?
If so, which one(s)?
Thank you.

I have the following (10) missions launched from LC31:

Soyuz-3, Soyuz-4, Soyuz-6, Soyuz-8, Soyuz-9, Soyuz-36, Soyuz-39, Soyuz T-10, Soyuz T-11, Soyuz T-12.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 11/08/2009 09:37 pm
Thanks, Satori.
My guess is that Soyuz 39 would have been the last if it were not for the launch pad fire associated with the  Soyuz T-10-1 launch in September 1983.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 11/09/2009 05:26 pm
Thanks, Satori.
My guess is that Soyuz 39 would have been the last if it were not for the launch pad fire associated with the  Soyuz T-10-1 launch in September 1983.

After checking and rechecking various databases and after consulting with Andrey, it looks like the manned missions launceh from LC31 are Soyuz-3, -4, -6, -8, -9, -32, -33, -35, -36, T-10, T-11 and T-12. We are in doubt about Soyuz-39.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 11/09/2009 08:30 pm
Thanks, Satori...appreciate your (and Andreys') time.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 12/16/2009 12:38 pm
Do you know what is precisely the so-called "Космический центр "Южный"" ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 12/16/2009 01:46 pm
Do you know what is precisely the so-called "Космический центр "Южный""?

Space center "Yuzhniy" is branch of TsENKI enterprise on Baikonur cosmodrome.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 12/20/2009 08:07 pm
NASA video showed the TMA-17 crew signing the door in the cosmonaut quarters.
Why is it that the CDR and FE 1 sign door # 306 and FE 2 signs door # 305?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 12/20/2009 08:23 pm
Why is it that the CDR and FE 1 sign door # 306 and FE 2 signs door # 305?

I do not see problem here. Hotel "Cosmonaut" has double rooms. Crewmembers choose how to live in them.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 12/20/2009 08:28 pm
Thanks, Anik....I never realized those were the rooms the cosmonauts actually stayed in...thank you.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 12/22/2009 08:08 pm
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/StationsMir/1991.php (http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/StationsMir/1991.php)

The above web site is just one of several sources about Progress M-7 that reports the following:

"Propellant is pumped from the Mir complex into Progress M-7 in order that the ferry has enough to perform its de-orbit burn"

Progress M-7 had expended a lot of propellant during its three attempts to dock with Mir (Mir's Kurs antenna had broken prior to the launch of Progress M-7). According to these sources, Progress M-7 did not have enough propellant after docking to perform retrofire, and so propellant was pumped, allegedly, from the Mir tanks into the tanks of Progress M-7.

There is no question that propellant can be pumped from a service Module like Mir or ISS back into Progress, but only to provide propellant for the midbody thrusters of Progress for orbit raising maneuvers. I am unaware of any ISS operation that actually put propellant into Progress prop tanks, or for Mir for that matter. This Progress M-7 story seems to be perhaps a garbled account of an orbit raising maneuver, not refueling of Progress by Mir.

Any actual information on this would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 12/22/2009 08:13 pm


Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 12/31/2009 04:49 pm
In the upper right of the attached Google Maps photo is the assembly hall for the Polyus spacecraft (in the lower left is the MiK for Site 112). Does anyone have any photos of the interior of this building?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 12/31/2009 05:32 pm
Does anyone have any photos of the interior of this building?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=636.msg6914#msg6914
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 12/31/2009 06:37 pm
Does anyone have any photos of the interior of this building?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=636.msg6914#msg6914

Just to be clear, the building that I am referring to was the one in the photo of the 2 orbiters, whereas all the photos of the Buran on Energia and the photos of the wrecked building are the MiK at Site 112. So .... there appears to be 1 (one) photo of the building I am asking about.

Hmmm ....
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kraisee on 01/10/2010 03:01 am
I'm not sure if this question is in the right section or not (mods please move it to the right area if need be), but I was looking at some of the limited literature available on the web regarding the troubled Russian N-1 program.

Because of the TO issues experienced by Ares-I, I paid a bit more attention to the debate about the troubling oscillation on two of the four flights.

Some people say that on Flight 1, the oscillation which led to the failure of the Gas Generator on one engine was Pogo, others say that it was an oscillation caused, probably, due to a manufacturing fault.   Others speculate that it was due to an harmonic resonance caused by interacting frequencies with all the other engines on the stage.   Because there are so many opinions, I can't get any clear picture as to what really caused the oscillation in the first place.

Flights 2 & 3 don't appear to have oscillation as a factor in the loss of either vehicle, so I'm ignoring those for now.

Flight 4 seems to have been traditional "Pogo" at fault.   But, again, I am left wondering whether it was due to the enormous number of engines under that beast.

Maybe its just me, but I get the sense that the answers just aren't known -- and that in the absence of clear answers, some sources are just expressing opinions, not facts (like that's never happened on the internet before!).

Can anyone provide a little clarity on this for me?

Thanks,

Ross.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: madscientist197 on 01/13/2010 10:06 am
Part of the problem is probably the old-fashioned Russian 'passing the buck' mentality, where the major players were more interesting in trying to put the blame elsewhere than finding out the truth.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: clongton on 01/13/2010 11:55 am
Part of the problem is probably the old-fashioned Russian 'passing the buck' mentality, where the major players were more interesting in trying to put the blame elsewhere than finding out the truth.

No. That statement does an injustice to the complexity of building a huge launch vehicle like the N-1 and the intellectual capability of our Russian counterparts as well as displaying a lack of understanding of how the Russian space program functioned under the Soviet Union. It was not pretty. At one time they put Korolov himself into a gulag in Siberia because he displeased the leaders. You didn't get rewarded for a job well done; you avoided prison.

They were required, under pain of extreme personal penalty, to make sure that a complex program that would take years to put together correctly and safely was flying in less than 1/2 the minimum necessary time. It was simply impossible to deliver. It is amazing that they had as much success as they did and speaks well of the determination and capability of their scientists and engineers.

Please give credit where credit is due.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: ckiki lwai on 01/13/2010 02:05 pm
Part of the problem is probably the old-fashioned Russian 'passing the buck' mentality, where the major players were more interesting in trying to put the blame elsewhere than finding out the truth.

No. That statement does an injustice to the complexity of building a huge launch vehicle like the N-1 and the intellectual capability of our Russian counterparts as well as displaying a lack of understanding of how the Russian space program functioned under the Soviet Union. It was not pretty. At one time they put Korolov himself into a gulag in Siberia because he displeased the leaders. You didn't get rewarded for a job well done; you avoided prison.


That only happened under Stalin, way before the N-1.
The passing the bucket mentality seemed to be the case if you read Chertoks memoirs.
Unfortunately part IV where he talks about the N-1 isn't translated to English yet.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: clongton on 01/13/2010 03:28 pm
Part of the problem is probably the old-fashioned Russian 'passing the buck' mentality, where the major players were more interesting in trying to put the blame elsewhere than finding out the truth.

No. That statement does an injustice to the complexity of building a huge launch vehicle like the N-1 and the intellectual capability of our Russian counterparts as well as displaying a lack of understanding of how the Russian space program functioned under the Soviet Union. It was not pretty. At one time they put Korolov himself into a gulag in Siberia because he displeased the leaders. You didn't get rewarded for a job well done; you avoided prison.


That only happened under Stalin, way before the N-1.
The passing the bucket mentality seemed to be the case if you read Chertoks memoirs.
Unfortunately part IV where he talks about the N-1 isn't translated to English yet.

"At one time they put Korolov himself into a gulag in Siberia because he displeased the leaders."

That is an historical fact. Look it up.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kraisee on 01/13/2010 06:35 pm
So, does anyone know about the oscillation?

:)

Ross.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Bernie Roehl on 01/13/2010 06:59 pm
That only happened under Stalin, way before the N-1.

"At one time they put Korolov himself into a gulag in Siberia because he displeased the leaders."
That is an historical fact. Look it up.

You're both right, actually.  Korolov was in fact imprisoned in a gulag in Siberia, but it was indeed under Stalin and long before the N-1.  In fact, Korolov was released from the gulag in order to work on the Soviet space program.  If it hadn't been for his technical skills, he probably would have died in prison.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Bernie Roehl on 01/13/2010 07:03 pm
So, does anyone know about the oscillation?

Ross.

Unfortunately, I think the answers is "no".

The launch was over 40 years ago, so the data probably no longer exists and many of the people who were involved with the project (and who might have had some insight into the problems) have long since passed away.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: sewand on 01/14/2010 03:37 am
So, does anyone know about the oscillation?

:)

Ross.

Probably nothing you haven't already seen, but here's a couple references that mention N1-L3 oscillation issues. 
(flight 3 had "disturbances" that exceeded roll control moments)

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/N1:rocket.htm

http://www.iaass.org/files/newsletters/IAASS%20July%202009%20Newslette.pdf  - page 6

http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/vehicle_n1-l3_l.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kraisee on 01/15/2010 04:27 am
Thanks sewand, that second link was to something I had not seen before.   Much appreciated.

Ross.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 02/17/2010 01:31 pm
Hi everybody,

In the very good Russian book "Mirovaya Pilotiruyemaya Kosmonavtika", it is written the following about the aborted launch of spacecraft 7K-T n°39 ("Soyuz-18-1") :

Quote
on the 289th second of the flight, simultaneously with the stop of the 2nd stage engines, the control system send a wrong (several seconds before the planned time) command to jettison the 3rd stage's aft compartment

(page 237 of the book, it is my translation)

I don't understand that, because according to the document I join to this message, the 2nd stage is stopped at 285,05s, and the separation occurs at 287,29s.

So I list three possibilities :

- a mistake in the book
- a mistake in my document
- the chronology of the Soyuz launcher has changed since 1975, or the chronology is different on 11A511 and 11A511U.

Any idea on this ?
Thanks !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 02/19/2010 04:43 pm
I was wondering how it was determined whether a cosmonaut who has previously commanded an ISS expedition is assigned to a future ISS long duration crew as a Flight Engineer or Commander?

For example, while Yuri Malenchenko commanded Exp-7, served as F.E. on Exp-16 as well as being assigned as F.E. on Exp-32/33, Gennady Padalka was CDR on Exp-9 , flew as CDR on Exp-19/20 and assigned as CDR on Exp-32.

Is the CDR and F.E role assigned, or requested by the crew member?
Thank you.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/01/2010 01:08 pm

This may be a bit off topic, but looking at the up and coming Sukhoi Superjet 100 it had me wondering.

Back during the cold war the west perception was that Russian Jet Engines where inferior to Western Jet Engines. At the same time Russian Rocket engines like the NK-33's and RD-170 are second to none.

Is there a reason why Russian rocket turbo machinery was second to none while aerospace turbo machinery was considered "not" up to par.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/05/2010 11:03 pm

This may be a bit off topic, but looking at the up and coming Sukhoi Superjet 100 it had me wondering.

Back during the cold war the west perception was that Russian Jet Engines where inferior to Western Jet Engines. At the same time Russian Rocket engines like the NK-33's and RD-170 are second to none.

Is there a reason why Russian rocket turbo machinery was second to none while aerospace turbo machinery was considered "not" up to par.

Khruschev tended to starve Russian aviation while feeding Russian space system designers and manufacturers.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/08/2010 05:38 pm
Does anyone know why oldschool russian rockets have that gap between stages? Is it to save weight?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 03/08/2010 05:39 pm
Does anyone know why oldschool russian rockets have that gap between stages? Is it to save weight?

It is because they typically use "fire in the hole" staging rather than igniting after staging. The exhaust has to go somewhere.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/08/2010 05:43 pm
Ahhhh, now it makes sense. Thanks Jorge :)
Besides firing the engines to push the stage away, what is the more common method?

Edit
Answered my own question - they use small explosive charges to push it away and then light the second stage.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 03/08/2010 06:01 pm
Ahhhh, now it makes sense. Thanks Jorge :)
Besides firing the engines to push the stage away, what is the more common method?

Edit
Answered my own question - they use small explosive charges to push it away and then light the second stage.

Or pyros accompanied by small separation motors.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 03/08/2010 06:19 pm
Ahhhh, now it makes sense. Thanks Jorge :)
Besides firing the engines to push the stage away, what is the more common method?

Edit
Answered my own question - they use small explosive charges to push it away and then light the second stage.

Actually more common method is springs.  Or retro motors to pull the jettisoned stage.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 03/08/2010 08:14 pm
Hi everybody,

In the very good Russian book "Mirovaya Pilotiruyemaya Kosmonavtika", it is written the following about the aborted launch of spacecraft 7K-T n°39 ("Soyuz-18-1") :

Quote
on the 289th second of the flight, simultaneously with the stop of the 2nd stage engines, the control system send a wrong (several seconds before the planned time) command to jettison the 3rd stage's aft compartment

(page 237 of the book, it is my translation)

I don't understand that, because according to the document I join to this message, the 2nd stage is stopped at 285,05s, and the separation occurs at 287,29s.

So I list three possibilities :

- a mistake in the book
- a mistake in my document
- the chronology of the Soyuz launcher has changed since 1975, or the chronology is different on 11A511 and 11A511U.

Any idea on this ?
Thanks !


After seperation, at 305 seconds the three piece KhO section (aft compartment) around the 3rd stage engines is jettisoned. Its the orange section above the lattice framework.

Just noticed you already asked this question?
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5174
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 03/14/2010 02:18 pm
Just browsing Nicolas Pillet's excellent website.

One thing caught my eye...

GLONASS Proton-K launch in 2004
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lancements/2004/26122004/26122004-1.jpg
I am certain that this is site 81, platform 23. Compared to google maps. Lightning towers are triangular at 81; site 200 they are square. Platform 23 because of the fence at the back and some other features. Those pillars that run alongside the track are to the left.

GLONASS Proton-K launch in 2005
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lancements/2005/25122005/25122005-5.jpg
Platform 24 because of those pillars, opposite to 23.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 03/14/2010 03:03 pm
Yes, Stan Black. Proton-K launch on December 26, 2004 was the last launch from 81/23. Proton-K launch on December 25, 2005 was from 81/24.

Also Proton-K launch on October 17, 2002 was from 200/39, not from 81/23 as Nicolas PILLET writes on his website.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 03/15/2010 11:56 am
Quote
С прибытием новых ракет "Союз", общее число ракет этого семейства, находящихся сейчас на Байконуре возросло до шести: три ракеты-носителя "Союз-ФГ", две ракеты "Союз-У" и одна "Союз-2".
http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=9618
http://www.rian.ru/science/20100310/213354940.html

At the moment there are six Soyuz rockets in Baikonur.

When were they delivered?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 03/15/2010 05:33 pm
Just browsing Nicolas Pillet's excellent website.

Thank you Stan Black !  :D
And thanks to Anik too !
Mistakes are corrected now.

Anik, did you mean that launch pad 23 will never hoist any launch again ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 03/15/2010 07:44 pm
When were they delivered?

Soyuz-2 - September 25, Soyuz-U and Soyuz-FG - December 3, Soyuz-U and Soyuz-FG - March 9. One Soyuz-FG is for Kanopus-V #1 satellite. I did not see when this rocket has arrived to Baikonur.

Anik, did you mean that launch pad 23 will never hoist any launch again?

Yes, I was told so. Launch pad 81/23 is for Proton-K launches only, and there will be only one Proton-K launch in future. It is very expensive to modernize this launch pad for Proton-M.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: aquarius on 04/02/2010 07:33 am
Why does it take Soyuz 2 days to reach the ISS or Mir in the past, whereas it took only 1 day to get to Salyut stations?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: pm1823 on 04/02/2010 09:57 am
Why does it take Soyuz 2 days to reach the ISS or Mir in the past, whereas it took only 1 day to get to Salyut stations?

Thanks.

1. Salyuts had some less average orbit height.
2. all Progresses and Soyuz-T13 did the '34 orbits phasing' to Salyuts, same like current SCs.
3. More time for a phasing (34 orbits vs 18 orbits) gives you more available launch windows in a year, so, gives you the much more flexible launch schedule, which is very desirable for the big station and intensive flight program.
4.Less fuel spending on phasing, so, you can spend more for docking(adds probability to mission success) and for deorbit (adds crew safety).
5. Not a such big difference in the crew morale and health state between 18 and 34 orbits.   

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 04/02/2010 09:15 pm
Anik, did you mean that launch pad 23 will never hoist any launch again?

Yes, I was told so. Launch pad 81/23 is for Proton-K launches only, and there will be only one Proton-K launch in future. It is very expensive to modernize this launch pad for Proton-M.

Tender for extending the life of the launch systems in 2010
http://www.federalspace.ru/download/2010_03_29_start.doc
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 04/03/2010 09:35 am
When were they delivered?

Soyuz-2 - September 25, Soyuz-U and Soyuz-FG - December 3, Soyuz-U and Soyuz-FG - March 9. One Soyuz-FG is for Kanopus-V #1 satellite. I did not see when this rocket has arrived to Baikonur.

Was it sent along with the Soyuz for MIM2 Poisk?
Is that what the tender was for?
http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=15&did=347
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 04/17/2010 12:24 pm
Does anyone know the 11S861 DM-2 serial numbers used to launch:-
Kosmos-234514th August 1997
Globus-1 15L28th February 1999
GLONASS13th October 2000
Globus-1 14L6th October 2001
GLONASS1st December 2001



1LGLONASS block 1October 198261LUS-KS Kosmos-2209September 1992
2LGLONASS block 2August 198362LRaduga 43LDecember 1994
3LGLONASS block 4May 198463LGLONASS block 20July 1992
4LGLONASS block 3December 198364L71Kh6 7121 Kosmos-2224December 1992
5LGLONASS block 5September 198465LGоrizоnt 38LNovember 1992
6LTselina-2 Kosmos-1603September 198466LGLONASS block 21February 1993
7LGLONASS block 6May 198567LRaduga 42LMarch 1993
8LTselina-2 Kosmos-1656May 198568L71Kh6 7123 Kosmos-2282July 1994
9LAl’tair 11L Kosmos-1700October 198569LGоrizоnt 39LMay 1993
10LGLONASS block 8September 198670LGLONASS block 22April 1994
11LGLONASS block 7December 198571LGоrizоnt 42LMay 1994
12LUS-KS Kosmos-1940April 198872LGоrizоnt 40LOctober 1993
13LGLONASS block 12May 198873LRaduga 40LFebruary 1994
14LGeizer 15L Kosmos-1888October 198774LGLONASS block 23August 1994
15LGоrizоnt 28LAugust 198875LAl’tair 13L LuchDecember 1994
16LGlоbus-1 11LJune 198976LGLONASS block 25March 1995
17LEkran-M 11L Kosmos-1817January 198777LGLONASS block 26July 1995
18LGLONASS block 9April 198778LGeizer 20L Kosmos-2319August 1995
19LEkran-M 12LDecember 198879LLuch-1October 1995
20LGоrizоnt 29LJanuary 198980LGLONASS block 27December 1995
21LGоrizоnt 25LJanuary 198881LGоrizоnt 43LJanuary 1996
22LRaduga 33LApril 198982LRaduga 44LFebruary 1996
23LRaduga 36LDecember 198983LGlоbus-1 13LFebruary 1994
24LGeizer 17L Kosmos-2085July 199084L
25LGоrizоnt 27LJuly 198985LGоrizоnt 41LNovember 1993
26LGLONASS block 10September 198786LGeizer 19L Kosmos-2291September 1994
27LGоrizоnt 31LSeptember 198987LGlоbus-1 16LAugust 2000
28LUS-KS Kosmos-1894October 198788L
29LAl’tair 12L Kosmos-1897November 198789LEkspress-А3June 2000
30LRaduga 32LDecember 198790LGeizer 22L Kosmos-2371July 2000
31LEkran-M 13LDecember 198791L
32LGLONASS block 11February 198892LGLONASS block 28December 1998
33LGeizer 16L Kosmos-1961August 198893L
34LAl’tair 14L Kosmos-2054December 198994LGals 12LNovember 1995
35LGоrizоnt 32LNovember 199095LGLONASS block 31December 2002
36LRaduga 41LSeptember 199396L71Kh6 7122 Kosmos-2350April 1998
37LGLONASS block 16May 199097LGLONASS block 24November 1994
38L71Kh6 7120 Kosmos-2133February 199198L71Kh6 7126 Kosmos-2397April 2003
39LGLONASS block 15May 198999L71Kh6 7124 Kosmos-2379August 2001
40LRaduga 34LOctober 1988100LGоrizоnt 44LMay 1996
41LRaduga 35LFebruary 1990101L
42LGLONASS block 14January 1989102LEkspress-А1October 1999
43LGLONASS block 13September 1988103LEkspress-АM3June 2005
44LEkran-M 14LAugust 1990104LGLONASS block 33December 2004
45LGоrizоnt 33LNovember 1990105LGlоbus-1 17LMarch 2004
46LGlоbus-1 12LDecember 1990106LGLONASS block 34December 2005
47LGLONASS block 17December 1990107LGlоbus-1 18LFebruary 2009
48LRaduga 37LDecember 1990108LGLONASS block 35December 2006
49LRaduga 38LFebruary 1991109LGLONASS block 37December 2007
50LGоrizоnt 34LJuly 1991110LGLONASS block 36October 2007
51LGeizer 18L Kosmos-2172November 1991111L71Kh6 7127 Kosmos-2440June 2008
52LRaduga 39LDecember 1991112LGLONASS block 38September 2008
53LGLONASS block 18April 1991113L
54LUS-KS Kosmos-2155September 1991114LGLONASS block 39December 2008
55LGоrizоnt 35LOctober 1991115LGLONASS block 41December 2009
56LElektrоOctober 1994116LGLONASS block 40March 2010
57LGоrizоnt 36LApril 1992117L
58LEkran-M 15LOctober 1992
59LGLONASS block 19January 1992
60LGоrizоnt 37LJuly 1992
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 04/17/2010 01:10 pm
84 - 28.02.1999, 88 - 14.08.1997, 91 - 13.10.2000, 93 - 06.10.2001, 101 - 01.12.2001, 117 - 2010 (TBD), 118 - 10.08.2010.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 04/17/2010 02:06 pm
So what about the DM serial numbers for Kupon, Astra-2C and DIRECTV-5?



DM2-2M1LEkspress 11L5L-9LSESAT13LEkspress-AM22
11S861-012LEkspress 12L6L-10LEkspress-A214LEkspress-AM11
3LGals 11L7L-11LEkspress-A415LEkspress-AM1
4LYamal-1008L-12LYamal-20016LEkspress-AM2
DM31LAstra-1F9LAstra-2A17LSirius-FM325L
2LAstra-1G10LPAS-818LLMI-126L
3LPAS-511LNimiq-119LGE-627L
4LTELSTAR-612LASIASAT-3S20LECHOSTAR-828LINTELSAT-903
5LASIASAT-313LGE-1A21L29LSirius-FM1
6LPAS-1014L22LSirius-FM230L
7LECHOSTAR-415LGaruda-123LKAZSAT-131L
8LAstra-1H16L24LAstra-1K
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 04/18/2010 08:24 am
8, 27, 21.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mdo on 04/26/2010 01:29 pm
What is the dry mass of the Breeze-M Auxiliary Propellant Tank APT and that of the core stage respectively?


Context:
When fitting the recent Proton launches with payloads such as SES-1 and Intelsat-16 as described in the ILS mission overviews with my Breeze-M performance model I get a satisfactory match, however, only after making a few assumptions:

1. APT dry/fuel mass 950/14600 kg
2. Breeze-M dry/fuel mass 2370/5200 kg  (2370 includes APT dry)
3. the Breeze core is not always filled to the top depending on mission
4. satellite adapter is carried in addition 115-150 kg

Neither the Proton Mission Planner's Guide (http://www.ilslaunch.com/protonmpg/) nor other sources on the web helped to confirm/clarify this with a complete and consistent set of numbers in one place. Maybe this is also due to my lack of Russian language skills  :-\ Related points of interest:

5. Are the 4 Verniers fed from the core only or also from the APT?
6. Can the S5.98M motor consume fuel from core and APT in the same burn?

The last two items 5-6 arise because on some missions more than 14.600 kg fuel appear to be consumed prior to APT separation (e.g. AsiaSat-5 launch (http://www.ilslaunch.com/assets/pdf/AsiaSat-5-MO-final.pdf) with 2501 s accumulated burn time prior to APT sep.).

Clarification of any of above points would be much appreciated.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/28/2010 04:34 am
The Breeze-KM upper stage used on Eurockot is very similar to the Breeze used on Proton. The Eurockot User Manual gives a dry mass for Breeze-KM of 1600 kg.

As whether the main engine and vernier share the same prop tanks, I do not know for sure, but the Russian practice is to separate the tanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mdo on 04/29/2010 12:49 am
Here is an update after fitting some 15 ILS Proton M/Breeze M missions flown in the past 2 years:

1. Breeze-M core dry/fuel mass 1550/5200 kg
2. APT dry/fuel mass 950/14600 kg
3. satellite adapter 110-155 kg

The accumulated burn times before and after Auxiliary Propellant Tank (APT) separation vary significantly from launch to launch: Ranges found in the ILS provided mission overviews are 1959-2521 s before and 617-741 s after jettison. There was even a 3-burn mission with just 370 s of Breeze core usage. I suspect that fuel loading of the APT and core stage may vary by 3+ mT.

Furthermore, the APT capacity can support burns <2400 s. This is regularly exceeded prior to APT separation. That raises the question whether the S5.98/14D30 engine performance of 19.62 kN and an Isp of 326 s is accurate or whether some other dynamic element comes into play.

Also, the four 11D458 Vernier thrusters provide some 4x400 N. Whether they operate continuously and what fuel budget they have got is causing further uncertainty.

Obviously the final burn is very sensitive to the dry mass of the Breeze-M core. At 1600 kg as per Eurockot manual for the Breeze-KM version (thanks to Danderman for the reference) my model underperforms. 1550 kg barely works with zero margin. Maybe the satellite adapter (110-155 kg) is integrated in the figure of 1600 kg after all.

To conclude, the assumptions given in the previous post still hold and the uncertainties remain. The level of reverse engineering involved is way too much to be confident in these numbers.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2010 02:20 pm

3. satellite adapter 110-155 kg


A good rule of thumb for a payload adapter is 3% - 5% of payload mass. In this case, the payload is quite heavy, as its filled with prop - the GEO mass of the satellite may be only 2 tons and change, but the GTO mass lifted by Proton is much higher, and the payload adapter must support the GTO mass, not the GEO mass.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mdo on 04/29/2010 02:47 pm

3. satellite adapter 110-155 kg


A good rule of thumb for a payload adapter is 3% - 5% of payload mass. In this case, the payload is quite heavy, as its filled with prop - the GEO mass of the satellite may be only 2 tons and change, but the GTO mass lifted by Proton is much higher, and the payload adapter must support the GTO mass, not the GEO mass.

The adapter mass is taken from the Proton Mission Planner's Guide. Table  4.1.4-1 lists the various payload adapter versions in the range 110-155 kg. Since the mission overviews do not specify which version is used there results an uncertainty of 155-110=45 kg. This is why it is mentioned.

The ILS mission overviews state the separated mass, i.e., that clearly sounds like GTO mass.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 05/04/2010 03:52 pm
Can anyone help me complete the following list of 14A05 Rokot launchers?

 
15S300
Serial
Briz-KM
14S45
Serial
 
 
Payload
 72501813IP/003
813IP/007
 72505GRACE-1
GRACE-2
492588203472502Iridium SV97
Iridium SV98
5111992008П72503MOST
MIMOSA
492192112172506SERVIS-1
492588203072507Monitor-E
630722311572508CRYOSAT
492588203272504KOMPSAT-2
511392211472509Kosmos 2437 17F13 Strela-3
Kosmos 2438 17F13 Strela-3
Kosmos 2439 17F13 Strela-3
Jubilejnyj
 72511GOCE
492179157372510Kosmos 2451 17F13 Strela-3
Kosmos 2452 14F132 Rodnik
Kosmos 2453 17F13 Strela-3
492588203372513SMOS
Proba-2
5111992007П72516SERVIS-2
630979356772514Gonets-M 12L
Kosmos 2467 17F13 Strela-3
Kosmos 2468 14F132 Rodnik
630979356872517GEO-IK-2 11L
492639183572515Gonets-M 13L
Gonets-M 14L
14F132 Rodnik
Jubilejnyj 2
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 06/21/2010 08:31 am
Here is an update after fitting some 15 ILS Proton M/Breeze M missions flown in the past 2 years:

1. Breeze-M core dry/fuel mass 1550/5200 kg
2. APT dry/fuel mass 950/14600 kg
3. satellite adapter 110-155 kg

The accumulated burn times before and after Auxiliary Propellant Tank (APT) separation vary significantly from launch to launch: Ranges found in the ILS provided mission overviews are 1959-2521 s before and 617-741 s after jettison. There was even a 3-burn mission with just 370 s of Breeze core usage. I suspect that fuel loading of the APT and core stage may vary by 3+ mT.

Furthermore, the APT capacity can support burns <2400 s. This is regularly exceeded prior to APT separation. That raises the question whether the S5.98/14D30 engine performance of 19.62 kN and an Isp of 326 s is accurate or whether some other dynamic element comes into play.

Also, the four 11D458 Vernier thrusters provide some 4x400 N. Whether they operate continuously and what fuel budget they have got is causing further uncertainty.

Obviously the final burn is very sensitive to the dry mass of the Breeze-M core. At 1600 kg as per Eurockot manual for the Breeze-KM version (thanks to Danderman for the reference) my model underperforms. 1550 kg barely works with zero margin. Maybe the satellite adapter (110-155 kg) is integrated in the figure of 1600 kg after all.

To conclude, the assumptions given in the previous post still hold and the uncertainties remain. The level of reverse engineering involved is way too much to be confident in these numbers.

Briz maximum burn time 1,000 seconds
http://www.eurockot.com/pb-pic/20041083.pdf
So if there is upto 14,600 kg in the extenal APT / ДТБ and the Briz core has up to 5,200 kg; then external tank should be able to provide 2,808 seconds of burn time?

СОЗ vernier timings timings can be found in http://coopi.khrunichev.ru (http://coopi.khrunichev.ru) under ‘newsposting’.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mdo on 06/21/2010 08:47 pm
СОЗ vernier timings timings can be found in http://coopi.khrunichev.ru (http://coopi.khrunichev.ru) under ‘newsposting’.

That is a fabulous source. It surely is more detailed than I could have hoped for. It will likely help to narrow things down in a quiet hour. Thanks Stan Black.

Briz maximum burn time 1,000 seconds
http://www.eurockot.com/pb-pic/20041083.pdf
So if there is upto 14,600 kg in the extenal APT / ДТБ and the Briz core has up to 5,200 kg; then external tank should be able to provide 2,808 seconds of burn time?

- as per table 2-8 the propellant mass is 3300 + 1665 = 4995 kg
- adding the fuel required by the Verniers to produce the advertized total impulse of 4 x 141120 Ns one gets to about 5200 kg; that would explain where the figure 5200 comes from
- the given isp 325.5s and total impulse 2 x 10^7 Ns pin down the max. burn time to 797 s, where burn time = total impulse / (isp * g)
 
It would take 6.263 kg of propellants to produce a total impulse of 20 MNs. Table 2-5 in the Eurockot manual gives a total impulse of 2 x 107 Ns which is most likely a misprint in the exponent. Apart from that there is no free parameter to explain the discrepancy of 6263-4995=1268kg. This makes me believe that the max. burn time of 1000 s is an engine specification, rather than an actually achievable performance parameter in the given configuration.

One can extrapolate the increase in burn time based on an APT capacity of 14600 kg as (14600/4995) * 797 = 2330 s. Then the total burn time of the Breeze-M is 797 + 2330 = 3127 s, give or take a few seconds. Remember the assumption that the Breeze-KM numbers in the Eurockot manual dated Nov. 2004 are applicable to the Breeze-M as used with the Proton.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 06/22/2010 07:50 pm
Some further sources of information about Briz-M

http://www.buran.ru/htm/gud%2033.htm

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/211/34.shtml

http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=49
http://www.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=50
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 07/01/2010 01:45 am
Is the thrust generated by a Soyuz launch vehicle the same when launching a manned Soyuz spacecraft as opposed to an unmanned Progress?
Thank you.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Prof68 on 07/03/2010 07:29 pm
Is the thrust generated by a Soyuz launch vehicle the same when launching a manned Soyuz spacecraft as opposed to an unmanned Progress?
Thank you.

Last 9 years sligthly different versions of Soyuz launcher are used for Soyuz and Progress launches
Soyuz-FG (used for launch of Soyuz capsules*) use 4xRD-107A & 1xRD-108A engines
Soyuz-U (used for launch of Progress) use 4xRD-107 & 1xRD-108 engines

*and three Progress in 2001-2002 - there were qualification flights of Soyuz-FG.

Soyuz-FG engines have a little bigger thrust (except vac trust of RD-108A) and higher specific impulse:

Engine modifications      RD-107   RD-108   RD-107A    RD-108A
Thrust                  , SL/vac, tf   83/102   76/96   85,6/104     80,8/94
Specific impulse, SL/vac, sec   256/313   248/315   263,3/320,2 257,7/320,6
 
So, combined trust of Soyuz-U at sea level is 83*4+76=408 tf
and combined trust of Soyuz-FG is 85.6*4+80.8=423.2 tf, 3.7% higher
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 07/03/2010 11:47 pm
Prof68...thanks very much for the very detailed information!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 07/04/2010 10:02 pm
I've just "discovered" something and I would like your opinion...

If you watch some archive videos, you will see that Soyuz and Progress spacecrafts don't track the same target when they dock on a station module. For example, on Zvezda, the B&W cross shows nothing special at the moment of capture for a Soyuz. The target is only used for Progress dockings.

I think this is because Progress spacecrafts are NOT fitted with external front TV cameras. The camera used for Progress dockings is located in place of the Soyuz's periscope.

So, the view angle is not the same for a Progress and a Soyuz, which explains the different target !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 07/05/2010 03:04 am
Is the thrust generated by a Soyuz launch vehicle the same when launching a manned Soyuz spacecraft as opposed to an unmanned Progress?
Thank you.
No, because different variants of the Soyuz are used for the 2 different spacecraft.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 07/05/2010 03:08 am
I've just "discovered" something and I would like your opinion...

If you watch some archive videos, you will see that Soyuz and Progress spacecrafts don't track the same target when they dock on a station module. For example, on Zvezda, the B&W cross shows nothing special at the moment of capture for a Soyuz. The target is only used for Progress dockings.

I think this is because Progress spacecrafts are NOT fitted with external front TV cameras. The camera used for Progress dockings is located in place of the Soyuz's periscope.

So, the view angle is not the same for a Progress and a Soyuz, which explains the different target !

If you look at this page:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19728.210

you will see that at least one Soyuz mission used the standard target.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: steveS on 07/05/2010 05:09 am
The Soyuz with three full grown humans looks very cramped inside (as seen on launch footage). I wonder how they live for two days inside the spacecraft until it is docked with the ISS. Can some one explain how the crew are performing their day to day work (including hygiene breaks) inside such a small habitable volume for two days?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 07/05/2010 05:14 am
The Soyuz with three full grown humans looks very cramped inside (as seen on launch footage).

The launch footage is from a camera in the descent module.

Quote
I wonder how they live for two days inside the spacecraft until it is docked with the ISS. Can some one explain how the crew are performing their day to day work (including hygiene breaks) inside such a small habitable volume for two days?

They don't. They open up the hatch, and spread out into the orbital module, which has more habitable volume.

What you see on the launch footage isn't everything, you know.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 07/29/2010 10:44 pm
Does anyone know the 11S861 DM-2 serial numbers used to launch:-
Kosmos-234514th August 1997 : n°88L
Globus-1 15L28th February 1999 : n°84L
GLONASS13th October 2000 : n°91L

Data are from Energuia's big book (1996-2001 history).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Downix on 07/30/2010 11:56 pm
The Soyuz with three full grown humans looks very cramped inside (as seen on launch footage). I wonder how they live for two days inside the spacecraft until it is docked with the ISS. Can some one explain how the crew are performing their day to day work (including hygiene breaks) inside such a small habitable volume for two days?
As explained above, the launch section is just that, the launch/landing segment.  There is an Orbital Module, where they actually live once in space.  Here's a diagram which shows this better, and gives you an idea how much actual space there is inside of a Soyuz.  (It's actually pretty roomy so I understand)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/01/2010 07:28 pm
Anyone know the serial numbers of the last four Soyuz rockets delivered to Baikonur?

18-05-2010 Soyuz-U for Progress M-07M and a Soyuz-FG
http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=10715

24-07-2010 Soyuz-U for Progress M-08M and a Soyuz-FG for Soyuz TMA-20
http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=11790

Please, thank you etc.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/02/2010 01:37 pm
18-05-2010 Soyuz-U for Progress M-07M and a Soyuz-FG

122 and 035.

24-07-2010 Soyuz-U for Progress M-08M and a Soyuz-FG for Soyuz TMA-20

123 and 034.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/02/2010 02:38 pm
18-05-2010 Soyuz-U for Progress M-07M and a Soyuz-FG

122 and 035.

24-07-2010 Soyuz-U for Progress M-08M and a Soyuz-FG for Soyuz TMA-20

123 and 034.

Once again thank you!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 08/02/2010 03:42 pm
As explained above, the launch section is just that, the launch/landing segment.  There is an Orbital Module, where they actually live once in space.  Here's a diagram which shows this better, and gives you an idea how much actual space there is inside of a Soyuz.  (It's actually pretty roomy so I understand)

A company I once worked for had a staff meeting inside a Soyuz. It was a small company, but still ......
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/07/2010 04:12 pm
Ekspress-AM44 and Ekspress-MD1 together amounted to 3,700 kilogrammes and were taken directly to geosynchronous orbit; by a Phase III Proton-M with enhanced Briz-M using a 48-degree initial orbit. A Phase III Proton is quoted as being able to lift 6,15 metric ton to geosynchronous transfer orbit.

Ekspress-AM8 and Ekspress-MD2 are the next pair.

However the 48-degree orbit is no longer available.

There is to be a Phase IV Proton and is quoted as being able to lift 6,3 metric ton to geosynchronous transfer orbit.

The Question
Do you think a Phase IV Proton-M heading to a 51,5-degree parking orbit can match the geosynchronous orbit capabilities of a Phase III Proton-M heading to 48-degree parking orbit?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 08/07/2010 05:39 pm
Perhaps, using a supersynchronous transfer orbit.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/08/2010 07:15 am
Venera-9 and Venera-10 are oftened listed as having started from the same launch platform; even an older document I downloaded from Khrunichev website shows this.

But this appears to be in error; the quickest turn around of a Proton launch site according to Novosti Kosmonavtiki was 11 days in 2000 [source (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/212/12.shtml)].

Proton rocket lists:-
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lanceurs/proton/liste/liste-tous.html
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_fam/proton.htm
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/08/2010 07:37 am
But this appears to be in error

Yes, Venera-9 was launched from 81/24, Venera-10 was launched from 81/23.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: QuantumG on 08/08/2010 07:41 am
The upcoming Nauka module to the ISS looks interesting.  I hear it is to have some new rat experiments, is there any details available of what precisely will be flying?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 08/11/2010 10:49 am
Yes, Venera-9 was launched from 81/24, Venera-10 was launched from 81/23.

Thank you anik and Stan, I've updated my list.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 08/11/2010 11:02 am
Do you know what were these "boxes" visible on Progress M-52 ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/11/2010 04:36 pm
Do you know what were these "boxes" visible on Progress M-52?

These boxes are covering additional gas tanks, which were installed on Progress M-52, -53 and -54 cargo ships for delivery of additional gas due to Elektron-VM failures on ISS.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/11/2010 07:54 pm
Do you know what were these "boxes" visible on Progress M-52?

These boxes are covering additional gas tanks, which were installed on Progress M-52, -53 and -54 cargo ships for delivery of additional gas due to Elektron-VM failures on ISS.

Further details
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16803.msg494219#msg494219
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/11/2010 08:43 pm
Yes, Venera-9 was launched from 81/24, Venera-10 was launched from 81/23.

Thank you anik and Stan, I've updated my list.

Kosmos 775 from 81/24
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 08/12/2010 11:41 am
Yes, Venera-9 was launched from 81/24, Venera-10 was launched from 81/23.

Thank you anik and Stan, I've updated my list.

Kosmos 775 from 81/24

Thanks, it's corrected now.
And thank you for the link for Progress' tanks !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/16/2010 07:13 pm
Anik, did you mean that launch pad 23 will never hoist any launch again?

Yes, I was told so. Launch pad 81/23 is for Proton-K launches only, and there will be only one Proton-K launch in future. It is very expensive to modernize this launch pad for Proton-M.

Are they still using building 92-1 for the assembly of Proton-K?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 08/18/2010 10:30 am
Are they still using building 92-1 for the assembly of Proton-K?

I have no information about the last Proton-K launch (28th february 2009), but the two earlier launches used MIK-92-1.

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lancements/2007/26102007/26102007photos.html
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lancements/2008/26062008/26062008photos.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Colds7ream on 08/22/2010 06:25 pm
Hi folks, does anyone know what the final mass of Mir was before she was deorbited, not including docked Soyuz or Progress spacecraft? Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/22/2010 07:21 pm
does anyone know what the final mass of Mir was before she was deorbited, not including docked Soyuz or Progress spacecraft?

On March 23, 2001 the mass of Mir space station (Base block + Kvant + Kvant-2 + Kristall + Spektr + Priroda + Progress M1-5) was 129.7 tonnes.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Greg6721 on 08/22/2010 07:36 pm
hi

i wonder if you can help me- i have recently become owner of some autographs a family member obtained during the 1960's in Glasgow, Scotland

this is one of them

(http://i36.tinypic.com/2elqt90.jpg)

can you help me identify who this is? the autograph is on the back

any help would be great

Greg
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/22/2010 07:55 pm
can you help me identify who this is?

German Stepanovich Titov, the second Soviet cosmonaut.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Greg6721 on 08/22/2010 08:06 pm
thank you anik!

i was told by an autograph dealer in glasgow that it was gagarin as there was no record of titov ever having been in glasgow!


here is the autographs

(http://i36.tinypic.com/izahpe.jpg)

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Colds7ream on 08/22/2010 08:14 pm
does anyone know what the final mass of Mir was before she was deorbited, not including docked Soyuz or Progress spacecraft?

On March 23, 2001 the mass of Mir space station (Base block + Kvant + Kvant-2 + Kristall + Spektr + Priroda + Progress M1-5) was 129.7 tonnes.

Many thanks! :-)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/22/2010 08:46 pm
here is the autographs

I can not identify these autographs. It is not Gagarin's autograph, it is not Titov's autograph. I doubt even that it is cosmonaut's autographs.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Greg6721 on 08/22/2010 08:59 pm
well i have no reason to doubt my dads aunt who got them for him back in the 1960's.

i have emailed an autograph dealer who specialises in cosmonaut autographs. he looked at the picture and said he believes them to genuine, he sent me this picture re gagarins autograph to show that he signed differently sometimes

http://www.astrocollection.com/main.php?g2_itemId=3441

god knows. i just wanted to know who it was ;-)

thanks for your help
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/22/2010 09:10 pm
he looked at the picture and said he believes them to genuine

Have he said which cosmonaut this autograph belongs to?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Greg6721 on 08/22/2010 09:15 pm
he looked at the picture and said he believes them to genuine

Have he said which cosmonaut this autograph belongs to?

he wants to buy them from me so is being rather coy about specifics- he has said the top signiture is gagarins thats why he sent me the link i posted above.

he has offered me £1000 via paypal tomorrow but i want to keep it. i just wanted to know who had signed it. i like the history of it!

i think ill email a few other autograph specialists and get further information!

thank you for your help! and if you are a spartak moscow fan then enjoy aiden mcgeady he is a great player!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/22/2010 09:36 pm
he has said the top signiture is gagarins thats why he sent me the link i posted above

It is not Gagarin's autograph. I am sure. The first letter of this autograph is not G (Russian "Г"), but V (Russian "В").

i think ill email a few other autograph specialists and get further information!

Yes, it is very good idea.

if you are a spartak moscow fan then enjoy aiden mcgeady he is a great player!

Yes, I am Spartak's fan, thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Greg6721 on 08/22/2010 09:40 pm
he has said the top signiture is gagarins thats why he sent me the link i posted above

It is not Gagarin's autograph. I am sure. The first letter of this autograph is not G (Russian "Г"), but V (Russian "В").

i think ill email a few other autograph specialists and get further information!

Yes, it is very good idea.

if you are a spartak moscow fan then enjoy aiden mcgeady he is a great player!

Yes, I am Spartak's fan, thanks.

thank you again!

did you look at that link? gagarins autograph was in 2 parts- the 2nd part was identicle to the first autograph on the card i have.

you are probably correct but i am passing on the information this dealer told me! dont take this the wrong way but i hope you are wrong and he is right;-)

mcgeady is an excellent player, i will keep an eye on your results and hope he does well for you!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/22/2010 09:52 pm
did you look at that link? gagarins autograph was in 2 parts- the 2nd part was identicle to the first autograph on the card i have

Yes, I have looked at it. Wait, did you mean that autographs on two images below (see red rows) are identical? I do not think so.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Greg6721 on 08/22/2010 09:59 pm
yes thats what i meant. i asked about the difference and the dealer told me it was "natural to have slight differences- write your name 100 times and see" im not so sure!

i will need to get further clarification i think. only thing i find strange is that he has offered me £1000 for it- why if its not gagarin?

i have sent out a few emails- hopefully someone will help me get to the bottom of things!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/24/2010 06:20 pm
Venera-9 and Venera-10 are oftened listed as having started from the same launch platform; even an older document I downloaded from Khrunichev website shows this.

But this appears to be in error; the quickest turn around of a Proton launch site according to Novosti Kosmonavtiki was 11 days in 2000 [source (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/212/12.shtml)].

Proton rocket lists:-
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lanceurs/proton/liste/liste-tous.html
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_fam/proton.htm

From this
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/212/12.shtml
the shortest gap between Proton launches was bettered in 2005?

1st LaunchDateTime2nd LaunchDateTimeTime Between Launches
Mars-421/07/197319:30:59Mars-525/07/197318:55:4895 hours 24 minutes 49 seconds
Mars-6 05/08/197317:45:48Mars-709/08/197317:00:1795 hours 14 minutes 29 seconds
Sirius-130/06/200022:08:46.977Kosmos-2371 04/07/200023:43:59.99697 hours 35 minutes 13 seconds
Kosmos-2417
Kosmos-2418
Kosmos-2419
25/12/200505:07:10Worldsat-3
AMC23
29/12/200502:28:40.01293 hours 21 minutes 30 seconds

Can some one confirm launch times for Almaz and Kosmos-2139/2140/2141; both in 1991? It looks like 91 hours between launches?

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/177/tab2.pdf
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/24/2010 06:46 pm
Can some one confirm launch times for Almaz and Kosmos-2139/2140/2141; both in 1991? It looks like 91 hours between launches?

Almaz-1 - 31.03.1991 15:12:00 UTC
Kosmos-2139/2140/2141 - 04.04.1991 10:47:12 UTC
3 days 19 hours 35 minutes 12 seconds
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Colds7ream on 08/26/2010 12:30 pm
Would anyone know, by any chance, where I can get a higher resolution of this image, what date it was taken, and which orbiter and mission it was taken from? Many thanks. :-)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mir_entre_l%27espace_et_la_Terre.jpg
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 08/26/2010 01:39 pm
In general I have been wondering why there isn't a movie made about any of this? Most of the films made  about space has NASA and the shuttle.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 08/26/2010 05:20 pm
Would anyone know, by any chance, where I can get a higher resolution of this image, what date it was taken, and which orbiter and mission it was taken from? Many thanks. :-)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mir_entre_l%27espace_et_la_Terre.jpg

This picture was taken at the end of STS-79 mission, on september 24th, 1996.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Colds7ream on 08/26/2010 05:25 pm
Would anyone know, by any chance, where I can get a higher resolution of this image, what date it was taken, and which orbiter and mission it was taken from? Many thanks. :-)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mir_entre_l%27espace_et_la_Terre.jpg

This picture was taken at the end of STS-79 mission, on september 24th, 1996.

Thanks very much! ;) Now I know the mission number, I've been able to find the ID, so getting a hi-res image will be much, much easier! Thanks!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/29/2010 01:34 pm
СОЗ vernier timings timings can be found in http://coopi.khrunichev.ru (http://coopi.khrunichev.ru) under ‘newsposting’.

That is a fabulous source. It surely is more detailed than I could have hoped for. It will likely help to narrow things down in a quiet hour. Thanks Stan Black.

Briz maximum burn time 1,000 seconds
http://www.eurockot.com/pb-pic/20041083.pdf
So if there is upto 14,600 kg in the extenal APT / ДТБ and the Briz core has up to 5,200 kg; then external tank should be able to provide 2,808 seconds of burn time?

- as per table 2-8 the propellant mass is 3300 + 1665 = 4995 kg
- adding the fuel required by the Verniers to produce the advertized total impulse of 4 x 141120 Ns one gets to about 5200 kg; that would explain where the figure 5200 comes from
- the given isp 325.5s and total impulse 2 x 10^7 Ns pin down the max. burn time to 797 s, where burn time = total impulse / (isp * g)
 
It would take 6.263 kg of propellants to produce a total impulse of 20 MNs. Table 2-5 in the Eurockot manual gives a total impulse of 2 x 107 Ns which is most likely a misprint in the exponent. Apart from that there is no free parameter to explain the discrepancy of 6263-4995=1268kg. This makes me believe that the max. burn time of 1000 s is an engine specification, rather than an actually achievable performance parameter in the given configuration.

One can extrapolate the increase in burn time based on an APT capacity of 14600 kg as (14600/4995) * 797 = 2330 s. Then the total burn time of the Breeze-M is 797 + 2330 = 3127 s, give or take a few seconds. Remember the assumption that the Breeze-KM numbers in the Eurockot manual dated Nov. 2004 are applicable to the Breeze-M as used with the Proton.

 The enhanced Briz-M has two 80 litre high-pressure tanks; are these only used by the 11D458M and 17D58E verniers?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 09/01/2010 05:41 pm
 Since 1985 GLONASS launches with blok DM have seen the Proton deliver the DM into an initial 64·8° orbit. But when Briz-M was used the Proton-K headed into a sub-orbital -1,196·11 x 181·09 at 51°33’10”.

 Anyone know why that launch too did not head into a 64·8° degree orbit?

 And do you think next year the launch of Sirius FM-6 will follow, wheres the DM3 launches went into initial 64·8° orbits?

http://coopi.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=300
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: ycs86 on 09/05/2010 06:09 pm
How come Russian launchers have some so many small rocket nozzles, whereas US launchers use only 1 or 2 big nozzles? Any explanations?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: ycs86 on 09/05/2010 06:45 pm
How come Russian launchers have some so many small rocket nozzles, whereas US launchers use only 1 or 2 big nozzles? Is it because Russia does not have the knowledge or technology to produce big nozzles? Like those SSMEs? Back then, N1 rockets had many nozzles, now Soyuz launchers also have so many small nozzles. Why not use big ones and not several small ones on one launcher? Any explanations?   :-\
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 09/05/2010 07:01 pm
 It’s an old design. You are only looking at five engines. A big pump feeding several combustion chambers. Original intention was for a single big chamber per blok/stage but suffered from combustion stability problems. The verniers (the small nozzles) are for steering.

 Timothy Varfolomeyev wrote some good articles on the R-7 in Spaceflight magazine from the B.I.S.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22540.0

 Such a solution was also used for the Zenit rocket; the RD-171 engine.

 N1’s engines came about from a dispute. Check out ‘Space Race’ from the B.B.C.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/06/2010 01:12 am
Combustion instability. Basically large combustion cambers are very prone to this. The US masted how to make large rocket combustion cambers before the Soviets.However the Russians do not throw out a good working rocket quite as much as the US and so you see the same rockets in use 40-50 years latter.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Space Pete on 09/06/2010 02:31 am
If you are refering to the smaller nozzles around the edges of the main engines, then those are called vernier thrusters. On US rockets, the main engines typically gimbal to steer the rocket. On Russian rockets, the main engines are typically fixed and the smaller verniers move (in two planes - up/down, left/right) to steer the rocket.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Alpha_Centauri on 09/06/2010 09:48 am
Combustion instability. Basically large combustion cambers are very prone to this. The US masted how to make large rocket combustion cambers before the Soviets.However the Russians do not throw out a good working rocket quite as much as the US and so you see the same rockets in use 40-50 years latter.

This.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/07/2010 04:12 pm
However the Russians do not throw out a good working rocket quite as much as the US and so you see the same rockets in use 40-50 years latter.

Don't know, The RL-10 is the workhorse of US upper stages and it dates back to the 60's. The AJ-10 (Delta II upper, Shuttle OMS, Apollo CSM) dates back to Vanguard. The main engine of the pre RD-180 Atlas and Delta II's came from the Navaho Intercontinental Cruise Missile program.

It's only with the EELV, and new COT's launchers (Falcon 9, Taurus II) that new rocket engines have been adopted. Before that the last major change was the SSME back in the early 1980's.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stephan on 09/07/2010 06:26 pm
Block DM seem to leave two "aux motor" in orbit according orbital elements (see last Glonass launch).
Nicolas and I were discussing if it was the "SOZ" motors (used on block DM for ullage), but we can't find any info about jettisoning them.

Question is : what are these "aux motor" ?

(pictures from http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lanceurs/proton/partie2/4.html )
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nickolai on 09/07/2010 09:03 pm
It's good that you recognize them as nozzles and not engines. Like Stan Black said, there are only 5 engines there, and the Soyuz design is pretty old.

Splitting up an engine into multiple combustion chambers + nozzles helps with combustion stability, but it does hurt your thrust to weight ratio. Of course, if your single chamber rocket keeps exploding it doesn't really matter what its T/W is!

It's not a question of know-how or technology, just look at the RD-0120 (Russian version of the SSME).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 09/08/2010 06:51 pm
Block DM seem to leave two "aux motor" in orbit according orbital elements (see last Glonass launch).
Nicolas and I were discussing if it was the "SOZ" motors (used on block DM for ullage), but we can't find any info about jettisoning them.

Question is : what are these "aux motor" ?

(pictures from http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lanceurs/proton/partie2/4.html )

The SOZ are the auxiliary motors?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 09/08/2010 09:02 pm
Block DM seem to leave two "aux motor" in orbit according orbital elements (see last Glonass launch).
Nicolas and I were discussing if it was the "SOZ" motors (used on block DM for ullage), but we can't find any info about jettisoning them.

Question is : what are these "aux motor" ?

(pictures from http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lanceurs/proton/partie2/4.html )

The SOZ are the auxiliary motors?

Do their orbits match these?

11982-100F396x19077x51·91982-100G377x19074x52·1 
21983-084G395x19165x51·91983-084H375x19165x52·0 
31983-127G398x19051x52·01983-127H425x19046x52·0 
41984-047G401x19132x52·01984-047H420x19136x51·9 
51984-095G376x19153x52·01984-095H397x19154x51·9 
61985-037G406x19150x51·91985-037H386x19150x52·0 
71985-118K414x19132x64·81985-118L414x19132x64·7 
81986-071G408x19130x64·71986-071H412x19126x64·8 
91987-036F175x15854x65·01987-036H195x11992x64·7DM failure
101987-079G407x19118x64·91987-079H407x19118x64·8 
11            DM failure
121988-043G415x19111x64·91988-043H412x19120x64·8 
131988-085F413x19112x64·91988-085G411x19115x64·8 
141989-001G406x19114x64·81989-001H407x19113x64·9 
151989-039G609x18872x65·01989-039H632x18850x65·1 
161990-045F635x18859x65·31990-045G647x18836x65·2 
171990-110G416x19126x64·91990-110H417x19126x64·7 
181991-025F403x19084x64·91991-025G397x19121x64·7 
191992-005G412x19127x64·71992-005H412x19126x64·8 
201992-047G406x19130x64·91992-047H401x19131x64·8 
211993-010G402x19130x64·81993-010H401x19131x64·8 
221994-021G405x19128x64·81994-021H399x19133x64·8 
231994-050G414x19119x64·91994-050H416x19118x64·8 
241994-076G418x19095x64·91994-076H410x19104x64·7 
251995-009G394x19136x64·81995-009H391x19137x64·8 
261995-037J413x19113x64·81995-037K413x19114x64·8 
271995-068G402x19120x64·81995-068H408x19115x64·8 
281998-077H395x19125x64·81998-077J394x19129x64·8 
292000-063G405x19124x64·72000-063H400x19118x64·8 
302001-053G385x19132x64·82001-053H385x19131x64·8 
312002-060E393x19133x64·82002-060F391x19135x64·7 
32            Briz-M
332004-053G397x19141x64·72004-053H397x19142x64·8 
342005-050E387x19141x64·82005-050F387x19140x64·9 
352006-062G416x19119x64·92006-062H412x19119x64·7 
362007-052F399x19130x64·82007-052G400x19130x64·9 
372007-065F401x19129x64·62007-065G401x19129x64·8 
382008-046G397x19143x64·82008-046H397x19144x64·7 
392008-067G464x19591x64·92008-067H398x19138x64·7 
412009-070E396x19139x64·82009-070F399x19133x64·7 
402010-007G398x19137x64·62010-007H400x19136x64·8 
422010-041G     2010-041H      

Thanks to Mr. McDowell
http://planet4589.org/space/log/satcat.txt
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Antares on 09/08/2010 10:44 pm
I'd take a multichamber, single shaft engine with little chance of combustion instability over the massive development problem that was F-1.  There seems to be a size limit on Russian HC chambers.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/09/2010 01:41 pm
However the Russians do not throw out a good working rocket quite as much as the US and so you see the same rockets in use 40-50 years latter.

Don't know, The RL-10 is the workhorse of US upper stages and it dates back to the 60's. The AJ-10 (Delta II upper, Shuttle OMS, Apollo CSM) dates back to Vanguard. The main engine of the pre RD-180 Atlas and Delta II's came from the Navaho Intercontinental Cruise Missile program.

It's only with the EELV, and new COT's launchers (Falcon 9, Taurus II) that new rocket engines have been adopted. Before that the last major change was the SSME back in the early 1980's.


So isn't that to Pathfinder's point?  US has developed noteworthy engines every decade.  (Taurus II doesn't fall into that category though, since the NK-33 is Russian).

Since when ? The US developed and deployed a bunch of engines in the 1950's/early 1960's, Developed one new engine (SSME) in the 70's while still relying on for most things the engines from 50's and 60's, then had to fast forward to the 90's before RS-68, an SSME evolution. We still rely on the RL-10 for upper stages, and only over the last 10 years are replacing a Navaho derived engine in the first stages of the Atlas, Delta while retiring Titan. And then new Merlin from SpaceX.

We have used over and over the same engines (updated yes) for decades, and are just now (last 10 years) replacing them. 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: JimO on 09/13/2010 03:42 pm
Did these questions ever get answered?  I have suddenly become much more interested in this topic!  Thanks!


I ran across some discussion about the software for the TMA's Neptune IDS on a Russian site (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7050&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=121) that seemed to indicate that Neptune had 100 KSLOC in Pascal and 30 KSLOC in assembly language.  (I won't comment on what I think about those decisions :o)

Have you ever seen any similar discussions regarding the software that's being written to go in the TsVM-101 for the 700-Series+ Soyuz vehicles?  I'd like to get some understanding of the complexity and the magnitude of the effort - particularly if the 101 is going to eventually replace both the ARGON-16 in the instrumentation/prop module and the KS020M in the descent module.

According to posts at the same site (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7050&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=121) the TsVM-101 is a homegrown computer with a 1B812 processor (24 MIPS, 2MB, 50W) - which seemed to be a 486 derivative.   Is that the same processor type that was used in the Neptune's Integrated Control Consoles (ICCs)?  Are both of these newer flight computers evolved from the KSO20M currently in the DM?  Do all 3 boxes share software developers from the same shop using the same s/w dev tools, etc.?

(BTW - the website for the TsVM-101 vendor seems to be down.  I hope that doesn't imply anything in regards to their flight products  ;))

Thanks in advance for any answers to this deluge of questions!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: JimO on 09/13/2010 04:13 pm
Fundamental questions about the new TsVM-101 computer in the 'digital Soyuz'.

Where is it? Which module?

Will the October 'digital Soyuz' also have the "lighter digital equivalent called МБИЦ, MBITS", in the Instrumentation Module to replace the five separate analog systems, or will the TsVM-101 perform that role there, as well as replacing the Argon unit?

Or will the TsVM-101 be in the Descent Module, replacing the KSO20M computer as well?

I need more specific on which flight computers where are being replaced by what. Thanks!

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nickolai on 09/13/2010 05:37 pm
Also, does anyone know how much weight is being saved by these changes?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 09/13/2010 06:40 pm
Where is it? Which module?

TsVM-101 computer is in the instrumentation/propulsion module of Soyuz TMA spacecraft on place of Argon-16 computer.

Will the October 'digital Soyuz' also have the "lighter digital equivalent called МБИЦ, MBITS", in the Instrumentation Module to replace the five separate analog systems, or will the TsVM-101 perform that role there, as well as replacing the Argon unit?

MBITS system will be on Soyuz TMA-01M spacecraft.

Or will the TsVM-101 be in the Descent Module, replacing the KSO20M computer as well?

Installation of TsVM-101 computer in the descent module of Soyuz TMA spacecraft with replacing of KS-020M computer by TsVM-101 computer is planned in future.

Also, does anyone know how much weight is being saved by these changes?

Argon-16 computer's weight was in eight times more than weight of TsVM-101 computer.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: JimO on 09/13/2010 07:19 pm
Spasibo bolshoye, this is very timely and useful.

Are there any specific questions that others here want me to ask
at the Expedition press conference on Sept 15 here in Houston?

Aside from photos of the computers themselves, I cannot find any illustrations of the changes. Are there any suggestions or advice for further searching?

How about the "малогабаритная бортовая информационная телеметрическая системая" (МБИТС), that will replace the five deparate analog telemetry systems?

One more question -- the 'guidance computer' that was scavenged off Progress vehicles and brought back on shuttles -- that was the КС020М, right?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Captain Scarlet on 09/16/2010 04:36 pm
Is it true one cosmonaut screamed at the engineers down the loop for failing in their job while his Soyuz tumbled to Earth, resulting in his death?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: ycs86 on 10/03/2010 06:01 pm
What is it exactly? And what is it purpose and how does it work? Does it stay in the way when opening the front hatch after a successful docking?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DaveS on 10/03/2010 06:09 pm
What is it exactly? And what is it purpose and how does it work? Does it stay in the way when opening the front hatch after a successful docking?
That's the docking probe and I believe it is removed post-docking from the station side.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 10/03/2010 06:11 pm
It's the docking probe. The ball point extends out prior to to docking and when it contacts the interface port it retracts. You can see it on the Rassvet module here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYaujt2jZ7g&feature=related
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: jabe on 10/03/2010 06:12 pm
watch the video from

here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T0e3MSV9Mg)
it shows how it works really well.. watch from 1:31..shows a cutaway on what happens to the probe after docking...
jb
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: ycs86 on 10/03/2010 06:19 pm
Ok, thanks guys for the explanation! :) 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Space Pete on 10/03/2010 06:49 pm
Yup, it's a docking probe. The probe latches onto the docking drogue on the ISS (see Fig. 1), which is what provides the initial capture for the Soyuz. One the relative motion has dampened out, the probe retracts and brings the two docking collars together for hard dock.

One the ISS drogue hatch is opened (see Fig. 2), the entire probe assembly then swings out of the way like a door to allow access between the Soyuz and ISS.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Space Pete on 10/03/2010 06:54 pm
On the Progress, the probe assy. can actually be separated from the hatch (see Fig. 3 & 4) to allow larger payloads to be transferred through the hatchway (the probe precludes this). The probe cannot be separated from the hatch on the Soyuz for safety reasons (if the Soyuz had to suddenly undock in an emergency, the crew would not have time to retrieve & re-install the probe). If they undocked without the probe installed, then they would not be able to re-dock with the ISS if the all-clear was given.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: ycs86 on 10/03/2010 07:05 pm
Yup, it's a docking probe. The probe latches onto the docking drogue on the ISS (see Fig. 1), which is what provides the initial capture for the Soyuz. One the relative motion has dampened out, the probe retracts and brings the two docking collars together for hard dock.

One the ISS drogue hatch is opened (see Fig. 2), the entire probe assembly then swings out of the way like a door to allow access between the Soyuz and ISS.


Very very interesting! Thank you! :)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: ycs86 on 10/03/2010 07:05 pm
On the Progress, the probe assy. can actually be separated from the hatch (see Fig. 3 & 4) to allow larger payloads to be transferred through the hatchway (the probe precludes this). The probe cannot be separated from the hatch on the Soyuz for safety reasons (if the Soyuz had to suddenly undock in an emergency, the crew would not have time to retrieve & re-install the probe). If they undocked without the probe installed, then they would not be able to re-dock with the ISS if the all-clear was given.


Very nice illustration! Thank you too!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 10/08/2010 09:31 pm
I wonder how do the cosmonauts strap into the Soyuz? Well from photos the only entry is the orbital module. So does this mean the crew gets  in and straps themselves in or does someone help?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/08/2010 10:02 pm
The probe cannot be separated from the hatch on the Soyuz for safety reasons (if the Soyuz had to suddenly undock in an emergency, the crew would not have time to retrieve & re-install the probe). If they undocked without the probe installed, then they would not be able to re-dock with the ISS if the all-clear was given.

This sounds rather odd, there is really a protocol for re-docking at ISS after a crew abandons ship? Is the Soyuz supposed to loiter somewhere near ISS waiting for an all-clear? How long is the Soyuz supposed to wait, and how does this impact emergency landing zone calculations?

My assumption was that after a Soyuz departs ISS during an emergency, it would land as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/09/2010 03:36 pm
Is it true one cosmonaut screamed at the engineers down the loop for failing in their job while his Soyuz tumbled to Earth, resulting in his death?

No.

You are thinking about Soyuz 1, where a parachute failed to deploy correctly. Since parachute deployment happens pretty late in the mission, there wasn't a lot of time for screaming after it failed to deploy. Prior to parachute deployment, there had been some problems with the spacecraft, but nothing that would have led to a fatality.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 10/16/2010 08:30 pm
When did Zenit loose the skirt?

(http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_055/images/IMG_8737.jpg)
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_055/pages/IMG_8737.html

(http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_150/gal10/images/_DSC8064.jpg)
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_150/gal10/pages/_DSC8064.htm
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Prof68 on 10/16/2010 11:57 pm
When did Zenit loose the skirt?
Between Zenit-2 and Zenit-3SL.
It is one of changes which was developed for Sea Launch variant of Zenit, but now used in Land Launch too.
IMHO, skirt on Zenit-2 was simply atavism inherited from Blok A of Energia rocket.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 10/17/2010 08:48 am
When did Zenit loose the skirt?
Between Zenit-2 and Zenit-3SL.
It is one of changes which was developed for Sea Launch variant of Zenit, but now used in Land Launch too.
IMHO, skirt on Zenit-2 was simply atavism inherited from Blok A of Energia rocket.

Thank you… looks like the three Zenit intended for Globalstar also lack a skirt (launches in 1998, 2004 and 2007)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 10/19/2010 03:59 am
When will the last flight of the Soyuz-TMA variant be? TMA-22 flies in 2012 according to the ISS launch list.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: JimO on 10/19/2010 04:30 am
Question: How do the organizers of the April 11-15 'Humans in Space' Symposium in Houston (just announced) expect the Russians to react regarding competing with Moscow's own 50th anniversary of Gagarin commemoration on April 12th? Hopefully this has all been diplomatically smoothed over in advance.

NASA, University of Houston to Host Humans in Space Symposium

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-university-of-houston-to-host-humans-in-space-symposium-105207739.html

HOUSTON, Oct. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Space researchers, physicians, astronauts, and operations experts from around the world will gather April 11-15, 2011, in Houston to discuss the next chapter in human spaceflight at the 18th International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) Humans in Space Symposium.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Olaf on 10/19/2010 09:10 am
When will the last flight of the Soyuz-TMA variant be? TMA-22 flies in 2012 according to the ISS launch list.

According to Anik´s list of Russian launches Soyuz TMA22 wil be launched on September, 30th 2011.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: steveS on 10/20/2010 01:35 pm
Can some one explain about the "space/volume for a 3 person crew" inside the Soyuz descending module?. From landing pictures, the capsule looks barely taller than a human !! and inside it must accommodate a 3 person crew. How difficult is for a tall cosmonaut/astronaut to cope up with this reduced volume of space ? 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: brianyee0 on 10/20/2010 02:17 pm
I heard Jeff Williams describe it as "three triplets inside a womb", so it must feel extremely cramped.  The other part of his description was that you only fit if you sit in the fetal position, knees to chest almost.

Can some one explain about the "space/volume for a 3 person crew" inside the Soyuz descending module?. From landing pictures, the capsule looks barely taller than a human !! and inside it must accommodate a 3 person crew. How difficult is for a tall cosmonaut/astronaut to cope up with this reduced volume of space ? 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/20/2010 03:48 pm
Some caveats to the above description of the interior of the Soyuz descent module: first off, it seems crowded because everyone is wearing a space suit while inside. Secondly, the descent module only contains 3 people for relatively short periods of time; mostly, launch and re-entry. Once the spacecraft is in orbit, the orbital module is where the crew hangs out.

The interior volume of the Soyuz is significantly larger than that of Apollo.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stephan on 10/20/2010 03:56 pm
Correct, and because picture speaks louder than words, see :
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: steveS on 10/21/2010 04:23 am
Correct, and because picture speaks louder than words, see :

Thank you for the image and the explanation.

1. Is this inside the descent module or the orbital module?

2. In case of most recent Soyuz TMA-18 landing; The timeline  was: Crew hatch closure  ~ 6:35 EDT and landing ~ 1:21 a.m EDT Sept 25, 2010.  Hence, altogether the crew must have spent about 7 hours inside the spacecraft. So were crew inside the descent module all the time or they spent some part of the time inside  the orbital module before it was jettisoned?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: steveS on 10/21/2010 04:39 am
Found an image on Soyuz spacecraft dimensions in Wikipedia. The descent and orbital module are 2.1 m and 2.6 m in length. Both have a diameter of 2.2 m.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Prof68 on 10/22/2010 01:09 am
When did Zenit loose the skirt?
Between Zenit-2 and Zenit-3SL.
It is one of changes which was developed for Sea Launch variant of Zenit, but now used in Land Launch too.
IMHO, skirt on Zenit-2 was simply atavism inherited from Blok A of Energia rocket.
Thank you… looks like the three Zenit intended for Globalstar also lack a skirt (launches in 1998, 2004 and 2007)
You are definitely correct about the rocket launched in 2007. This rocket was modified in 2005 or 2006 to transitional non standard variant which include some of elements of Zenit-3SLB. One of changes was removal of RD-171 and installation of RD-171M, so even if skirt was here, it should be removed.
I do not sure about first two rockets, but as a pure guesswork i think it is possible - these 3 rockets were last production batch of Zenit-2, they were produced simultaneously with a first batch of Zenit-3 SLB, so this change could be incorporated into them too.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 10/25/2010 10:16 am
 Has Ekspress-1000K satelite bus replaced the Khrunichev Yakhta - as used in Ekspress-MD and KAZSAT?

http://www.iss-reshetnev.com/images/File/magazin/2009/m8-screen_en.pdf
http://www.ciemat.es/sweb/Spain-ISTC-STCU/22abril/ISS.pdf

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/nk/forum-pic/KazSat.gif
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/30/2010 01:53 am
With lively debate over in the spacex section about reserve chutes, has a soyuz ever had a main failure and then had to rely on the reserve chute to save the day?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/30/2010 04:21 am
With lively debate over in the spacex section about reserve chutes, has a soyuz ever had a main failure and then had to rely on the reserve chute to save the day?

Well, kind of. The main chute failed, but so did the reserve chute.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/30/2010 12:01 pm
Other than Soyuz 1?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 10/30/2010 12:12 pm
Other than Soyuz 1?

As Danderman was getting at, the reserve chute on Soyuz 1 failed to save the day.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/30/2010 03:06 pm
The Soyuz cupola: what is its function, given that during docking, the crew remains in the descent module?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Lars_J on 10/30/2010 09:05 pm
What cupola? Do you have an image of it?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 10/31/2010 11:47 am
The Soyuz cupola: what is its function, given that during docking, the crew remains in the descent module?

 Soyuz-TM did have flight controls up until Soyuz TM-23; but they were removed as part of the mass reductions when the Soyuz-U2 became no longer available… (someone want to correct me; can’t find any references at the moment)

 Soyuz LOK - the moon version had a cupola with controls.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soy7klok.htm
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/31/2010 01:02 pm
What cupola? Do you have an image of it?

Here you go, its the small window.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skylab on 11/25/2010 02:28 pm
What cupola? Do you have an image of it?

Here you go, its the small window.
"At the forward end of the BO is the docking equipment: Kurs apparatus,  connecting hatch and rendezvous antennas. A crew member is stationed at  the small blister window to aid the commander during docking."

http://suzymchale.com/ruspace/soymod.html (http://suzymchale.com/ruspace/soymod.html)

Hope that's what you were looking for.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skylab on 11/25/2010 02:30 pm

(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k166/suzymchale/soycom/soycom3-2.gif)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 11/25/2010 02:44 pm
This is a grade A diagram, and everyone should know those Russian acronyms in time for the next docking, rather than use terms like "main Kurs antenna".

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skylab on 11/25/2010 05:51 pm
This is a grade A diagram, and everyone should know those Russian acronyms in time for the next docking, rather than use terms like "main Kurs antenna".
Ungrateful bastard! ;)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: butters on 11/25/2010 06:27 pm
During docking/undocking, is the Soyuz commander stationed at controls in the Orbital Module or in the Descent Module? Are there any detailed images or diagrams of the Soyuz control panels and internal equipment? All In know is that they wear pressure suits during docking and undocking, and in the descent module they push buttons with a stick.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 11/25/2010 08:15 pm
During docking/undocking, is the Soyuz commander stationed at controls in the Orbital Module or in the Descent Module? Are there any detailed images or diagrams of the Soyuz control panels and internal equipment? All In know is that they wear pressure suits during docking and undocking, and in the descent module they push buttons with a stick.

1) Descent module.

2) Yes.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 11/27/2010 01:55 pm
The Soyuz cupola: what is its function, given that during docking, the crew remains in the descent module?

 Soyuz-TM did have flight controls up until Soyuz TM-23; but they were removed as part of the mass reductions when the Soyuz-U2 became no longer available… (someone want to correct me; can’t find any references at the moment)

 Soyuz LOK - the moon version had a cupola with controls.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soy7klok.htm

 Soyuz TM-24 lost it's orbital module cupola controls and the LASER range finder.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/136/01.shtml
Quote
Для облегчения корабля №73 было предложено планировать стыковку только с одного захода и отказаться от варианта ручной стыковки. Поэтому на “Союзе” сняли все средства ручного сближения, в том числе и лазерный дальномер.

 Also of interest is Soyuz T-13 which did not feature Igla
http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/n_i_j/1985/11/letopis.html
http://epizodsspace.ru/bibl/savinyh/zapiski/obl.html
http://lib.rus.ec/b/147688
 Also of note is a possible issue with the pressure inside Soyuz T-13?
http://epizodsspace.ru/bibl/savinyh/zapiski/03.html

 And another question is what happened to the Soyuz-U2 that was being prepared for Soyuz TM-23?
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/109/01.shtml
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.shuttle/browse_thread/thread/874f6c25684f7a03/215dcf8dfed71665?#215dcf8dfed71665
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 11/30/2010 02:20 am
So I have just played the campaign of a certain game, and a mission involves shooting down a Soyuz LV.  The problem is that the mission is supposed to take place in 1963, while I was under the impression that Soyuz first flew in 1966.  Would it really be the Soyuz LV, or would it have more than likely be the Voskhod LV?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 11/30/2010 05:49 am
So I have just played the campaign of a certain game, and a mission involves shooting down a Soyuz LV.  The problem is that the mission is supposed to take place in 1963, while I was under the impression that Soyuz first flew in 1966.  Would it really be the Soyuz LV, or would it have more than likely be the Voskhod LV?

They were one in the same.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: douglas100 on 11/30/2010 08:16 am
True, but they had different designators: 11A57 for Voskhod and 11A511 for Soyuz.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 11/30/2010 11:53 am
True, but they had different designators: 11A57 for Voskhod and 11A511 for Soyuz.

So did Gemini Titan II and Titan II SLV
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 11/30/2010 02:06 pm
So I have just played the campaign of a certain game, and a mission involves shooting down a Soyuz LV.  The problem is that the mission is supposed to take place in 1963, while I was under the impression that Soyuz first flew in 1966.  Would it really be the Soyuz LV, or would it have more than likely be the Voskhod LV?

There were small differences between the Soyuz and Voskhod launchers, mostly involving the engines. The Soyuz 3rd stage used an RD-110 engine, same as the current Soyuz-U/FG launchers, whereas Voskhod used the older RD-107 engine. Voskhod could not have launched a Soyuz spacecraft.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: douglas100 on 11/30/2010 03:00 pm
I think you'll find that the RD-107 was the engine used for the strap on boosters for both Voskhod and Soyuz (and other R-7 variants as well.)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 11/30/2010 03:33 pm
I think you'll find that the RD-107 was the engine used for the strap on boosters for both Voskhod and Soyuz (and other R-7 variants as well.)

But ...there were minor upgrades to the RD-107 and RD-108 to accommodate the higher Soyuz spacecraft mass.

The differences between Voskhod and Soyuz were like the differences between Soyuz-U and Soyuz-FG, as there were different payload capabilities.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mrryndrsn on 11/30/2010 04:47 pm
So I have just played the campaign of a certain game, and a mission involves shooting down a Soyuz LV.  The problem is that the mission is supposed to take place in 1963, while I was under the impression that Soyuz first flew in 1966.  Would it really be the Soyuz LV, or would it have more than likely be the Voskhod LV?

There were small differences between the Soyuz and Voskhod launchers, mostly involving the engines. The Soyuz 3rd stage used an RD-110 engine, same as the current Soyuz-U/FG launchers, whereas Voskhod used the older RD-107 engine. Voskhod could not have launched a Soyuz spacecraft.

The engine on the upper stage was the RD-0108, a Kosberg design bureau engine. The RD-107 was (and is) used on the four boosters which constitute the first stage of Soyuz. The RD-108 is used on the core stage of Soyuz (second stage in Russian terminology). The RD-107 and RD-108 are from Glushko's design bureau.

Murray Anderson
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 11/30/2010 05:38 pm
None of which one could tell from the outside.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 11/30/2010 05:49 pm
None of which one could tell from the outside.

I wasn't debating the configuration, the characters in the game actually called the LV Soyuz, yet the mission was set in 1963, guess they just called it the wrong name?

Quote
In November 1963, Mason, Woods, Bowman and Weaver are dispatched to Baikonur Cosmodrome in the Kazakh SSR to disrupt the Soviet space program  and eliminate members of the Soviet Ascension program. At the start of the operation, Weaver is captured and Mason sees Kravchenko torture him, stabbing his left eye, but Mason and his team later rescue him, while still destroying the Soyuz spacecraft as well.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 11/30/2010 11:25 pm
So I have just played the campaign of a certain game, and a mission involves shooting down a Soyuz LV.  The problem is that the mission is supposed to take place in 1963, while I was under the impression that Soyuz first flew in 1966.  Would it really be the Soyuz LV, or would it have more than likely be the Voskhod LV?

There were small differences between the Soyuz and Voskhod launchers, mostly involving the engines. The Soyuz 3rd stage used an RD-110 engine, same as the current Soyuz-U/FG launchers, whereas Voskhod used the older RD-107 engine. Voskhod could not have launched a Soyuz spacecraft.

The engine on the upper stage was the RD-0108, a Kosberg design bureau engine. The RD-107 was (and is) used on the four boosters which constitute the first stage of Soyuz. The RD-108 is used on the core stage of Soyuz (second stage in Russian terminology). The RD-107 and RD-108 are from Glushko's design bureau.

Murray Anderson

Opps, the Voshkod 3rd stage engine was RD-0107, and the Soyuz 3rd stage was and is RD-0110.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 12/01/2010 04:46 pm
So I have just played the campaign of a certain game, and a mission involves shooting down a Soyuz LV.  The problem is that the mission is supposed to take place in 1963, while I was under the impression that Soyuz first flew in 1966.  Would it really be the Soyuz LV, or would it have more than likely be the Voskhod LV?

There were small differences between the Soyuz and Voskhod launchers, mostly involving the engines. The Soyuz 3rd stage used an RD-110 engine, same as the current Soyuz-U/FG launchers, whereas Voskhod used the older RD-107 engine. Voskhod could not have launched a Soyuz spacecraft.

The engine on the upper stage was the RD-0108, a Kosberg design bureau engine. The RD-107 was (and is) used on the four boosters which constitute the first stage of Soyuz. The RD-108 is used on the core stage of Soyuz (second stage in Russian terminology). The RD-107 and RD-108 are from Glushko's design bureau.

Murray Anderson

Opps, the Voshkod 3rd stage engine was RD-0107, and the Soyuz 3rd stage was and is RD-0110.


RD-0108 8D715P was used on the piloted Voskhod launchers; and was also fitted on the first six manufactured Molniya-M third stage.

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3727&start=60

http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=8&cat=8&prod=37
http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=103

Soviet Rocketry That Conquered Space
Timothy Varfolomeyev
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 12/04/2010 05:20 pm
Soyuz 4/5 question:

Given that the hatch on the Soyuz orbital module seems to be bolted on by technicians on the ground, how did the cosmonauts open the hatch for their EVA? Was the hatch specially modified for the EVA, or was the hatch for all of the early Soyuzes designed for EVAs?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 12/04/2010 05:23 pm
Opps, the Voshkod 3rd stage engine was RD-0107, and the Soyuz 3rd stage was and is RD-0110.


RD-0108 8D715P was used on the piloted Voskhod launchers; and was also fitted on the first six manufactured Molniya-M third stage.

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3727&start=60

http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=8&cat=8&prod=37
http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=103

Soviet Rocketry That Conquered Space
Timothy Varfolomeyev

Yep, Voskhod used RD-0108 for the final stage, and Soyuz used and uses RD-0110 for all variants prior to Soyuz-2.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 12/04/2010 07:23 pm
Opps, the Voshkod 3rd stage engine was RD-0107, and the Soyuz 3rd stage was and is RD-0110.


 RD-0108 8D715P was used on the piloted Voskhod launchers; and was also fitted on the first six manufactured Molniya-M third stage.

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3727&start=60

http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=8&cat=8&prod=37
http://www.kbkha.ru/?p=103

Soviet Rocketry That Conquered Space
Timothy Varfolomeyev

Yep, Voskhod used RD-0108 for the final stage, and Soyuz used and uses RD-0110 for all variants prior to Soyuz-2.


 On the KBKhA website it lists just 51 x RD-0107 and 20 x RD-0108; though I'm not sure if that's just the successful flights?

 On Vovan’s post on the Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum is an interesting list of differences, between 11A57 Voskhod, 11A511 Soyuz and the 11A511U Soyuz-U. One major difference between Voskhod and Soyuz-U is the adoption of the 11S59 lower 1st and 2nd stages; the 11S59 features a central Blok-A with the control system reduced in height.
 Did the Molnija-M ever adopt the 11S59? Timothy Varfolomeyev articles in B.I.S. Spaceflight magazine suggest so… but reading the article again it sounds like it adopted the Soyuz 11A511 core first.

Thanks to Mr. Lissov, failures of RD-0107 engines
Quote
 12.09.1962 -- По главной команде на выключение двигателя 8Д715К 3-й ступени на 530.95 сек не закрылся отсечной клапан окислителя верньерного двигателя №4. Двигатель взорвался, прошло сильное возмущение с закруткой ГБ (10°/сек по тангажу, 80°/сек по рысканью).
 23.11.1965 -- Взрыв одной из камер ДУ 8Д715К на конечной ступени тяги (528 сек). Головной блок выведен в нестабилизированном положении.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=304&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1035

I can find 20 x RD-0107 8D715K
8K7810-10-1960Л1-4М1M
8K7814-10-1960Л1-5М1M
8K7812-02-1961Л1-6ВVenera 1
8K7804-02-1961Л1-7В1VA
8K7804-01-1963Т10309E-6
8K7803-02-1963Г10310E-6
8K7802-04-1963Г10311Luna 4
8K7825-08-1962Т103122MV-1
8K7801-09-1962Т103132MV-1
8K7812-09-1962Т103142MV-2
8K7824-10-1962Т103152MV-4
8K7801-11-1962Т10316Mars-1
8K7804-11-1962Т103172MV-3
8K7810-04-1965Р10326E-6
8K7831-01-1966У10332Luna 9
8K7827-03-1966У15000-4011F67
8K7831-03-1966Н10342Luna 10
8K7816-11-1965 Venera 3
8K7823-11-1965 Kosmos 96
8K7817-08-1970 Venera 7

12 x RD-0108 8D715P; eight more to identify?
8K7811-11-1963Г10318Kosmos 21
8K78M19-02-1964Т15000-193MV-1
8K78M21-03-1964Т15000-20E-6
8K78M20-04-1964Т15000-21E-6
8K78M27-03-1964Т15000-22Kosmos 27
8K78M02-04-1964Т15000-23Zond
11A5716-11-1963Г15000-06Kosmos 22
11A5706-10-1964Р15000-02Kosmos 47
11A5722-02-1965Р15000-03Kosmos 57
11A5712-10-1964Р15000-04Voskhod
11A5718-03-1965Р15000-05Voskhod 2
11A5722-02-1966Р15000-06Kosmos 110
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 12/05/2010 01:56 pm
Soyuz 4/5 question:

Given that the hatch on the Soyuz orbital module seems to be bolted on by technicians on the ground, how did the cosmonauts open the hatch for their EVA? Was the hatch specially modified for the EVA, or was the hatch for all of the early Soyuzes designed for EVAs?


 Shatalov opened the Soyuz-4 orbital module hatch; from inside the descent module.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/36.shtml


 Further reading:-
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtml
http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/energia46-96/05.html
http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/tm/1969/3/neb-ex.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 12/05/2010 02:26 pm
Soyuz 4/5 question:

Given that the hatch on the Soyuz orbital module seems to be bolted on by technicians on the ground, how did the cosmonauts open the hatch for their EVA? Was the hatch specially modified for the EVA, or was the hatch for all of the early Soyuzes designed for EVAs?


 Shatalov opened the Soyuz-4 orbital module hatch; from inside the descent module.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/36.shtml


 Further reading:-
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtml
http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/energia46-96/05.html
http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/tm/1969/3/neb-ex.html

Yes, but I don't believe that the hatch can be opened from the inside anymore, which begs the question as to whether the Soyuz 4/5 hatches were specially designed, or whether Soyuz design has since been changed.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skylab on 12/06/2010 06:23 pm
Soyuz 4/5 question:

[SNIP]


 Shatalov opened the Soyuz-4 orbital module hatch; from inside the descent module.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/36.shtml (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/36.shtml)

[SNIP]

Yes, but I don't believe that the hatch can be opened from the inside anymore, which begs the question as to whether the Soyuz 4/5 hatches were specially designed, or whether Soyuz design has since been changed.
From the 2010 NASA "Worldwide Spacecraft Crew Hatch History" document, NASA/TP–2010–216131. (http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2010-216131.pdf (http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2010-216131.pdf))
Quote
The OM also has a docking/transfer hatch and a crew entry/exit hatch that serves as an EVA hatch. Both crew hatches are inward opening and pressure sealed.
So I guess it still can be done, which makes sense if you have some emergency that might be fixable during EVA, quite some time after undocking from ISS, or want to fix a docking mechanism issue by EVA before docking.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 12/07/2010 03:06 pm
From the 2010 NASA "Worldwide Spacecraft Crew Hatch History" document, NASA/TP–2010–216131. (http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2010-216131.pdf (http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2010-216131.pdf))
Quote
The OM also has a docking/transfer hatch and a crew entry/exit hatch that serves as an EVA hatch. Both crew hatches are inward opening and pressure sealed.
So I guess it still can be done, which makes sense if you have some emergency that might be fixable during EVA, quite some time after undocking from ISS, or want to fix a docking mechanism issue by EVA before docking.

Nevertheless, I don't believe that current generation Soyuz have an OM hatch that may be opened by the crew in orbit, it appears to be bolted on.


Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skylab on 12/07/2010 11:34 pm
From the 2010 NASA "Worldwide Spacecraft Crew Hatch History" document, NASA/TP–2010–216131. (http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2010-216131.pdf (http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2010-216131.pdf))
Quote
The OM also has a docking/transfer hatch and a crew entry/exit hatch that serves as an EVA hatch. Both crew hatches are inward opening and pressure sealed.
So I guess it still can be done, which makes sense if you have some emergency that might be fixable during EVA, quite some time after undocking from ISS, or want to fix a docking mechanism issue by EVA before docking.

Nevertheless, I don't believe that current generation Soyuz have an OM hatch that may be opened by the crew in orbit, it appears to be bolted on.
The outside may well be bolted on, but the hatch is inward opening, so that's no issue. Perhaps someone can provide definitive proof.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 12/08/2010 09:49 am
In NK n°334 (2010-11), there is a list of all launches of the early warning program, but Cosmos 1940 is not in the list.

Is it a mistake, or is there a point that I didn't understand ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zero-G on 12/08/2010 11:49 am
Soyuz 4/5 question:

[SNIP]


 Shatalov opened the Soyuz-4 orbital module hatch; from inside the descent module.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/36.shtml (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/36.shtml)

[SNIP]

Yes, but I don't believe that the hatch can be opened from the inside anymore, which begs the question as to whether the Soyuz 4/5 hatches were specially designed, or whether Soyuz design has since been changed.
From the 2010 NASA "Worldwide Spacecraft Crew Hatch History" document, NASA/TP–2010–216131. (http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2010-216131.pdf (http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2010-216131.pdf))
Quote
The OM also has a docking/transfer hatch and a crew entry/exit hatch that serves as an EVA hatch. Both crew hatches are inward opening and pressure sealed.
So I guess it still can be done, which makes sense if you have some emergency that might be fixable during EVA, quite some time after undocking from ISS, or want to fix a docking mechanism issue by EVA before docking.
It would not help much, if you don't have EVA suits on board. AFAIK Soyuz spacecraft do not routinely carry Orlan suits on board.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skylab on 12/08/2010 04:59 pm
[Snipped all earlier quotes]

It would not help much, if you don't have EVA suits on board. AFAIK Soyuz spacecraft do not routinely carry Orlan suits on board.
True, but still having the option to employ Orlan suits on specific flights can prove beneficial.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 12/08/2010 09:08 pm
In NK n°334 (2010-11), there is a list of all launches of the early warning program, but Cosmos 1940 is not in the list.

Is it a mistake, or is there a point that I didn't understand ?

Вобщем как бы это не оказалось уникальное изображение Космоса-1940 он же Геофизика. Был сделан он на шасси Метеора и представлял собой переходный шаг к Электро.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7462&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=810

99 spacecrafts of this type have been put into orbit
by the present moment. The last launch was
performed on December 24, 2002. The next “Oko”
jubilee launch shall be performed in 2003.

http://www.laspace.ru/heatpipe/HP-Experience_Goncharov.pdf

26 апреля произведен запуск ИСЗ «Космос-1940». Научная аппаратура спутника предназначалась для проведения исследований процессов, происходящих в атмосфере Земли, и состояния Мирового океана.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: eeergo on 12/08/2010 11:29 pm
It would not help much, if you don't have EVA suits on board. AFAIK Soyuz spacecraft do not routinely carry Orlan suits on board.

I was under the impression the Sokol suits could be used for a contingecy short EVA (though I may be having the wrong recollection)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 12/09/2010 05:36 am
It would not help much, if you don't have EVA suits on board. AFAIK Soyuz spacecraft do not routinely carry Orlan suits on board.

I am considering a possible EVA from inside a Soyuz as part of an ISS contingency.

Although I haven't seen any evidence that the OM hatch can be opened by the crew from inside,  and I don't think that an Orlan suit can fit through the hatch; however, I have a dim recollection that the OM has some primitive Orlan servicing systems, which makes little sense.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 12/12/2010 01:53 pm
In 2006, an unidentified Soyuz SA was put on display on the USS Hornet, in Alameda, California.

Now, it seems that this capsule has moved to Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland.

Someone can confirm this is the same capsule ?
Do you know which spacecraft it is ?

Thanks !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 12/12/2010 06:03 pm
4,000 kg thrust engine that can fit in both Fregat or Briz-M; how much difference would that make to Proton-M Briz-M performance?
http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/70/page36.html

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4252&start=411
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 12/16/2010 09:45 pm
When were the rockets
Soyuz-FG Ю15000-028 Soyuz TMA-18
Soyuz-U Ю15000-120 Progress M-03M
Soyuz-FG Б15000-033 Kanopus-V/BKA-2
Soyuz-U Б15000-121 Progress M-MIM2
delivered to Baikonur?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 12/20/2010 03:02 pm
Do you know how to translate "построитель местной вертикали" ?

http://www.vniiem.ru/ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:-7201&catid=37:spaceprograms&Itemid=62

Thank you very much !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: gospacex on 12/20/2010 04:13 pm
Do you know how to translate "построитель местной вертикали"?

It's a device which finds Earth surface normal vector (by detecting Earth limb in a few directions).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 12/20/2010 04:30 pm
Do you know how to translate "построитель местной вертикали"?

It's a device which finds Earth surface normal vector (by detecting Earth limb in a few directions).

Thanks gospacex.
Do you know how this device is called in technical English ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 12/20/2010 04:46 pm
Do you know how to translate "построитель местной вертикали"?

It's a device which finds Earth surface normal vector (by detecting Earth limb in a few directions).

Thanks gospacex.
Do you know how this device is called in technical English ?

horizon detector
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/20/2010 05:12 pm
translate.google.com works pretty well to give you the general gist of something. Better that Babelfish ever was (works for more languages, too! Including Latin.).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: yinzer on 12/20/2010 05:14 pm
Do you know how to translate "построитель местной вертикали"?

It's a device which finds Earth surface normal vector (by detecting Earth limb in a few directions).

Thanks gospacex.
Do you know how this device is called in technical English ?

horizon detector

I've also seen "horizon sensor".
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: markododa on 12/25/2010 05:37 am
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Zenit-2_rocket_ready_for_launch.jpg what is the red color used for?, looks like a giant pencil.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/02/2011 09:48 pm
In NK n°334 (2010-11), there is a list of all launches of the early warning program, but Cosmos 1940 is not in the list.

Is it a mistake, or is there a point that I didn't understand ?

It was an experimental VNIIEM satellite?

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/057/04.shtml#02
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/158/06.shtml
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/04/2011 05:51 pm
Think this document covers GLONASS
http://doc.gostorgi.ru/7/2010-04-08/740237/1.DOC/
 Payload fairing 14S737 for KGU 44S, 46S and K1 to be delivered to Mirny, Arkhangelsk Oblast. 14S737 is the type of fairing used by the Meridian satellite. KGU 45K payload fairing to Tyura-Tam.

GLONASS-M 24-46
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000269/?year=2006
 So five GLONASS-M remaining to be delivered by the end of 2011; which ties in with the above?

 The latest launch of GLONASS in December was blok 43 with satellites 739, 740 and 741.

Also…
GLONASS-M 15-20
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000237/?year=2004
GLONASS-M 21-23
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000261/?year=2005
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/04/2011 06:50 pm
Think this document covers GLONASS
http://doc.gostorgi.ru/7/2010-04-08/740237/1.DOC/
 Payload fairing 14S737 for KGU 44S, 46S and K1 to be delivered to Mirny, Arkhangelsk Oblast. 14S737 is the type of fairing used by the Meridian satellite. KGU 45K payload fairing to Tyura-Tam.

GLONASS-M 24-46
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000269/?year=2006
 So five GLONASS-M remaining to be delivered by the end of 2011; which ties in with the above?

 The latest launch of GLONASS in December was blok 43 with satellites 739, 740 and 741.

Also…
GLONASS-M 15-20
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000237/?year=2004
GLONASS-M 21-23
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000261/?year=2005

Just to clarify, the number + "S" represents the block number for launches aboard Proton, whereas "K" plus a number represents the block number of Soyuz-2 launches, correct? So "K1" is the first Glonass launch on Soyuz, and "45K" represents the 45th launch on Proton, in this case, the launch is from Baikonur.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/04/2011 07:24 pm
Think this document covers GLONASS
http://doc.gostorgi.ru/7/2010-04-08/740237/1.DOC/
 Payload fairing 14S737 for KGU 44S, 46S and K1 to be delivered to Mirny, Arkhangelsk Oblast. 14S737 is the type of fairing used by the Meridian satellite. KGU 45K payload fairing to Tyura-Tam.

GLONASS-M 24-46
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000269/?year=2006
 So five GLONASS-M remaining to be delivered by the end of 2011; which ties in with the above?

 The latest launch of GLONASS in December was blok 43 with satellites 739, 740 and 741.

Also…
GLONASS-M 15-20
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000237/?year=2004
GLONASS-M 21-23
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000261/?year=2005

Just to clarify, the number + "S" represents the block number for launches aboard Proton, whereas "K" plus a number represents the block number of Soyuz-2 launches, correct? So "K1" is the first Glonass launch on Soyuz, and "45K" represents the 45th launch on Proton, in this case, the launch is from Baikonur.


 I think S are solo launches of GLONASS-M from Plesetsk on Soyuz; two are planned. Also found a couple of references to blok 43K… so not sure what K stands for?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/05/2011 07:03 pm
The little airlock module (pictured) launched together with MRM-1 will eventually be berthed to the lateral docking port of MLM, currently configured to be hybrid passive. This implies that the airlock module docking adapter will be hybrid active. However, I can't find a photo showing an active hybrid adapter on the airlock module, and I have not yet seen a photo of the docking side of the airlock module at ISS to date.  The lower photo attached is from Energia, and it looks like the airlock module docking adapter has a hybrid collar, but no docking system is pictured.

So, what kind of docking adapter is mounted on the airlock module?

Or, let me ask the question a different way: if a hybrid/APAS collar is used, can a vehicle be berthed without an active docking adapter? Could it simply be pushed against the collar of the passive vehicle, and then the latches in the collars could engage?

If this is the case, and the CDA does use the hybrid/APAS collar, then, in theory, the little airlock may be used *someday* on the US segment.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/09/2011 01:51 pm
In NK n°127, in the article about the Soyuz failure of 14th may 1996, it is written :

Quote
“Комета” на Байконуре не была подорвана системой АПО, которая была незадействована, дабы избежать аварии, происшедшей при одном из последних запусков КА данного типа, когда прошла команда на подрыв аппарата вместо команды на отделение третьей ступени.

I don't find any mention of such an incident in the Kometa launch archives. Someone can help ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/09/2011 03:38 pm
In NK n°127, in the article about the Soyuz failure of 14th may 1996, it is written :

Quote
“Комета” на Байконуре не была подорвана системой АПО, которая была незадействована, дабы избежать аварии, происшедшей при одном из последних запусков КА данного типа, когда прошла команда на подрыв аппарата вместо команды на отделение третьей ступени.

I don't find any mention of such an incident in the Kometa launch archives. Someone can help ?

This is a reference to the failure of Kosmos 2243?

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/046/04.shtml
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/082/16.shtml
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/09/2011 06:47 pm
In NK n°127, in the article about the Soyuz failure of 14th may 1996, it is written :

Quote
“Комета” на Байконуре не была подорвана системой АПО, которая была незадействована, дабы избежать аварии, происшедшей при одном из последних запусков КА данного типа, когда прошла команда на подрыв аппарата вместо команды на отделение третьей ступени.

I don't find any mention of such an incident in the Kometa launch archives. Someone can help ?

If I understand this…
 The APO is an explosive charge designed to destroy a satellite. Kosmos 2243 failed when it’s APO triggered at orbit insertion; and the remains decayed uncontrolled after nine days.
 The Kometa launch in 1996 was one of two launches that year where the payload fairing came apart. In the case of the Kometa the fairing failed at 49 seconds, the satellite broke apart, but the rocket kept going. After 121 seconds it deviated from the flight path and aborted by 124 seconds. Because of the previous accident this Kometa’s APO was not triggered.
 The second launch failure in 1996 was also at 49 seconds. It did not involve a Kometa and the satellite did blow itself up with the APO.

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/046/04.shtml
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/082/16.shtml
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/125/06.shtml
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/127/07.shtml

Quote from: SOYUZ USER’S MANUAL ST-GTD-SUM-01 ISSUE 3, REVISION 0 APRIL 2001
The two failures listed in 1996 (May 14 and June 20) were due to a manufacturing defect with the fairing release mechanism. Since the fairings for the two flights were manufactured in a batch, the same defect was repeated on both fairings. The cause was identified, other fairings in the batch were repaired, and corrective actions were taken to ensure that this defect was not repeated. These failures were the only two in 195 Soyuz family launches, going back to 1990. Since these failures, Soyuz family LVs have been launched sucessfully 58 consecutive times through December 31, 2000.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/11/2011 07:56 pm
Think this document covers GLONASS
http://doc.gostorgi.ru/7/2010-04-08/740237/1.DOC/
 Payload fairing 14S737 for KGU 44S, 46S and K1 to be delivered to Mirny, Arkhangelsk Oblast. 14S737 is the type of fairing used by the Meridian satellite. KGU 45K payload fairing to Tyura-Tam.

GLONASS-M 24-46
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000269/?year=2006
 So five GLONASS-M remaining to be delivered by the end of 2011; which ties in with the above?

 The latest launch of GLONASS in December was blok 43 with satellites 739, 740 and 741.

Also…
GLONASS-M 15-20
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000237/?year=2004
GLONASS-M 21-23
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000261/?year=2005

Also…

Testing of semiconductor devices of foreign production for GLONASS 36-46.
http://www.spels.ru/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=374&Itemid=34

Blok 41 and 40 with 730 to 735 were the delayed launches with the GLONASS requiring modifications.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skyrocket on 01/11/2011 11:00 pm
In NK n°334 (2010-11), there is a list of all launches of the early warning program, but Cosmos 1940 is not in the list.

Is it a mistake, or is there a point that I didn't understand ?

It was an experimental VNIIEM satellite?

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/057/04.shtml#02
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/158/06.shtml

Does anyone know the soviet designation of Kosmos-1940?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/12/2011 02:03 pm
The proposed Hub module for ISS has a 3.3 meter diameter, the first time I have seen a module from Energia with this diameter. Has anyone seen an earlier proposal from Energia with a 3300 mm diameter module?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 01/12/2011 05:48 pm
Does anyone know the soviet designation of Kosmos-1940?

34Kh6.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/16/2011 07:52 am
Maybe not the right place to post it, but I'd like to share a good video of a Soyuz showing the start of the SKDU. It was probably shot from Salyut-6.

I've extracted this video from a very good German documentary on Intercosmos program. I don't know why, but when I've made the extraction, the size changed. So you have to read it in VLC and choose "16:9" to watch it normally.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/22/2011 08:33 am
http://doc.gostorgi.ru/7/2010-04-08/740237/1.DOC
 Item № 1 production and the delivery of fairings for the launch of KGU 44S, 46S, K1 - 14S737-0000-OTU.
 Fairing: for the launch of KGU 44S quantity 1 - HF 13991, Mirny, Arkhangelsk Oblast; for the launch of KGU 46S quantity 1 - HF 13991, Mirny, Arkhangelsk Oblast; for the launch of KGU K1 quantity 1 - HF 13991, Mirny, Arkhangelsk Oblast.
 Item № 2 production and the delivery of two fairings, one for the launch of KGU 45K and a second held in reserve - 813BK-0100-OTU.
 Fairing: for the launch of KGU blok 45K, quantity 1 - HF 11284, Tyura-Tam, republic Kazakhstan.

Lavochkin awarded contract for three fairings for KGU 44S, 46S and K1.
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0018710005071/

14F113 Uragan-M 724-746
Planned date for conclusion of contract: 12.2011
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000269/?year=2006

 So five Uragan-M remaining to be delivered by the end of 2011. Two solo launches from Plesetsk; 14S737 is the fairing also used for 14F112 Meridian. The latest launch of GLONASS in December was blok 43 with satellites 739, 740 and 741.

14F113 Uragan-M 747-749
Planned date for conclusion of contract: 12.2012
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025910000148/?year=2010

14F113 Uragan-M 736-746
http://www.spels.ru/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=374&Itemid=34
 The inspection and additional certification tests of electrical radio components of foreign production.

 Blok 41 and 40 with 730 to 735 were the delayed launches with the Uragan-M requiring modifications.

14F113 Uragan-M 715-720
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000237/?year=2004

14F113 Uragan-M 721-723
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000261/?year=2005
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 01/22/2011 03:32 pm
I'm searching for the radio recording of the Yuri Levitan annoncement of Gagarin launch. Any help?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 01/22/2011 04:13 pm
Have you tried this (http://www.sovmusic.ru/english/list.php?part=1&gold=yes&category=speech) site?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 01/23/2011 10:12 am
Have you tried this (http://www.sovmusic.ru/english/list.php?part=1&gold=yes&category=speech) site?

Thanks! Already checked... nothing there...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Hungry4info3 on 01/23/2011 11:57 pm
Have you tried this (http://www.sovmusic.ru/english/list.php?part=1&gold=yes&category=speech) site?

Thanks! Already checked... nothing there...

Isn't it the second link?
Quote
One word "Poehali!" (We're going!) said by the first man in the space. With this word a new era of space exploration begins
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Malderi on 01/27/2011 10:20 pm
What is the relationship between the Angara and Rus-M rocket programs? From what I understand, Angara is farther along, and Rus-M is a longer-term, heavier-lift project. But Angara-5 and Angara-7 are supposed to be man-rated, and so is the initial Rus-M.

Can someone explain why both of these programs appear to be serving similar purposes and yet are under development at the same time?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Eraser on 01/28/2011 06:06 am
What is the relationship between the Angara and Rus-M rocket programs? From what I understand, Angara is farther along, and Rus-M is a longer-term, heavier-lift project. But Angara-5 and Angara-7 are supposed to be man-rated, and so is the initial Rus-M.

Can someone explain why both of these programs appear to be serving similar purposes and yet are under development at the same time?
Angara is created mainly for the MoD purposes, to launch heavy military satellites from Plesetsk, commercially it will be operated from the Baikonur Cosmodrome as the Baiterek project. Rus-M will be created for manned space program and will be launched from the Vostochny Cosmodrome.

Have two systems, whose capabilities is somewhat overlapping, it is useful for redundancy, to load industry, job retention and reduce the monopoly on launch services.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Malderi on 01/28/2011 03:10 pm
I understand that - EELV (Atlas/Delta) is a good example. I wasn't sure if there was anything else I was missing, though. Thanks for the answer.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 02/06/2011 10:07 am
What has GRAU 17F112?

http://bd.patent.su/2391000-2391999/pat/servl/servletf4bc.html
http://bd.patent.su/2390000-2390999/pat/servl/servletd322.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 02/20/2011 07:16 am
 Looks like Gagarin’s Vostok rocket was 8К72 Е10316. No such index 8K72K?

http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=87
http://modelrocketseisaku.cocolog-nifty.com/photos/uncategorized/2010/08/11/vostokrspecs.jpg

 Sputnik went up on 8К71ПС М1-ПС, with no number after the hyphen. Laika went up on 8К71ПС М1-2ПС.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 02/24/2011 01:14 am
I am curious as to how come the Buran's carbon TPS for it's nose and wing leading edges is darker than the US shuttle RCC. Is it a different material mixture as to why the colors differ? In art of Buran and photos, the leading edges and nose of Buran look the same color as the HRSI tiles, and difficult to tell apart.

Again on Buran, why is it the nose gear is below the payload bay than the nose like on the US shuttle? What is the purpose of this?

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jorge on 02/24/2011 01:20 am
Again on Buran, why is it the nose gear is below the payload bay than the nose like on the US shuttle? What is the purpose of this?

This allowed the nose gear to be longer, placing Buran at something closer to zero angle of attack at nose gear touchdown, contrasted to the negative angle of attack of the shuttle. That in turn reduced the "downlift" loads on the main gear, decreasing the odds of a tire blowout.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Generacy on 03/14/2011 05:21 pm
Is it possible for the Soyuz to dock to the ISS at a different roll/clocking angle?  The docking port on the Soyuz seems to be somewhat roll symmetric, but I imagine it would be a problem for the RDS to accommodate a docking at a different roll angle.  Is this true?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/14/2011 05:58 pm
Is it possible for the Soyuz to dock to the ISS at a different roll/clocking angle?  The docking port on the Soyuz seems to be somewhat roll symmetric, but I imagine it would be a problem for the RDS to accommodate a docking at a different roll angle.  Is this true?

Compared to what? Soyuzes at Zvezda aft are clocked at an angle, those at the other ports are not.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Generacy on 03/14/2011 06:04 pm
I guess my question is, is there more than one clocking angle that a Soyuz can dock to a specific docking port?  Or is there only one singular clocking angle that the port will accept a Soyuz?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 03/15/2011 09:26 pm

Why is it that sometimes the Soyuz backup crew is made up of crew members that are not assigned to fly together in the near future?
Thank you...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DMeader on 03/15/2011 09:43 pm
I guess my question is, is there more than one clocking angle that a Soyuz can dock to a specific docking port?  Or is there only one singular clocking angle that the port will accept a Soyuz?

I know that Progress must dock at a particular angle so that various fluid and electrical connectors mate for the fuel transfer.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/15/2011 09:47 pm
I guess my question is, is there more than one clocking angle that a Soyuz can dock to a specific docking port?  Or is there only one singular clocking angle that the port will accept a Soyuz?

No. Yes.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/29/2011 07:02 pm
Yes, I know that the military Molniya satellites are replaced by Meridian, but how about the civilian constellation? Is it still functional? There haven't been many launches lately, so what will replace it? Can Meridian handle both the civilian and military requirements?

 ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: jcm on 03/30/2011 01:02 pm
Does anyone know the soviet designation of Kosmos-1940?

34Kh6.

Just spotted this thread... so 74Kh6 is Oko-S, 71Kh6 is Oko-1 and 34Kh6 is this mysterious one. What's with the Kh6 designators, do we understand them?
Can we guess from the similarity of 74Kh6 and 34Kh6 that 34Kh6 was a modification of the Oko-S bus? I know it's been claimed that 1940 was a modified Meteor which would make it VNIIEM rather than Lavochkin...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 03/30/2011 05:41 pm
34Kh6 is this mysterious one

It was experimental satellite for detection of nuclear explosions.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: jcm on 03/31/2011 02:07 am
34Kh6 is this mysterious one

It was experimental satellite for detection of nuclear explosions.

OK, I have heard that suggestion too. So the Meteor/Elektro connection is bogus?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 04/12/2011 12:05 pm
Could the Proton booster be used for Manned flights?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 04/12/2011 12:14 pm
Could the Proton booster be used for Manned flights?

It was going for the Zond program

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/50/Proton_zond_on_pad.jpg/300px-Proton_zond_on_pad.jpg)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/12/2011 01:01 pm
Could the Proton booster be used for Manned flights?

It was going for the Zond program

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/50/Proton_zond_on_pad.jpg/300px-Proton_zond_on_pad.jpg)
Not to mention that the military TKS spacecraft was only one successful missions away from flying manned. The lack of need of a military space station killed the program in making the TKS as a ferry craft, but the cargo compartment became the basis for most of the Russian station modules.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tks.htm (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tks.htm)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Malderi on 04/12/2011 08:55 pm
With the recent Shuttle announcement, I got curious - what happens to all of the Soyuz descent modules after flight? There's about a hundred of them now, right? I can't imagine Russia even has enough museums for all of them. Assuming they aren't all in a dusty warehouse somewhere, who gets 'em and who decides?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/13/2011 04:51 am
With the recent Shuttle announcement, I got curious - what happens to all of the Soyuz descent modules after flight? There's about a hundred of them now, right? I can't imagine Russia even has enough museums for all of them. Assuming they aren't all in a dusty warehouse somewhere, who gets 'em and who decides?

No one knows.

Seriously, I have seen lists of locations of flown Soyuz descent capsules, although never one that claimed to be comprehensive.

My feeling is that more than a few descent modules have been re-used, and so a comprehensive list would be difficult to produce.

A similar question is what happened to all of those hundreds of Zenit capsules that were launched over some 30 years? I know that those were re-used twice apiece, but still, that implies there are a lot out there.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 05/04/2011 03:40 pm
How long does it take the Soyuz to get from the Assembly building to the launch pad? To compare, the Crawler Transporter takes six hours to get from the VAB to LC-39.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 05/04/2011 04:40 pm
How long does it take the Soyuz to get from the Assembly building to the launch pad?

Two hours is from the assembly building on site 112 to launch pad on site 1. When we have used the assembly building on site 2 it was faster.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 05/04/2011 06:03 pm
With the recent Shuttle announcement, I got curious - what happens to all of the Soyuz descent modules after flight? There's about a hundred of them now, right? I can't imagine Russia even has enough museums for all of them. Assuming they aren't all in a dusty warehouse somewhere, who gets 'em and who decides?

No one knows.

Seriously, I have seen lists of locations of flown Soyuz descent capsules, although never one that claimed to be comprehensive.

My feeling is that more than a few descent modules have been re-used, and so a comprehensive list would be difficult to produce.

A similar question is what happened to all of those hundreds of Zenit capsules that were launched over some 30 years? I know that those were re-used twice apiece, but still, that implies there are a lot out there.


During the Soviet era, the descent modules carrying the "guest" cosmonaut would be given to the country from which the cosmonaut came for public display.

Otherwise, the Energiya museum seems to have a nice collection of piloted descent modules.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 05/05/2011 03:18 pm
I saw in the video of the roll out of the Expedition 27/28 Soyuz, you saw  the Energia/ Buran vehicle transporter.  That thing is huge and took four diesel locomotives to move it.  What will become of it now? Will it just be left to rust or will it be scrapped? 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Citabria on 05/05/2011 03:45 pm
Just heard this morning that many Soviet-era films are being released on YouTube. Has anyone found any Soviet spaceflight films on line?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 05/06/2011 12:56 pm
Which launch was it where one of the strap on boosters of the R-7 came off during launch? I saw photos of it, where the rocket exploded as a result of this.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 05/06/2011 01:32 pm
Just heard this morning that many Soviet-era films are being released on YouTube. Has anyone found any Soviet spaceflight films on line?

You can check this site:

http://www.youtube.com/user/tvroscosmos
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 05/06/2011 01:33 pm
Which launch was it where one of the strap on boosters of the R-7 came off during launch? I saw photos of it, where the rocket exploded as a result of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl9u-h_btBo
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 05/06/2011 02:22 pm
I was more thinking of this http://internetelite.ru/cosmopark/r7/511_109b.jpg  Which launch did this photo take place and is there video of it? It looks to be in the 60s.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 05/06/2011 03:37 pm
I was more thinking of this http://internetelite.ru/cosmopark/r7/511_109b.jpg  Which launch did this photo take place and is there video of it? It looks to be in the 60s.

Maybe you can find the answer here:-
http://www.pereplet.ru/space/carriers/av58-66.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zpoxy on 05/06/2011 09:42 pm
I was more thinking of this http://internetelite.ru/cosmopark/r7/511_109b.jpg  Which launch did this photo take place and is there video of it? It looks to be in the 60s.

Try here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/tvroscosmos#p/search/0/BMqpabGieGM

Something similar about 40 seconds into the clip. I just did a search for R-7 on that site, I don't read Cyrillic, just stumbled into it.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 05/07/2011 01:09 pm
Scary footage of that.

I wonder if on board cameras attached to the rocket will be done in future launches? For example the US Delta launches and the shuttle launches have on board cameras showing where the rocket is in flight and how high it is.

The closest to an on board view is seen in this cgi render by Roscosmos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZWu3-rg0MM&feature=related
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 05/10/2011 11:36 pm
How come the truss design  is different on the two R-7 rockets from say Vostok and Luna to the present Soyuz? I counted the number of triangular struts. Old design had 8 or so, and the Soyuz has 12.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skylab on 05/28/2011 03:37 pm
With Putin having decreed the Russian ISS segment should consist of 8 modules by 2015, and the recent increase in the space budget, has any work on modules beyond the Node Module been done or planned?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 05/28/2011 10:25 pm
How come the truss design  is different on the two R-7 rockets from say Vostok and Luna to the present Soyuz? I counted the number of triangular struts. Old design had 8 or so, and the Soyuz has 12.

Heavier upper stage.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 05/28/2011 10:25 pm
With Putin having decreed the Russian ISS segment should consist of 8 modules by 2015, and the recent increase in the space budget, has any work on modules beyond the Node Module been done or planned?

Plenty of plans.

Is work being done on the Node module?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skylab on 05/28/2011 10:49 pm
Plenty of plans.

Is work being done on the Node module?
I understood work had been done, based on info here and the fact both modules were presumed to launch by 2012. Haven't seen any pictures, though, which is a bit odd.

And plans... yeah, many a country has paper spacecraft and rockets.

Could someone enlighten us? Anik?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 06/14/2011 07:15 pm
When did Zenit loose the skirt?

(http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_055/images/IMG_8737.jpg)
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_055/pages/IMG_8737.html

(http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_150/gal10/images/_DSC8064.jpg)
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_150/gal10/pages/_DSC8064.htm

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10420&start=195
Quote from: Вован
Обтекатель камер сгорания (ОКС) был предназначен для защиты корпуса РН 11К77 от отраженной от стенок стола ударной волны, защиты внешней стороны ХО-1 от высокотемпературных потоков газов, а также смещения центра давления ближе к ХО-1.
Девять пусков ЛКИ показали, что без ОКС можно обойтись, исключить его из состава РН, тем самым уменьшить массу первой ступени на 200 кг и сократить время подготовки в МИК.
ОКС был снят с РН №11Л при 10-м по счету пуске 01.08.1987, следующий 11-й пуск (также без ОКС) был последним при ЛКИ. 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 06/24/2011 12:26 pm
Almaz

 Me a little confused…

 So the 100-series were to be the one-shot missions; launched with full life support system and a crew in a VA attached to the front? The 200-series were to be the long duration missions, receiving crews launched separately in a TKS; with the TKS taking over life support and attitude functions once docked? And the 300-series were the unmanned series?

 But with the delay to the VA (return apparatus), 101-1 (Salyut 2), 101-2 (Salyut 3) and 103 (Salyut 5) were modified. They were launched unmanned without a VA and featuring a docking port. Soyuz 7K-T/A9 were used to deliver the crews.

 The 200-series front tunnel is obstructed?
http://s15.radikal.ru/i188/0910/20/c26933eb0e3b.jpg
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7053.msg730069#msg730069

 With the VA still unavailable to deliver crews, the next Almaz was to be 104 instead of 201 or another 200-series. The rear docking port would receive the unmanned TKS for logistics, life support and attitude control. At the other end the unobstructed front tunnel allowed the fitting of a second docking port for Soyuz.
 The Soyuz ferry for the 4th Almaz would still have been a custom design; even though the front port is unobstructed and does not require an Igla antenna to be retracted for clearance, were there other differences to the A9 series? Also would the two docking ports really have been of different specifications?

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/loccraft.htm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7053
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tks.html
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/217/50.shtml
http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_098/index.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/29/2011 04:28 pm
I would like to know where this picture of OGCh, published in NK n°2000-07, was taken ? The author of the picture is Mr. Igor Marinin.
Thanks !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 06/29/2011 05:34 pm
I would like to know where this picture of OGCh, published in NK n°2000-07, was taken ? The author of the picture is Mr. Igor Marinin.
Thanks !

I would like to know what is a "OGCh"?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 06/29/2011 06:25 pm
I would like to know what is a "OGCh"?

Orbital head part of R-36orb rocket.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Mark Dave on 07/12/2011 12:49 am
How long did it take to get the Buran shuttle orbiter to get bolted to the Energia booster? For example the US shuttle takes nearly the entire day from rollover to the VAB to final systems check of the entire stack before rollout to the pad.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 07/12/2011 01:44 am
I would like to know what is a "OGCh"?

Orbital head part of R-36orb rocket.

Meaning its the FOBS payload.   :-\
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 07/13/2011 08:45 pm
http://doc.gostorgi.ru/7/2010-04-08/740237/1.DOC
 Item № 1 production and the delivery of fairings for the launch of KGU 44S, 46S, K1 - 14S737-0000-OTU.
 Fairing: for the launch of KGU 44S quantity 1 - HF 13991, Mirny, Arkhangelsk Oblast; for the launch of KGU 46S quantity 1 - HF 13991, Mirny, Arkhangelsk Oblast; for the launch of KGU K1 quantity 1 - HF 13991, Mirny, Arkhangelsk Oblast.
 Item № 2 production and the delivery of two fairings, one for the launch of KGU 45K and a second held in reserve - 813BK-0100-OTU.
 Fairing: for the launch of KGU blok 45K, quantity 1 - HF 11284, Tyura-Tam, republic Kazakhstan.

Lavochkin awarded contract for three fairings for KGU 44S, 46S and K1.
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0018710005071/

14F113 Uragan-M 724-746
Planned date for conclusion of contract: 12.2011
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000269/?year=2006

 So five Uragan-M remaining to be delivered by the end of 2011. Two solo launches from Plesetsk; 14S737 is the fairing also used for 14F112 Meridian. The latest launch of GLONASS in December was blok 43 with satellites 739, 740 and 741.

14F113 Uragan-M 747-749
Planned date for conclusion of contract: 12.2012
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025910000148/?year=2010

14F113 Uragan-M 736-746
http://www.spels.ru/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=374&Itemid=34
 The inspection and additional certification tests of electrical radio components of foreign production.

 Blok 41 and 40 with 730 to 735 were the delayed launches with the Uragan-M requiring modifications.

14F113 Uragan-M 715-720
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000237/?year=2004

14F113 Uragan-M 721-723
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000261/?year=2005

Blok 44 is this years triple launch by Proton (with Uragan-M 743, 744 and 745). Blok 45S (with Uragan-M 742) and blok 46S are the Soyuz launches.
http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=15&did=1510
http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=15&did=1514
http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=15&did=1516
http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=15&did=1517
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 08/16/2011 08:10 pm
I've found an interesting table showing the different batteries used on board several Russian satellites :

http://www.saturn.kuban.ru/bat_nio_spec.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/18/2011 07:05 pm
This may be a difficult question to answer, but how much does a Fregat upper stage cost to manufacture?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/18/2011 07:26 pm
This may be a difficult question to answer, but how much does a Fregat upper stage cost to manufacture?

Not quite the answer you are looking for, but Lavochkin sale prices

Fregat
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000289/?year=2007
299 млн. 439 тыс. 900 рублей
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025910000032/?year=2009
298 млн. 253 тыс. 600 рублей

Fregat-SB
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025910000095/?year=2010
415 млн. 870 тыс. рублей
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025910000095/?year=2010
415 млн. 870 тыс. рублей
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/18/2011 08:10 pm
This may be a difficult question to answer, but how much does a Fregat upper stage cost to manufacture?

Not quite the answer you are looking for, but Lavochkin sale prices

Fregat
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025907000289/?year=2007
299 млн. 439 тыс. 900 рублей
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025910000032/?year=2009
298 млн. 253 тыс. 600 рублей

Fregat-SB
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025910000095/?year=2010
415 млн. 870 тыс. рублей
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0025910000095/?year=2010
415 млн. 870 тыс. рублей
10-13 million dollars, then? Of course, that's with Russian labor.

I was just wondering, because I saw in another thread about how recovery of the Fregat upper stage was attempted, and I wanted to know roughly how much that could possibly save. It wouldn't be a "gas and go" operation, I doubt it'd make sense at a low launch rate. But quite interesting, nonetheless!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/20/2011 08:37 am
 Because of the recent sad failure with Ekspress-AM4 I’ve listed other 5-burn launch profile missions below.

 
Proton 
                 
 
Briz-M 
 
 
Satellite
                        
 
Platform
 
 
Separated 
Mass (kg)
Target orbit after 2nd burn
Intermediate Orbit
DTB orbit after 3rd burnTarget orbit after 4th burn
Transfer Orbit
Proton-K
RD-275
88506AMC-9Spacebus 3000B34,100275×5,000×50·3°296×15,061×49·6°375×35,786×49·1°
Proton-M
535-03
Briz-MW3AEurostar E30004,250250×5,000×50·3°302×15,566×49·4°380×35,814×49·1°
Proton-M
phase I
Briz-MIS-10-02Eurostar E30005,575258×5,000×50·3°294×12,970×49·6°395×35,819×49·1°
Proton-M
phase I
Briz-MAmazonasEurostar E30004,540258×5,000×50·3°302×16,449×49·4°395×35,820×49·1°
Proton-M
phase I
Briz-MAMC-12Spacebus 4000C34,974258×5,000×50·3°312×15,571×49·5°395×35,629×49·1°
Proton-M
phase I
Briz-MDTV-8LS-13003,711258×5,000×50·3°339×22,993×49·3°395×35,819×49·1°
Proton-M
phase I
Briz-MAnik-F1REurostar E3000S4,480258×5,000×50·3°312×16,948×49·4°400×35,815×49·1°
Proton-M
phase I
Briz-MAMC-23Spacebus 41005,027258×5,000×50·3°320×15,511×49·5°395×35,629×49·1°
Proton-M
phase I
Briz-MHotbird-8Eurostar E30004,875258×5,000×50·3°300×16,446×49·4°395×35,820×49·1°
Proton-M
phase I
Briz-MMEASAT-3Boeing-601HP4,765258×5,000×50·3°327×16,578×49·5°400×35,813×49·1°
Proton-M
phase I
Briz-MAnik-F3Eurostar E30004,600258×5,000×50·3°319×17,656×49.4°400×35,815×49·1°
Proton-M
phase I
Briz-MNimiq-4Eurostar E3000S4,850258×5,000×50·3°314×16,681×49·5°395×35,727×49·1°
Proton-M
phase I
Briz-MAstra-1MEurostar E30005,345258×5,000×50·3°310×14,167×49·6°400×35,817×49·1°
Proton-M
phase II
Briz-M
Enhanced
Ciel-2Spacebus 4000C45,625270×5,000×50·3°331×16,714×49·4°425×35,614×49·1°
Proton-M
phase II
Briz-M
Enhanced
Protostar-2Boeing-601HP3,905265×5,000×50·3°364×28,256×49·1°400×35,792×49·1°
Proton-M
phase II
Briz-M
Enhanced
Sirius-FM5LS-13005,840270×5,000×50·3°324×14,534×49·6°430×35,804×49·1°
Proton-M
phase II
Briz-M
Enhanced
Nimiq-5LS-13004,745265×5,000×50·3°499×21,131×49·3°415×35,796×49·1°
Proton-M
phase II
Briz-M
Enhanced
W7Spacebus 4000C45,600265×5,000×50·3°322×15,943×49·5°420×35,566×49·1°
Proton-M
phase III
Briz-M
Enhanced
Echostar-14LS-13006,379270×5,000×50·3°328×13,649×49·6°430×35,809×49·1°
Proton-M
phase II
Briz-M
Enhanced
BADR-5Eurostar E30005,420265×5,000×50·3°328×16,726×49.4°420×35,805×49·1°
Proton-M
phase III
Briz-M
Enhanced
Echostar-15LS-13005,521270×5,000×50·3°331×17,703×49·5°425×35,802×49·1°
Proton-M
phase III
Briz-M
Enhanced
XM-5LS-13005,983270×5,000×50·3°322×15,232×49·5°430×35,807×49·1°
Proton-M
phase II
Briz-M
Enhanced
MSV-1Boeing-702HP GEM5,390265×5,000×50·3°319×17,015×49·5°418×35,805×49·1°
Proton-M
phase III
Briz-M
Enhanced
KA-SATEurostar E30006,150270×5,000×50·3°328×14,509×49·5°430×35,807×49·1°
Proton-M
phase III
Briz-M
Enhanced
TELSTAR-14RLS-13004,970270×5,000×50·3° 425×35,799×49·1°
Proton-M
phase II
Briz-M
Enhanced
Ekspress-AM4Eurostar E30005,755  420×35,616×49·1°
Proton-M
phase III
Briz-M
Enhanced
VIASAT-1LS-13006,740269×5,000×50·3° 428×35,814×49·1°
Proton-M
phase III
Briz-M
Enhanced
QUETZSAT-1LS-13005,514270×5,000×50·3° 425×35,799×49·1°

http://coopi.khrunichev.ru/
http://planet4589.org/space/log/satcat.txt
http://www.ilslaunch.com/
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: input~2 on 08/20/2011 12:47 pm
Stan, here are some nominal data for AMC-14
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/20/2011 01:19 pm
Stan, here are some nominal data for AMC-14

 Thing is the news postings from Khrunichev contain the actual timings and orbit details at the time of the launch. Surprisingly Astra-1K details remain, but then again it wasn’t Khrunichev’s fault!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: input~2 on 08/20/2011 02:23 pm
Stan, unfortunately I don't have the news posting for AMC14, ARABSAT4A or JCSAT11.
However here is a diagram for JCSAT-11 which you might find useful
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/20/2011 03:44 pm
Stan, unfortunately I don't have the news posting for AMC14, ARABSAT4A or JCSAT11.
However here is a diagram for JCSAT-11 which you might find useful

 Thank you… I have seen that Tsenki document and the ILS mission overviews. JCSAT11 is an interesting one because of the non-standard 1st stage timings.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 08/28/2011 04:28 am
I have some questions about the ground support equipment for the R-7 series:

1. Where are the rockets fueled? Looking at satellite images of Baikonur and Plesetsk, I can't see the usual propellant tanks that stores kerosene and (most importantly, due to boil-off) liquid oxygen around the pads. So how are the rockets fueled before launch? And what is the timeline for fueling?

2. Is pad 43/3 at Plesetsk still in active service? The pad was not used for any launches since the disastrous failure of the Soyuz-U/Foton-M-1 launch in October 2002, so was the (minor) damages to the pad repaired? If done, then why would the pad be left unused?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 08/28/2011 06:22 am
I have some questions about the ground support equipment for the R-7 series:

1. Where are the rockets fueled? Looking at satellite images of Baikonur and Plesetsk, I can't see the usual propellant tanks that stores kerosene and (most importantly, due to boil-off) liquid oxygen around the pads. So how are the rockets fueled before launch? And what is the timeline for fueling?

2. Is pad 43/3 at Plesetsk still in active service? The pad was not used for any launches since the disastrous failure of the Soyuz-U/Foton-M-1 launch in October 2002, so was the (minor) damages to the pad repaired? If done, then why would the pad be left unused?

Thanks!

One more question: where are the chemical plants used for producing the kerosene/liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen/hypergolic fuel located around the main launch sites (I am thinking of Baikonur and Plesetsk)? How are the fuel transported to the launch facilities?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/28/2011 12:27 pm
2. Is pad 43/3 at Plesetsk still in active service?

After failure in 2002 it was repaired. It was readied for use, but there were not need for it. Now it is modernizing for Soyuz-2 launches.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 08/29/2011 07:13 pm
I have some questions about the ground support equipment for the R-7 series:

1. Where are the rockets fueled? Looking at satellite images of Baikonur and Plesetsk, I can't see the usual propellant tanks that stores kerosene and (most importantly, due to boil-off) liquid oxygen around the pads. So how are the rockets fueled before launch? And what is the timeline for fueling?

2. Is pad 43/3 at Plesetsk still in active service? The pad was not used for any launches since the disastrous failure of the Soyuz-U/Foton-M-1 launch in October 2002, so was the (minor) damages to the pad repaired? If done, then why would the pad be left unused?

Thanks!

One more question: where are the chemical plants used for producing the kerosene/liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen/hypergolic fuel located around the main launch sites (I am thinking of Baikonur and Plesetsk)? How are the fuel transported to the launch facilities?

 If you look at pre-launch pictures you will see tanks mounted on railway carriages.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041118051248/http://www.tsenki.com/Start1Show.asp?STARTID=82
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 08/31/2011 10:23 am
Which launch silo is used for the orbital launches of Dnepr at Dombarovsky launch base? Anatoly Zak's website (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/dombarovskiy.html) puts the one at 50.972373 N ,59.550354 E (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=50.972373%20N%20,59.550354%20E&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=50.972373,59.550354&spn=0.006291,0.021501&t=k&om=0) as the launch silo used, so can anyone confirm this? Thanks!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/01/2011 03:48 pm
Another question: there are access towers intended for crew access at the Zenit launch complex at Baikonur. So, what manned spacecrafts would be launched on the Zenit before the collapse of the USSR? (Soyuz? Zarya? Something else? Paper spacecrafts?) And what would the Zenit for manned launches look like? How about the launch profile?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 09/01/2011 04:54 pm
Soyuz at onetime
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 09/02/2011 02:52 pm
Another question: there are access towers intended for crew access at the Zenit launch complex at Baikonur. So, what manned spacecrafts would be launched on the Zenit before the collapse of the USSR? (Soyuz? Zarya? Something else? Paper spacecrafts?) And what would the Zenit for manned launches look like? How about the launch profile?

Zarya
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 09/02/2011 05:34 pm
There were also rumours of the space plane programme called Uragan that would have used the Zenit-2 for launches into polar orbits.

There are differing reports whether Uragan was a real programme or purely imaginary (without even PowerPoints!).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 09/07/2011 04:55 pm


One more question: where are the chemical plants used for producing the kerosene/liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen/hypergolic fuel located around the main launch sites (I am thinking of Baikonur and Plesetsk)? How are the fuel transported to the launch facilities?

There is a prop factory at Baikonur on the road north of Tyuratam, about 10 km; its located on the rail line for transport to the launch pads.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/24/2011 03:35 am
Yet another question....

I've been mulling over the Hexagon revelations.  What a fantastically complex machine!  Yet, I have to wonder, what advantages did Hex really have over the Soviet Zenit?  Fewer launches, sure, but at the cost of creating a massively complex and costly satellite, coupled with a big, expensive launch vehicle.  With so much at stake on each mission, reliability was absolutely essential.  If Zenit had a problem, the Soviets could just roll out another R-7.  The individual launches probably provided more mass to play with too. 

Of course the U.S. never quite had an R-7 equivalent to play with. 

Can't help but wonder what is going on today, and why the Pentagon chose to drop Lockheed for awhile, at great cost, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

Speaking of the Zenit (and the Yantar) series, does anybody have good links that has in depth details of Soviet's early film reconnaissance satellites and programmes on the web?  Thanks!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 10/26/2011 09:06 pm
Does anyone know what became of the original Soyuz 2 (Bykovsky, Khrunov, and Yeliseyev) spacecraft that was grounded by the Soyuz 1 accident?

Is it displayed?
Modified, and later flown?
Dismantled?

Thank you.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 10/27/2011 03:43 am
Does anyone know what became of the original Soyuz 2 (Bykovsky, Khrunov, and Yeliseyev) spacecraft that was grounded by the Soyuz 1 accident?

Is it displayed?
Modified, and later flown?
Dismantled?

Thank you.

According to this Russian article (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtml) the original spacecraft to be used in the Soyuz 2 mission (7K-OK #5) was later flown as Kosmos 188 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_186_and_Kosmos_188), acting as the passive spacecraft in the first successful automatic spacecraft docking mission of the world.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 10/27/2011 09:11 pm
Does anyone know what became of the original Soyuz 2 (Bykovsky, Khrunov, and Yeliseyev) spacecraft that was grounded by the Soyuz 1 accident?

Is it displayed?
Modified, and later flown?
Dismantled?

Thank you.

According to this Russian article (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtml) the original spacecraft to be used in the Soyuz 2 mission (7K-OK #5) was later flown as Kosmos 188 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_186_and_Kosmos_188), acting as the passive spacecraft in the first successful automatic spacecraft docking mission of the world.

Thank you...sure wish there was a way of translating that article...looks very interesting.
Tom
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: AnalogMan on 10/27/2011 10:14 pm
Does anyone know what became of the original Soyuz 2 (Bykovsky, Khrunov, and Yeliseyev) spacecraft that was grounded by the Soyuz 1 accident?

Is it displayed?
Modified, and later flown?
Dismantled?

Thank you.

According to this Russian article (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtml) the original spacecraft to be used in the Soyuz 2 mission (7K-OK #5) was later flown as Kosmos 188 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_186_and_Kosmos_188), acting as the passive spacecraft in the first successful automatic spacecraft docking mission of the world.

Thank you...sure wish there was a way of translating that article...looks very interesting.
Tom


Two ways to get a machine translation:

Google
Go to http://translate.google.com

Copy and paste the Russian article URL into the box - this is:

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtml

Select Russian as the input language then click the translate button.

Microsoft Translator
Click on the following link:
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru%2Fcontent%2Fnumbers%2F231%2F37.shtml
(might need to select Russian rather than auto-detect)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 10/27/2011 10:56 pm
FANTASTIC!
Thank you very much.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kevin-rf on 10/28/2011 12:47 pm
Also, if you use google chrome as a browser, if often auto detects "other" languages and offers to translate them into a semblance of english.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Fuji on 11/05/2011 05:43 am
Soyuz 4/5 question:

[SNIP]


 Shatalov opened the Soyuz-4 orbital module hatch; from inside the descent module.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/36.shtml (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/36.shtml)

[SNIP]

Yes, but I don't believe that the hatch can be opened from the inside anymore, which begs the question as to whether the Soyuz 4/5 hatches were specially designed, or whether Soyuz design has since been changed.
From the 2010 NASA "Worldwide Spacecraft Crew Hatch History" document, NASA/TP–2010–216131. (http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2010-216131.pdf (http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2010-216131.pdf))
Quote
The OM also has a docking/transfer hatch and a crew entry/exit hatch that serves as an EVA hatch. Both crew hatches are inward opening and pressure sealed.
So I guess it still can be done, which makes sense if you have some emergency that might be fixable during EVA, quite some time after undocking from ISS, or want to fix a docking mechanism issue by EVA before docking.
It would not help much, if you don't have EVA suits on board. AFAIK Soyuz spacecraft do not routinely carry Orlan suits on board.

Soyuz 4 and 5 Rendezvous & Docking: Four in the Cosmos pt1-2 1969 Russian 14min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c08n_kjhPjQ
We can see the old russian EVA suits video at 12:10.
Interesting video :)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 11/05/2011 10:46 am
[Snipped all earlier quotes]

It would not help much, if you don't have EVA suits on board. AFAIK Soyuz spacecraft do not routinely carry Orlan suits on board.
True, but still having the option to employ Orlan suits on specific flights can prove beneficial.

I don't think that a current Orlan suit can fit through the Soyuz OM lateral hatch (the one used for EVA on Soyuz 4-5). It barely fits through the docking hatch, which is much wider.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 11/11/2011 09:37 pm
 This contains some interesting bits of information about the electronics onboard Russian spacecraft
http://english.irz.ru/files/IRZ_space_2011_ENG.pdf
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 11/11/2011 09:51 pm
 This contains some interesting bits of information about the electronics onboard Russian spacecraft
http://english.irz.ru/files/IRZ_space_2011_ENG.pdf

Page 7 is very timely.

Page 13 implies that the company builds or rebuilds Kurs boxes (they do give credit to NIITP for design), which is new to me.

Its interesting that Soyuz and Progress TM systems are glossed over in the presentation, perhaps Energia has changed to a new vendor.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: hofflalu on 11/14/2011 03:51 am
Apologies if this has been previously answered, but what happens to the Soyuz rocket core stage after burn-out?  Is it high enough that it burns up on descent, or is it low enough in the atmosphere to crash intact on the ground?

Also, I know that the strap-on boosters do fall to the ground intact, but where geographically do they usually make their impact (as in, is there a certain part of Kazakhstan or Russia that's a "graveyard" for crashed boosters)?  And, is there another place for the core stage, if it does in fact fall intact?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 11/18/2011 03:52 pm
In May 2009
http://www.vz.ru/news/2009/5/12/285677.html

Launches of Glonass-K satellites from Plesetsk cosmodrome will begin not earlier than 2013. Necessary ground infrastructure for their preparation there will not be ready till 2013. So first two Glonass-K satellites will be launched in 2010 and 2011 with two Glonass-M satellites each from Baikonur cosmodrome.

In July 2009 tender for rocket payload fairings for 2010
813BKBlock 43K122 960 000 ruble
14S737to be held in reserve120 000 000 ruble
14S737to be held in reserve120 000 000 ruble
http://www.gostorgi.ru/439504

In September 2009 Lavochkin won the contracts for 14S737
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0018709007701/
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0018709007702/

813BK ordered from Krunichev
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0018709007700/

In April 2010 tender for rocket payload fairings for 2011
14S737Block 44S, Block 46S and Block K1455 320 500 ruble
813BKBlock 45K and one to be held in reserve281 617 200 ruble
http://www.gostorgi.ru/740237

In May 2010 Lavochkin won the contracts for 14S737
http://www.rosspending.ru/fk/contract/0018710005071/



 813BK is the payload fairing for Proton, used to launch three GLONASS together. Each launch of GLONASS is referred to by a sequential Block number.

 Is the letter K as used in Block 43K and Block 45K indicate they were to include a GLONASS-K?

 14S737 is the payload fairing for Soyuz-Fregat rockets, as used for Meridian and GLONASS launches from Plesetsk. GLONASS-K was sized for paired launches, with launches referred to as Block K1, Block K2, Block K3… At some point GLONASS-K became too heavy for paired launch and became GLONASS-K1. Just to confuse things after two solo launches of GLONASS-K1, the enhanced GLONASS-K2 is to be introduced.

 Also the two 14S737 ordered in 2009 were to be delivered to Baikonur. The 1st ordered at a reduced price of 86 215 173 ruble.

In the end Block 43 contained three GLONASS-M.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22810.0

Block 45K became Block 44; and Block 44S became Block 45S.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: baldusi on 12/05/2011 09:08 pm
I'm sorry if this is the wrong thread. But is there any difference between the Blocks B, V, G, D on a Soyuz rocket? Because I would naturally expect them to be the same. But naming with different letters, usually reserved for stages, sort of confuses me.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Prober on 12/05/2011 11:12 pm
 This contains some interesting bits of information about the electronics onboard Russian spacecraft
http://english.irz.ru/files/IRZ_space_2011_ENG.pdf

Oh no the power of a Vax, (Vax compatable)

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kevin-rf on 12/07/2011 12:49 pm
Now VMS, that brings back some core memories...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 12/14/2011 06:16 pm
 Kosmos-2382 GLONASS number 711 is a bit of an oddity. It was the only GLONASS with 5 years of resource; but it was not a 14F113 GLONASS-M.
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/sap/2004/vienna/presentations/wednesday/pm/revnivyk.pdf
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/sap/2006/zambia/presentations/02-03.pdf

 Looking back at some older articles from 1998 there are references to GLONASS M1 and GLONASS M2.



News from Moscow No. 41/98
Quote
For GLONASS they have already implemented a small improvement to extend the life from 3 to 5 years. This modification is named GLONASS M1 to be still hermetically sealed. For GLONASS M2 they propose a new platform with the life extended to 7 to 10 years and decreased overall weight.

PM-4.1 Satellite Bus
Applications
Navigation and geodetic satellites on
circular inclined orbits.
Characteristics
Orbit: 1000 to 20000 km, circular
Bus weight: 1180 kg
Payload weight: 340 kg
Bus power supply: 1590 W
Payload consumption: 1100 W
Orbital life: 7-10 years
Launcher: clustered launches on Proton with Breeze upper stage (Baikonur); single launches on Soyuz 2 with Fregat upper stage (Plesetsk)
Project: GLONASS-M (2000); Tsykada-M-UTTKh (2001); GEO-IK-2 (2002)
December 1998

 Also included is an accurate picture of what the GLONASS-M did turn out.



News from Moscow No. 1/99
Quote
Speaking of the future GLONASS launches, Mr. Milov said that build and assembly of the first GLONASS M satellite were not yet complete, so two options are looked at now for the next GLONASS launch: either three standard GLONASS satellites or two standard
GLONASS + one GLONASS M1.
Mr. Milov, deputy director of the Russian Space Agency
January 1999

 The next launch did not occur until October 2000.



14F17 is associated with Kosmos-2382; but the following article just seems to confuse things.

http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/~turyshev/material/Shargorodsky-laser-ranging-1uas-2007.pdf
Quote
Тип КАВысота орб. кмГод запускаКол. КАКол. СВ на КАРазмер системы ретрорефлт.,мм
ГЛОНАСС-М (Россия)19 10020001132∅1660-∅2380
ГЛОНАСС 14Ф1719 10020021124804х804(крест. зона)
ГЛОНАСС М219 10020031112∅1510-∅2311
ГЛОНАСС19 10020032132∅1660-∅2380



 Another way to refer to GLONASS-K1 is GLONASS-K block I; and GLONASS-K2 as GLONASS-K block II. It sounds like the first K2 will be satellite number 13.
http://www.iss-reshetnev.com/images/File/magazin/2010/m11-screen_en.pdf

 The 11F654 Uragan GLONASS satellites also underwent several iterations starting with block I (1413, 1490, 1491, 1519, 1520, 1554, 1555, 1593, 1594, 1650), IIA (Kosmos 1651, 1710, 1711, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1987, 2022, 2023), block IIB (Kosmos 1838, 1839, 1840, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1946, 1947, 1948) and then block IIV (I’m working off some scribbled notes so I might have made a mistake with those numbers).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 12/16/2011 02:16 am
I'm sorry if this is the wrong thread. But is there any difference between the Blocks B, V, G, D on a Soyuz rocket? Because I would naturally expect them to be the same. But naming with different letters, usually reserved for stages, sort of confuses me.

I am not aware of any differences among the 4 strap-ons. Why these are allocated letters, rather than some other system is probably an artifact of the very rushed schedule to produce the early ICBM.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 12/16/2011 06:40 am
I'm sorry if this is the wrong thread. But is there any difference between the Blocks B, V, G, D on a Soyuz rocket? Because I would naturally expect them to be the same. But naming with different letters, usually reserved for stages, sort of confuses me.

I am not aware of any differences among the 4 strap-ons. Why these are allocated letters, rather than some other system is probably an artifact of the very rushed schedule to produce the early ICBM.


 Could they have been weighed and balanced during manufacture? What about telemetry?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 12/16/2011 12:20 pm
I'm sorry if this is the wrong thread. But is there any difference between the Blocks B, V, G, D on a Soyuz rocket? Because I would naturally expect them to be the same. But naming with different letters, usually reserved for stages, sort of confuses me.
I am not aware of any differences among the 4 strap-ons. Why these are allocated letters, rather than some other system is probably an artifact of the very rushed schedule to produce the early ICBM.

I had always assumed that the four strap-ons were identical and wondered if the desigators might have related to the orientation of the launcher on the pad: N, S, E and W or something similar.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: JayP on 12/16/2011 01:54 pm
I'm sorry if this is the wrong thread. But is there any difference between the Blocks B, V, G, D on a Soyuz rocket? Because I would naturally expect them to be the same. But naming with different letters, usually reserved for stages, sort of confuses me.
I am not aware of any differences among the 4 strap-ons. Why these are allocated letters, rather than some other system is probably an artifact of the very rushed schedule to produce the early ICBM.

I had always assumed that the four strap-ons were identical and wondered if the desigators might have related to the orientation of the launcher on the pad: N, S, E and W or something similar.

That doesnt work. The Rusian words for North, East, South and West are; Север, Восток, Юг, Запад.

The equivelent cyrillic letters for B, V, G, D are; Б, В, Г, Д which are the 2nd thru 5th letters respectively in the russian alphabet. Effectively in english, the core is "A" and the boosters are "B", "C", "D" and "E" except that cyrillic letters are mapped to latin letters by sound not order of the alphabet.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 01/06/2012 11:46 am
Does anyone have quality pictures of Salyut 1 through 6?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 01/08/2012 10:24 am
I'm sorry if this is the wrong thread. But is there any difference between the Blocks B, V, G, D on a Soyuz rocket? Because I would naturally expect them to be the same. But naming with different letters, usually reserved for stages, sort of confuses me.
I am not aware of any differences among the 4 strap-ons. Why these are allocated letters, rather than some other system is probably an artifact of the very rushed schedule to produce the early ICBM.

I had always assumed that the four strap-ons were identical and wondered if the desigators might have related to the orientation of the launcher on the pad: N, S, E and W or something similar.

That doesnt work. The Rusian words for North, East, South and West are; Север, Восток, Юг, Запад.

The equivelent cyrillic letters for B, V, G, D are; Б, В, Г, Д which are the 2nd thru 5th letters respectively in the russian alphabet. Effectively in english, the core is "A" and the boosters are "B", "C", "D" and "E" except that cyrillic letters are mapped to latin letters by sound not order of the alphabet.

Sorry but I wasn't suggesting that B, V, G and D were abbreviations for the Russian words for North, South, East and West.   I was simply thinking that perhaps the designators indicated the orientation of the strap-ons to the compass points.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 01/08/2012 10:26 am
Does anyone have quality pictures of Salyut 1 through 6?

It is possible that they do not exist.   After all the Soviets weren't taking photos with a view to a high-definition digital future when things would be so open with the West!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: JayP on 01/08/2012 05:39 pm
I'm sorry if this is the wrong thread. But is there any difference between the Blocks B, V, G, D on a Soyuz rocket? Because I would naturally expect them to be the same. But naming with different letters, usually reserved for stages, sort of confuses me.
I am not aware of any differences among the 4 strap-ons. Why these are allocated letters, rather than some other system is probably an artifact of the very rushed schedule to produce the early ICBM.

I had always assumed that the four strap-ons were identical and wondered if the desigators might have related to the orientation of the launcher on the pad: N, S, E and W or something similar.

That doesnt work. The Rusian words for North, East, South and West are; Север, Восток, Юг, Запад.

The equivelent cyrillic letters for B, V, G, D are; Б, В, Г, Д which are the 2nd thru 5th letters respectively in the russian alphabet. Effectively in english, the core is "A" and the boosters are "B", "C", "D" and "E" except that cyrillic letters are mapped to latin letters by sound not order of the alphabet.

Sorry but I wasn't suggesting that B, V, G and D were abbreviations for the Russian words for North, South, East and West.   I was simply thinking that perhaps the designators indicated the orientation of the strap-ons to the compass points.

Then perhaps you can supply a logical method to get from cardinal points of the compass to those letters to defend your hypothesis. (I'll give you another point to think about, the strap-ons are oriented NE, SE, SW, and NW on the pad at Baikonur).

I still say it is nothing more sophisticated than alphabetical order.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 01/08/2012 07:25 pm
Does anyone have quality pictures of Salyut 1 through 6?

It is possible that they do not exist.   After all the Soviets weren't taking photos with a view to a high-definition digital future when things would be so open with the West!
I know that it's a possibility but it just seems like it would be so unusual not to after NASA had taken so many iconic shots from the moon landings.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 01/14/2012 10:25 am
I'm sorry if this is the wrong thread. But is there any difference between the Blocks B, V, G, D on a Soyuz rocket? Because I would naturally expect them to be the same. But naming with different letters, usually reserved for stages, sort of confuses me.
I am not aware of any differences among the 4 strap-ons. Why these are allocated letters, rather than some other system is probably an artifact of the very rushed schedule to produce the early ICBM.

I had always assumed that the four strap-ons were identical and wondered if the desigators might have related to the orientation of the launcher on the pad: N, S, E and W or something similar.

That doesnt work. The Rusian words for North, East, South and West are; Север, Восток, Юг, Запад.

The equivelent cyrillic letters for B, V, G, D are; Б, В, Г, Д which are the 2nd thru 5th letters respectively in the russian alphabet. Effectively in english, the core is "A" and the boosters are "B", "C", "D" and "E" except that cyrillic letters are mapped to latin letters by sound not order of the alphabet.

Sorry but I wasn't suggesting that B, V, G and D were abbreviations for the Russian words for North, South, East and West.   I was simply thinking that perhaps the designators indicated the orientation of the strap-ons to the compass points.

Then perhaps you can supply a logical method to get from cardinal points of the compass to those letters to defend your hypothesis. (I'll give you another point to think about, the strap-ons are oriented NE, SE, SW, and NW on the pad at Baikonur).

I still say it is nothing more sophisticated than alphabetical order.

I think that this is getting overly complicated!   My hypothesis was simply that the strap-on designators B, V, G and D might simply relate to the orientation of the launch vehicle sitting on the pad and by implication relating to compass points.   Of course, the orientation to the compass would differ from one launch pad to the other.   I have never suggested that the four letters relate to the names of the cardinal points of the compass or anything like that.

Of course, it could be that Korolyov decided on B, V, G and D over B1, B2, B3 and B4 to reflect four strap-ons being used.

Unless someone finds a rationalisation hidden OKB-1's documentation from the 1950s, I doubt that we will really know.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: dcporter on 01/14/2012 01:21 pm
I think that this is getting overly complicated!
That's the main problem with the compass points theory. Not needed to explain why they named the boosters B, C, D & E in the local dialect.

Of course, the orientation to the compass would differ from one launch pad to the other.

snip

Unless someone finds a rationalisation hidden OKB-1's documentation from the 1950s, I doubt that we will really know.
I believe you've found the logical disproof to the theory. Sounds like we can be pretty sure we really know.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/17/2012 04:02 pm
I don't understand what I see on these pictures...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: lucspace on 01/17/2012 04:19 pm
The forward docking port of Salyut 4 in the MIK during launch preparation.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/17/2012 04:25 pm
It was my first thought, but what are the four circles on the forward side ?

And the second picture shows the prime and backup crews of Soyuz-30 spacecraft. These crews had been selected several years after the launch of Salyut-4...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DaveS on 01/19/2012 08:31 pm
I have a question on the Buran ONA-1 directional antenna that is mounted on the aft payload bay bulkhead. When in the fully deployed configuration does it extend beyond its nominal stowed length or does it remain at the same length?

Also does any one know the tire diameter of the nose landing gear and main landing gear?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/20/2012 01:55 pm
It was my first thought, but what are the four circles on the forward side ?

And the second picture shows the prime and backup crews of Soyuz-30 spacecraft. These crews had been selected several years after the launch of Salyut-4...

I just stumbled upon that picture too.

Quote
(http://visualrian.ru/thumbnails/00000000499/499264.thw)
Soyuz-28 spaceship prepared for launch in the operations and checkout building of Baikonur space centre.
Event date 03/02/1978

http://visualrian.ru/en/site/gallery/#499264 (http://visualrian.ru/en/site/gallery/#499264)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/20/2012 02:24 pm
Quote
Soyuz-28 spaceship prepared for launch in the operations and checkout building of Baikonur space centre.
Event date 03/02/1978

Obviously, the caption is wrong. This can't be the Soyuz-28 spaceship !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/20/2012 09:13 pm
Quote
Soyuz-28 spaceship prepared for launch in the operations and checkout building of Baikonur space centre.
Event date 03/02/1978

Obviously, the caption is wrong. This can't be the Soyuz-28 spaceship !

OK, so there appears to be a mis-labeled image of Salyut 6 on the web site. Did anyone figure out the story about those holes in the docking hatch?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/26/2012 09:52 pm
I don't understand what I see on these pictures...

I have a clue about those 4 holes in the front bulkhead!

Because its a copyrighted image, I can only link to it, not upload it and post it here:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/manned/space_stations/almaz/excalibur/station_hull_2.jpg
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/27/2012 05:58 pm
What has GRAU 17F112?

http://bd.patent.su/2391000-2391999/pat/servl/servletf4bc.html
http://bd.patent.su/2390000-2390999/pat/servl/servletd322.html

Bars - replacement for 11F660 Kometa

http://docs.pravo.ru/document/view/1753615/?mode=full
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/27/2012 07:17 pm
I don't understand what I see on these pictures...

I have a clue about those 4 holes in the front bulkhead!

Because its a copyrighted image, I can only link to it, not upload it and post it here:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/manned/space_stations/almaz/excalibur/station_hull_2.jpg

I don't think there is a link between Anatoli's Almaz picture and our mysterious picture.

Look at this and compare : the four tanks visible on Almaz have clearly different aspect and dimensions.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/manned/space_stations/almaz/0205/front_1.jpg
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/28/2012 12:36 am
I don't understand what I see on these pictures...

I have a clue about those 4 holes in the front bulkhead!

Because its a copyrighted image, I can only link to it, not upload it and post it here:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/manned/space_stations/almaz/excalibur/station_hull_2.jpg

I don't think there is a link between Anatoli's Almaz picture and our mysterious picture.

Look at this and compare : the four tanks visible on Almaz have clearly different aspect and dimensions.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/manned/space_stations/almaz/0205/front_1.jpg

The orientation of the station module determines the aspect of the tanks, but more importantly, in the Salyut image, we are not seeing the tanks, but rather the holes where the tanks used to be.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/28/2012 06:03 pm
Just a little question : in this old gallery (dating from february 2005), Igor Marinin shows us pictures of the RKK Energiya museum which reportedly show the first Voskhod spacecraft, Cosmos 47.

I've been in this museum, and I've seen no sign of Cosmos 47. Is the caption mistaken ?

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_017/pages/IMG_0883.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zero-G on 01/29/2012 05:55 pm
Just a little question : in this old gallery (dating from february 2005), Igor Marinin shows us pictures of the RKK Energiya museum which reportedly show the first Voskhod spacecraft, Cosmos 47.

I've been in this museum, and I've seen no sign of Cosmos 47. Is the caption mistaken ?

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/photogallery/gallery_017/pages/IMG_0883.html
I believe that the caption actually is mistaken:
I have been in this museum in August 2005, and I have seen and photographed what seems to be the same spacecraft as shown in the picture that you linked. But according to the certificate which was displayed with it, this is not vehicle Voskhod 3KV number 2 as stated in the caption of that picture. In the certificate it is designated as vehicle Voskhod 3KV number 3, as the first manned spacecraft flown with 3 cosmonauts on board.
See photos below, which I took during my visit in August 2005.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kyra's kosmos on 02/19/2012 06:33 pm
That's a very nice interior pic of Voskhod, Zero-G! Do you have a closer view of the instrument panel?
Did you photograph the interior of Vostok-6 when you were there?

Thanks :)
Kyra
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zero-G on 02/20/2012 12:13 am
That's a very nice interior pic of Voskhod, Zero-G! Do you have a closer view of the instrument panel?
Did you photograph the interior of Vostok-6 when you were there?

Are you looking for anything specific? Any special detail? Maybe I can help you.

Anyway, here is a close-up of the Voskhod instrument panel, a photo of the interior of Vostok-6, and a photo of the certificate that is displayed with it.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kyra's kosmos on 02/20/2012 05:41 am
Zero-G Thank you so much! This made my day!!

Vostok-6 (3KA#8) seems to have a great deal of original hardware, extra storage for Konvass films, extra life support system adjustment valves, the original catapult seat arming switch. Theres also new shatterproof TV lighting fixtures and shock absorbing mounts for the panels. A gem of a spacecraft !

They added a couple warning lights to Voskhod. Theres even a 4th generation Globe device (IMP4).....interesting!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zero-G on 02/20/2012 09:46 pm
Zero-G Thank you so much! This made my day!!

Vostok-6 (3KA#8) seems to have a great deal of original hardware, extra storage for Konvass films, extra life support system adjustment valves, the original catapult seat arming switch. Theres also new shatterproof TV lighting fixtures and shock absorbing mounts for the panels. A gem of a spacecraft !

They added a couple warning lights to Voskhod. Theres even a 4th generation Globe device (IMP4).....interesting!

You are welcome!
BTW, the certificate designates Vostok-6 as 3KA No. 6 (in the Russian text as well as in the English translation).

I have noticed that you are the owner/webmaster of the vostoksupersite. Very interesting website! Thank you for creating it.
I have some additional information you might want to add to the section about where the instrument panels are today:
-The IMP-4 in the Voskhod panel in my pictures in my previous posts has the number 48006 (not 48008).
-At NIIAO factory museum in Zhukovsky there are actually two instrument panels on display, both with IMP-3 with numbers 21880 and 21881.
-Also, on your website you are asking for the whereabouts of flown Vostok-2 panels from VDNK display (IMP-2 №11531): At the "Memorial Museum of Cosmonautics" in Moscow, which is the successor of VDNK from the soviet days, there is a Vostok mockup on display which has an instrument panel with an IMP-2. But I don't know if either the IMP-2 or the whole panel (or anything else in that mockup) are actually flown hardware or not. (See pictures I made on a visit in 2009.)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kyra's kosmos on 02/21/2012 12:14 pm
Zero-G Thank you so much! This made my day!!

Vostok-6 (3KA#8) seems to have a great deal of original hardware, extra storage for Konvass films, extra life support system adjustment valves, the original catapult seat arming switch. Theres also new shatterproof TV lighting fixtures and shock absorbing mounts for the panels. A gem of a spacecraft !

They added a couple warning lights to Voskhod. Theres even a 4th generation Globe device (IMP4).....interesting!

You are welcome!
BTW, the certificate designates Vostok-6 as 3KA No. 6 (in the Russian text as well as in the English translation).

I have noticed that you are the owner/webmaster of the vostoksupersite. Very interesting website! Thank you for creating it.
I have some additional information you might want to add to the section about where the instrument panels are today:
-The IMP-4 in the Voskhod panel in my pictures in my previous posts has the number 48006 (not 48008).
-At NIIAO factory museum in Zhukovsky there are actually two instrument panels on display, both with IMP-3 with numbers 21880 and 21881.
-Also, on your website you are asking for the whereabouts of flown Vostok-2 panels from VDNK display (IMP-2 №11531): At the "Memorial Museum of Cosmonautics" in Moscow, which is the successor of VDNK from the soviet days, there is a Vostok mockup on display which has an instrument panel with an IMP-2. But I don't know if either the IMP-2 or the whole panel (or anything else in that mockup) are actually flown hardware or not. (See pictures I made on a visit in 2009.)


Thank you for the compliments and new info here. The VDNK Instrument panel had a radiation guage on one of the three part guages -which if it had flown on Vostok-2 would be very odd - this information was sent directly to Tral telemetry bypassing the instrumentation. The Memorial Museum display is enigmatic. I've nicknamed this mockup "Ol' Green chair" for its unique upholstry in my archives :)

The NIIAO instrument panels are featured in designer Yuri Tiapchenko's papers. Thanks for the IMP serial numbers on those.

The error in the certification OAO "Energia" for Vostok-6 points to another mystery. The disposition and location of 3KA#6 (Vostok-4) is currently unknown. Previously, we thought it was at the Zvezda plant as the Vostok-2 mockup. Zvezda officials claim this spacecraft as 3KA#1 (Chernushka's spacecraft).

There are 2 other flown 3KA style spacecraft that appear flown that are branded as mockups. One is in Zhitomir, Ukraine and the other at Valentina Tereshkova's museum in Yaroslavl. Her displayed ship has heavy damage at the base. Could this be Vostok-2? I suspect the mockup in Zhitomir might be Vostok-4. The key to identifying flight hardware of a 3K series involves checking the heat sheild for concentric bands and the configuration of the pressure plate with the electrical connectors. The serial number is listed in the parachute compartment.

That said, there seems to have been a great deal of mixing of parts that took place in the late 1960's before the spacecraft were displayed, perhaps to preserve secrecy.

My current wish list:
Vostok-6s instrument panel up close
Voskhod-2's airlock panel that was in the descent apparatus.
Soyuz-7K-OK's Signal Table
A screenshots of the Soyuz TMA-M "Ф1" screen and worldmap screen

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zero-G on 02/21/2012 11:50 pm
The VDNK Instrument panel had a radiation guage on one of the three part guages.

How does that radiation gauge look like? I want to check my pictures of the panels that I have photographed in various places, to see if some of them have the same gauge.

The NIIAO instrument panels are featured in designer Yuri Tiapchenko's papers. Thanks for the IMP serial numbers on those.

What papers are these? Are they available online somewhere?

My current wish list:
Vostok-6s instrument panel up close
Voskhod-2's airlock panel that was in the descent apparatus.
Soyuz-7K-OK's Signal Table
A screenshots of the Soyuz TMA-M "Ф1" screen and worldmap screen

1. I did not make a close-up of the Vostok-6 instrument panel. All I can offer you is a cut-out from the photo I already posted, but it is not as clear as a real close-up (see first picture below).

2. The second picture below shows Voskhod-2's interior (also at the Energiya museum): Is the airlock panel the one on the top edge of my pic? If this is the case, I don't have a better pic of it.
BTW: As you can see, the interior of Voskhod-2 is in a much worse condition than Voskhod-1 and Vostok-6. The instrument panel is missing and the lining is torn and degraded. Also, I am not sure if the control panel on the right is the original one. There should be a metal grid over it to protect the switches from being bumped accidentally. (The Voskhod control panel on display at the NIIAO museum has such a metal grid for protection.)

3. What exactly is the Soyuz-7K-OK Signal Table? How does it look like? I want to check my pics, to see if I have photographed one.

4. Would one of these screens be one of them (see third picture below)? This photo is from one of the Soyuz simulators at TsPK, but I don't know if it had already been upgraded to TMA-M when I was there the last time in 2010.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kyra's kosmos on 02/22/2012 01:43 am
The VDNK Instrument panel had a radiation guage on one of the three part guages.

How does that radiation gauge look like? I want to check my pictures of the panels that I have photographed in various places, to see if some of them have the same gauge.

The NIIAO instrument panels are featured in designer Yuri Tiapchenko's papers. Thanks for the IMP serial numbers on those.

What papers are these? Are they available online somewhere?

My current wish list:
Vostok-6s instrument panel up close
Voskhod-2's airlock panel that was in the descent apparatus.
Soyuz-7K-OK's Signal Table
A screenshots of the Soyuz TMA-M "Ф1" screen and worldmap screen

1. I did not make a close-up of the Vostok-6 instrument panel. All I can offer you is a cut-out from the photo I already posted, but it is not as clear as a real close-up (see first picture below).

2. The second picture below shows Voskhod-2's interior (also at the Energiya museum): Is the airlock panel the one on the top edge of my pic? If this is the case, I don't have a better pic of it.
BTW: As you can see, the interior of Voskhod-2 is in a much worse condition than Voskhod-1 and Vostok-6. The instrument panel is missing and the lining is torn and degraded. Also, I am not sure if the control panel on the right is the original one. There should be a metal grid over it to protect the switches from being bumped accidentally. (The Voskhod control panel on display at the NIIAO museum has such a metal grid for protection.)

3. What exactly is the Soyuz-7K-OK Signal Table? How does it look like? I want to check my pics, to see if I have photographed one.

4. Would one of these screens be one of them (see third picture below)? This photo is from one of the Soyuz simulators at TsPK, but I don't know if it had already been upgraded to TMA-M when I was there the last time in 2010.

The airlock panel is seen from the side on the left in your pic almost flat against the wall next to the headrests. I have seen one on the News of Cosmonautics archive but it is blurry.

Thank You! Here are  Yuri Tiapchenko's papers on instrumentation:
http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/index.shtml?index_tg.html
Specifically Vostok and Voskhod
http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/vostok_voshod.pdf

Here are the radiation guages and the Soyuz 7K Instrument Board: (attachments)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zero-G on 02/22/2012 08:24 pm
The airlock panel is seen from the side on the left in your pic almost flat against the wall next to the headrests. I have seen one on the News of Cosmonautics archive but it is blurry.

Thank You! Here are  Yuri Tiapchenko's papers on instrumentation:
http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/index.shtml?index_tg.html
Specifically Vostok and Voskhod
http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/vostok_voshod.pdf

Here are the radiation guages and the Soyuz 7K Instrument Board: (attachments)

Thanks for the link to Tiapchenko's papers! (Now I have to see how I can get them translated online. It seems that they are too big for Google translator.)

I don't understand which one is the airlock panel in Voskhod-2. Could you please either mark it on my pic, or post that blurry pic you mentioned, or post a link to it?

Here are photos of the Soyuz-7K Signal Table and the Critical Command Buttons. They are from the Soyuz-7K "Sirius" panel in NIIAO museum.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Kyra's kosmos on 02/22/2012 11:44 pm
The airlock panel is seen from the side on the left in your pic almost flat against the wall next to the headrests. I have seen one on the News of Cosmonautics archive but it is blurry.

Thank You! Here are  Yuri Tiapchenko's papers on instrumentation:
http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/index.shtml?index_tg.html
Specifically Vostok and Voskhod
http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/vostok_voshod.pdf

Here are the radiation guages and the Soyuz 7K Instrument Board: (attachments)

Thanks for the link to Tiapchenko's papers! (Now I have to see how I can get them translated online. It seems that they are too big for Google translator.)

I don't understand which one is the airlock panel in Voskhod-2. Could you please either mark it on my pic, or post that blurry pic you mentioned, or post a link to it?

Here are photos of the Soyuz-7K Signal Table and the Critical Command Buttons. They are from the Soyuz-7K "Sirius" panel in NIIAO museum.

Thank you for the Soyuz-7K pics! The NIIAO isn't a frequent tourist destination, even for the space minded, so I presumed you were Russian, sorry about that. I would send them an email like once a year from about 2004, but they never responded, but I'm thrilled that someone got in their company museum.

The airlock panel is on the top of page 5 in this document. As you will see its only patrially legible.
http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/voshod_3kd.pdf

It only flew once (or twice if you count Cosmos 57) and was known as the ПСА-4-3КД. A couple of quick searches show this is the only place it is really discussed.

After this on Cosmos-110 (February 1966) they went to a new generation called 3KV-5 which was the first to implement the grid based command system and a new periscope "VZOR" that was later flown on Soyuz. There was even a full teletype like keyboard onboard. Why they flew all this with only the dogs Ugolyok and Veterok onboard baffles me. I mean they were smart enough to try to escape the IMBP after their 22 day flight, but... :)

Seriously, the 3KV system 5 would have been part of the configuration used on the Voskhod high altitude and long duration flights that were cancelled in 1966.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 02/27/2012 10:26 pm
Interesting document about Meridian satellites :

http://docs.kodeks.ru/document/901941100
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 03/03/2012 03:51 pm
In this video, someone knows which failed flight is shown at 03:30 ?

http://www.energia.ru:8080/ramgen/iss/r7a.rm
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 03/03/2012 06:11 pm
In this video, someone knows which failed flight is shown at 03:30 ?

http://www.energia.ru:8080/ramgen/iss/r7a.rm

Humm, isn't that the failed launch of the 11Ф61 Zenit-2 (3) by the 8A92 Vostok (E15000-01) rocket on June 1, 1962 (0937:52UTC)?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Art LeBrun on 03/03/2012 06:25 pm
Did one of the strap ons come off at launch? Some major fire on the ground.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 03/03/2012 06:32 pm
Did one of the strap ons come off at launch? Some major fire on the ground.

There was an explosion in one of the strap-on boosters right after ignition.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 03/04/2012 02:28 am
An extreme trivia note - I found out what the stick used in the Soyuz to poke at controls is called: Указател, Ukazatel, which just means "Pointer" (via Chris Hadfield twitpic (http://twitpic.com/7i9fi5))
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 03/04/2012 02:44 am
The airlock panel is seen from the side on the left in your pic almost flat against the wall next to the headrests. I have seen one on the News of Cosmonautics archive but it is blurry.

Thank You! Here are  Yuri Tiapchenko's papers on instrumentation:
http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/index.shtml?index_tg.html (http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/index.shtml?index_tg.html)
Specifically Vostok and Voskhod
http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/vostok_voshod.pdf (http://www.cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications/vostok_voshod.pdf)

Here are the radiation guages and the Soyuz 7K Instrument Board: (attachments)

Thanks for the link to Tiapchenko's papers! (Now I have to see how I can get them translated online. It seems that they are too big for Google translator.)

There's some translated pages (http://web.mit.edu/slava/space/essays.htm) at the MIT.edu site.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TJL on 03/05/2012 12:33 am
I understand that spectators are allowed to view Soyuz launches a bit closer than we were allowed to view Shuttle.
The attached photo of Soyuz TM-28 taking off shows a few people in the foreground. Any idea how far they are from the pad? They seem to be extremely close.
Thanks.

http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/soyuz-tm-28_launch.jpg


Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Art LeBrun on 03/05/2012 12:51 am
1) must be a telephoto shot for that perspective and 2) what is the distance of the lighting towers from the pad?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: e of pi on 03/07/2012 07:13 pm
I'm looking at the specs on the Zenit launcher, and I'm curious about the upper stage. It seems like there should be enough room in a 10.4 m long, 3.9 m diameter stage for more like 126 metric tons of fuel instead of the 81 it can apparently carry according to RussianSpaceWeb and Astronautix. Does anyone have diagrams or pictures that show the construction of the upper stage so I can understand why it seems to have less actual tank volume than it appears it could? Is it just really ineffcient arrangement of the tanks (perhaps a large intertank between the LOX and the kero)?

RussianSpaceWeb has a cutaway on this page (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/zenit.html), but it's so small I can't make out any details at all on the second stage.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: baldusi on 03/07/2012 07:28 pm
I'm looking at the specs on the Zenit launcher, and I'm curious about the upper stage. It seems like there should be enough room in a 10.4 m long, 3.9 m diameter stage for more like 126 metric tons of fuel instead of the 81 it can apparently carry according to RussianSpaceWeb and Astronautix. Does anyone have diagrams or pictures that show the construction of the upper stage so I can understand why it seems to have less actual tank volume than it appears it could? Is it just really ineffcient arrangement of the tanks (perhaps a large intertank between the LOX and the kero)?

RussianSpaceWeb has a cutaway on this page (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/zenit.html), but it's so small I can't make out any details at all on the second stage.
Look for the Sea Launch SL User's Guide. There's a nice schematic. It basically has a LOX tank, and the Kerosen tank is a torus.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: e of pi on 03/07/2012 07:31 pm
Thanks, baldusi! Very informative document, and exactly the kind of image I was looking for! :) Why was the toroidal tank selected? To make it easier to run the plumbing to the engine from the LOX tank?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: baldusi on 03/07/2012 07:45 pm
Thanks, baldusi! Very informative document, and exactly the kind of image I was looking for! :) Why was the toroidal tank selected? To make it easier to run the plumbing to the engine from the LOX tank?
I ignore it. But from the schematics it seems that they have been able to put the engine and huge nozzle inside the torus, thus, making the overall stage shorter. The Zenit 3SL is already thin and tall (3.9m x 60m, or 15.28 diameters long). If I had to take a wild guess, I would say it was to keep it as short as possible on the 3.9m size. Probably a train transport limitation to Baikonour (from Ukraine). The Proton can do with 4.1m. But that's probably because it goes through a different train line.
I seem to recall that the limitation for the Eastern Launch Site was going to be something like 3.8m x 25m or so.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: truth is life on 03/18/2012 07:40 pm
Does anyone know if the Soviets developed a Landsat/SPOT-type Earth observation system in the 1970s or 1980s, or even had any plans to do so? It seems like something that would both be obvious (given the success of Landsat) and yet problematic (given that it might have implications for national security).

Also, in a completely different question, does anyone know why the ESA-Russian cooperation on Kliper fell through? RussianSpaceWeb says things were going great up until the formal meeting to decide whether or not the ESA was going to get involved, when they unexpectedly decided not to, which seems to accord with my (admittedly rather vague) memories.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skyrocket on 03/18/2012 08:58 pm
Does anyone know if the Soviets developed a Landsat/SPOT-type Earth observation system in the 1970s or 1980s, or even had any plans to do so? It seems like something that would both be obvious (given the success of Landsat) and yet problematic (given that it might have implications for national security).

Yes they did develop a civil earth observation capability - but initally also on a film return type

Film return types: Fram, Resurs-F1, Resurs-F2
Electro-optical: Meteor-Priroda, Resurs-OE, Resurs-O

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 03/19/2012 07:22 am
What are the differences between the APAS-89 and APAS-95 mechanisms? Do the internal electronics differ? What is that four-tube connector on APAS-89?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mdo on 03/28/2012 09:19 pm
USSTRATCOM reports this reentry location for Meteor 1-1 (1969-029A):
 1.  2012-03-26 21:22:00 GMT +/- 1 minute,  47° N 95° E (Mongolia)

RIA Novosti quotes a spokesperson of the Russian Space Forces  (http://ria.ru/science/20120327/607235043.html):
 2.  2012-03-26 22:17 GMT, 80,9° S 5,63° W (Antarctica)

Although wildly different, both time/location pairs appear plausible when compared to the ground track of the final orbits.

Is there another source to verify against?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 03/29/2012 06:56 pm
USSTRATCOM reports this reentry location for Meteor 1-1 (1969-029A):
 1.  2012-03-26 21:22:00 GMT +/- 1 minute,  47° N 95° E (Mongolia)

RIA Novosti quotes a spokesperson of the Russian Space Forces  (http://ria.ru/science/20120327/607235043.html):
 2.  2012-03-26 22:17 GMT, 80,9° S 5,63° W (Antarctica)

Although wildly different, both time/location pairs appear plausible when compared to the ground track of the final orbits.

Is there another source to verify against?


You need to compare the declared error bounds for the re-entry times.   Space-Track always shows them on the TIPS re-entry notifications.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mdo on 03/30/2012 07:22 am
Quote from: Phillip Clark link=topic=5966.msg878304#msg878304
You need to compare the declared error bounds for the re-entry times.   Space-Track always shows them on the TIPS re-entry notifications.

+/- 1 minute
(as given in the original post)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 03/30/2012 07:06 pm
Quote from: Phillip Clark link=topic=5966.msg878304#msg878304
You need to compare the declared error bounds for the re-entry times.   Space-Track always shows them on the TIPS re-entry notifications.
+/- 1 minute
(as given in the original post)

No error bound in the Russian data - so do we assume that it was zero?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mdo on 04/01/2012 02:10 am
Quote from: Phillip Clark link=topic=5966.msg878731#msg878731
No error bound in the Russian data - so do we assume that it was zero?

Yes, the point about matching intervals is understood and no, we are trying not to presume anything. The 2nd record is simply incomplete. Thanks for the response. The original question remains though - namely whether somebody knows of another source (stating bounds).


As an update: This note (http://www.function.mil.ru/news_page/country/[email protected]) issued by the press office of the Russian department of defence appears to be the basis for various news articles quoting reentry coordinates over Antarctica. It does not provide an indication of its accuracy either. It is phrased such that a reader (using machine translation) must think that they pinpointed the area where some surviving fragments may have reached the surface. We know that the reentry location is a matter of definition and debris are spread depending on various properties. Irrespective of that it would take +/- 1 hour to match up the data from the US and Russia. In general, giving the midpoint of such a lengthy interval without even mentioning that it is part of an interval would render such a press release pretty useless (I'm not saying it is either way.)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 04/01/2012 07:34 am
Quote from: Phillip Clark link=topic=5966.msg878731#msg878731
No error bound in the Russian data - so do we assume that it was zero?

Yes, the point about matching intervals is understood and no, we are trying not to presume anything. The 2nd record is simply incomplete. Thanks for the response. The original question remains though - namely whether somebody knows of another source (stating bounds).


As an update: This note (http://www.function.mil.ru/news_page/country/[email protected]) issued by the press office of the Russian department of defence appears to be the basis for various news articles quoting reentry coordinates over Antarctica. It does not provide an indication of its accuracy either. It is phrased such that a reader (using machine translation) must think that they pinpointed the area where some surviving fragments may have reached the surface. We know that the reentry location is a matter of definition and debris are spread depending on various properties. Irrespective of that it would take +/- 1 hour to match up the data from the US and Russia. In general, giving the midpoint of such a lengthy interval without even mentioning that it is part of an interval would render such a press release pretty useless (I'm not saying it is either way.)

My query about the error bound for the Russian data is simply because the United States has a far wider net for tracking space debris than has Russia.   Based upon this, unless a re-entry was actually seen (eg, rocket stage sticking in the Kremlin wall!!) you would expect the Russian error bounds in their predictions to be greater than those of the United States data.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Satori on 04/01/2012 01:38 pm
I understand that spectators are allowed to view Soyuz launches a bit closer than we were allowed to view Shuttle.
The attached photo of Soyuz TM-28 taking off shows a few people in the foreground. Any idea how far they are from the pad? They seem to be extremely close.
Thanks.

http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/soyuz-tm-28_launch.jpg

Viewing area is 1.5 km from the launch pad for PU-5.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/01/2012 07:16 pm
What are the differences between the APAS-89 and APAS-95 mechanisms? Do the internal electronics differ? What is that four-tube connector on APAS-89?

Some aditional info to clarify, based mainly on my vague recollection of my structural dynamics days at Rockwell in the early '90s.

On the APAS-89, which was used at Mir, either side can be "active," so it's truly an "androgynous" system.  Prior to docking, one side is kept latched down ("passive" side"), and the other side is extended to attenuate structural loads ("active" side), but EITHER side can be selected to be active prior to docking.  Therefore, any APAS-89 unit can dock to any other one.

But APAS-89 units were developed for Soyuz-class spacecraft (typically 6500 kg or so at docking).  For docking the Shuttle to ISS (~100,000 kg), the mechanism was modified (by RSC-E & Rockwell) to be "softer" to prevent structural loads exceedances on deployed ISS components like the PV Arrays.  Because of this, one side was permanently latched down (and the unnecessary control electronics removed, reducing mass).  This is the APAS-95 configuration: a "Passive" APAS-95 on ISS, and an Active APAS-95 on the matching Shuttle.  An Active APAS-95 can dock to Passive APAS-95 or Active APAS-95, but Passive APAS-95 (on ISS) can only dock with Active APAS-95 -- therefore, APAS-95 comes in "pairs", and APAS-89 doesn't.

IIRC, NASA/JSC Missions Operations Directorate (MOD) has stated that vehicles smaller than the Shuttle might be able to use the APAS-89 to dock to ISS, but it would take some structural loads analysis to confirm/approve (which is the case for any docking/berthing of a new vehicle to ISS anyway).

I remember seeing a briefing on LIDS (and the patent) that stated that APAS is not fully androgynous, which is a bit of misdirection since APAS is fully androgynous unless modified not to be.

Ben Muniz

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5863.15
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jason1701 on 04/03/2012 10:13 pm
Why does some red smoke appear in the Proton's plume?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/03/2012 11:33 pm
Why does some red smoke appear in the Proton's plume?

That's (IIRC) nitrogen tetraoxide (N2O4) venting from the Proton's first stage.  ;)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 04/04/2012 03:30 am
What are the differences between the APAS-89 and APAS-95 mechanisms? Do the internal electronics differ? What is that four-tube connector on APAS-89?

Some aditional info to clarify, based mainly on my vague recollection of my structural dynamics days at Rockwell in the early '90s.

On the APAS-89, which was used at Mir, either side can be "active," so it's truly an "androgynous" system.  Prior to docking, one side is kept latched down ("passive" side"), and the other side is extended to attenuate structural loads ("active" side), but EITHER side can be selected to be active prior to docking.  Therefore, any APAS-89 unit can dock to any other one.

But APAS-89 units were developed for Soyuz-class spacecraft (typically 6500 kg or so at docking).  For docking the Shuttle to ISS (~100,000 kg), the mechanism was modified (by RSC-E & Rockwell) to be "softer" to prevent structural loads exceedances on deployed ISS components like the PV Arrays.  Because of this, one side was permanently latched down (and the unnecessary control electronics removed, reducing mass).  This is the APAS-95 configuration: a "Passive" APAS-95 on ISS, and an Active APAS-95 on the matching Shuttle.  An Active APAS-95 can dock to Passive APAS-95 or Active APAS-95, but Passive APAS-95 (on ISS) can only dock with Active APAS-95 -- therefore, APAS-95 comes in "pairs", and APAS-89 doesn't.

IIRC, NASA/JSC Missions Operations Directorate (MOD) has stated that vehicles smaller than the Shuttle might be able to use the APAS-89 to dock to ISS, but it would take some structural loads analysis to confirm/approve (which is the case for any docking/berthing of a new vehicle to ISS anyway).

I remember seeing a briefing on LIDS (and the patent) that stated that APAS is not fully androgynous, which is a bit of misdirection since APAS is fully androgynous unless modified not to be.

Ben Muniz

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5863.15
I saw that but to me it doesn't make sense because there are no pressure seals on the APAS-89 mechanism on Kristall which means it is not fully androgynous. Bmuniz also doesn't clarify if there's any difference between active APAS-95 and active APAS-89. And he doesn't mention that strange four-tubed connecter you see on Kristall's mechanism.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 04/06/2012 01:23 pm
http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/Книги%20о%20предприятии/Самарские%20ступени%20Семерки.PDF (http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/Книги%20о%20предприятии/Самарские%20ступени%20Семерки.PDF)

Contains lots of curious information.

The serial number Х15000-13 is quoted for Interkosmos-6.

It lists Kosmos 368 as a Bion 11F690, which was followed by Bion 12KS.

Mentions 11А511 С15000-26, С15000-27, С15000-30 and С15000-31 but can anyone help with a translation?

Soyuz-U 76043731 18.05.73
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 04/07/2012 06:30 am
http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/Книги%20о%20предприятии/Самарские%20ступени%20Семерки.PDF (http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/Книги%20о%20предприятии/Самарские%20ступени%20Семерки.PDF)

Contains lots of curious information.

The serial number Х15000-13 is quoted for Interkosmos-6.

It lists Kosmos 368 as a Bion 11F690, which was followed by Bion 12KS.

Mentions 11А511 С15000-26, С15000-27, С15000-30 and С15000-31 but can anyone help with a translation?

Soyuz-U 76043731 18.05.73

Around page 108 of that document

On 19th February 1973
Before the Almaz Salyut 2 and DOS Kosmos 557

Three Soyuz manned spacecraft & rockets allocated for the next DOS space station
Soyuz 7K-T № 36 - 11А511 № С15000-27
Soyuz 7K-T № 37 - 11А511 № С15000-30
Soyuz 7K-T № 38 - 11А511 № С15000-31

For Almaz Salyut 2
Soyuz 7K-T № 61 - 11А511 № С15000-26

This does slightly contradicted an article in Novosti Kosmonavtiki
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtml
Soyuz 7K-T № 35A - 11А511 № С15000-28
and according to Novosti Kosmonavtiki above, 35A did not reach orbit. Instead it was used for a test of the 7K-TM launch abort system, for ASTP.

Also the 11A511 Soyuz rockets were being modified in the wake of the failure of 11A57 Voskhod rocket 271.

These helped:-
http://www.newocr.com/
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 04/10/2012 07:24 pm
http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/Книги%20о%20предприятии/Самарские%20ступени%20Семерки.PDF (http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/Книги%20о%20предприятии/Самарские%20ступени%20Семерки.PDF)

Contains lots of curious information.

The serial number Х15000-13 is quoted for Interkosmos-6.

It lists Kosmos-368 as a Bion 11F690, which was followed by Bion 12KS.

Mentions 11А511 С15000-26, С15000-27, С15000-30 and С15000-31 but can anyone help with a translation?

Soyuz-U 76043731 18.05.73

Around page 108 of that document

On 19th February 1973
Before the Almaz Salyut-2 and DOS Kosmos-557

Three Soyuz manned spacecraft & rockets allocated for the next DOS space station
Soyuz 7K-T № 36 - 11А511 № С15000-27
Soyuz 7K-T № 37 - 11А511 № С15000-30
Soyuz 7K-T № 38 - 11А511 № С15000-31

For Almaz Salyut-2
Soyuz 7K-T № 61 - 11А511 № С15000-26

This does slightly contradicted an article in Novosti Kosmonavtiki
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtml
Soyuz 7K-T № 35A - 11А511 № С15000-28
and according to Novosti Kosmonavtiki above, 35A did not reach orbit. Instead it was used for a test of the 7K-TM launch abort system, for ASTP.

Also the 11A511 Soyuz rockets were being modified in the wake of the failure of 11A57 Voskhod rocket 271.

These helped:-
http://www.newocr.com/
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/

So if the original order of flights were to be
61 - first for Salyut-2 Almaz; later flown as Kosmos-656.
35A - long duration solo flight? Later used to test launch abort system for ASTP
36 - first for Kosmos-557 DOS space station.
37 - second for Kosmos-557 DOS space station.
38 - third for Kosmos-557 DOS space station.

 In 1973 the USSR attempted to put into orbit two space stations. Both failed. The first an Almaz named Salyut-2 failed before a crew arrived and the other a DOS, failed before being called Salyut and was covered with the generic Kosmos-557 label.
 It looks like the DOS was to have launched second but occupied first?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/19/2012 02:47 am
I was surprised to see that there's a Zenit-derived return capsule at the Museum of Flight in Seattle: the one of the Resurs 500, which flew in orbit for 7 days in 1992. Apparently it does not carry cameras (or does it? Does anybody knows?).

I would like to see if someone got detailed pictures of the inside and exterior of the capsule during a visit.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 04/19/2012 06:17 am
I was surprised to see that there's a Zenit-derived return capsule at the Museum of Flight in Seattle: the one of the Resurs 500, which flew in orbit for 7 days in 1992. Apparently it does not carry cameras (or does it? Does anybody knows?).
I would like to see if someone got detailed pictures of the inside and exterior of the capsule during a visit.

Resurs-500 was nothing more than a publicity stunt.   The spacecraft contained nothing useful, just trunkets to give to the Americans, it intentionally splashed down, was recovery by the Americans and the flight was declared a success.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skyrocket on 04/19/2012 07:00 am
I was surprised to see that there's a Zenit-derived return capsule at the Museum of Flight in Seattle: the one of the Resurs 500, which flew in orbit for 7 days in 1992. Apparently it does not carry cameras (or does it? Does anybody knows?).
I would like to see if someone got detailed pictures of the inside and exterior of the capsule during a visit.

Resurs-500 was nothing more than a publicity stunt.   The spacecraft contained nothing useful, just trunkets to give to the Americans, it intentionally splashed down, was recovery by the Americans and the flight was declared a success.

This plaquette at the museum flight (http://coolnewz.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/13_resurs-500.jpg) tells, that it was of the Resurs-F1 (14F43) type. If this is true, ther should have been cameras. My impression was , that it was a standard Resurs-F1 mission flown with additional stuff as a public relations mission.

I would really like to see a pre-launch photo of Resurs-500
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 04/19/2012 12:16 pm
I understood that Resurs-500 carried no imaging system - it was removed to carry the stuff that was being set to the USA as a "present".   Maybe it was originally built as a Resurs-F1 satellite and then stripped.

Might have been cheaper and more reliable to use the postal services, of course.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 04/19/2012 05:59 pm
http://www.plesetzk.ru/index.php?p=inf016&d=doc/inf
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 04/19/2012 08:41 pm
So what is 17Ф51?

Quote
 Твердотопливный ракетный двигатель 17Д712 предназначен для торможения и спуска с околоземной орбиты унифицированной малогабаритной спускаемой капсулы 17Ф51, осуществляющей доставку на землю отснятой фотоплёнки и устанавливаемой на КА дистанционного зондирования Земли разработки ГНП РКЦ «ЦСКБ-Прогресс».
http://www.mzarsenal.spb.ru/assets/files/gazeta/2012/06_2012.pdf

Quote
 Это отработанное высоконадежное изделие РДТТ 17Д712 функционировало 78 раз в составе КА, при этом не было ни одного отказа.
http://www.pressmk.ru/PDF/Sodr196.pdf

http://www.referun.com/n/razrabotka-i-vnedrenie-vakuumnoy-ionno-plazmennoy-tehnologii-naneseniya-spetsialnyh-pokrytiy-na-detali-kosmicheskih-appar
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/25/2012 02:33 pm
Since the accident during the pressurization test, what is the current status of Soyuz-TMA no.704? Will the descent module be repaired, a new descent module will be used, or will all three modules be scrapped?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 04/30/2012 08:40 am
Since the accident during the pressurization test, what is the current status of Soyuz-TMA no.704? Will the descent module be repaired, a new descent module will be used, or will all three modules be scrapped?

SA will not be used. BO will be used in future flights. Some equipment in PAO will be replaced, and it will be used in future flights.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/04/2012 03:13 am
Since the accident during the pressurization test, what is the current status of Soyuz-TMA no.704? Will the descent module be repaired, a new descent module will be used, or will all three modules be scrapped?

SA will not be used. BO will be used in future flights. Some equipment in PAO will be replaced, and it will be used in future flights.

This was answered by a member at NK: the descent module originally scheduled to fly on ship 707 (TMA-06M) will instead be coupled to the orbital and service modules of ship 704. This new ship (probably will receive the number 704A) will probably be used as Soyuz TMA-07M.

Source (http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=930479#930479)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 05/06/2012 09:01 am
So can someone help me understand this?

http://zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=3105458
See tab Документы заказа
АД Фрегат согласованная ДПСПР № 0173100004512000816 от 09.04.2012

Quote
Срок поставки товара: одного разгонного блока «Фрегат» - до 25 ноября 2013 г., двух – до 25 ноября 2014 г.

It has details of rocket with 11С824Ф and Fregat (see from page 38)?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 05/07/2012 02:30 am
So can someone help me understand this?

http://zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=3105458
See tab Документы заказа
АД Фрегат согласованная ДПСПР № 0173100004512000816 от 09.04.2012

Quote
Срок поставки товара: одного разгонного блока «Фрегат» - до 25 ноября 2013 г., двух – до 25 ноября 2014 г.

It has details of rocket with 11С824Ф and Fregat (see from page 38)?

I am not sure what your question is.  If you wondering what "11С824Ф" is,  its "разгонный блок Д-2 для РН "Протон-К"", ie an old version of Blok-D.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 05/07/2012 07:10 am
So can someone help me understand this?

http://zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=3105458
See tab Документы заказа
АД Фрегат согласованная ДПСПР № 0173100004512000816 от 09.04.2012

Quote
Срок поставки товара: одного разгонного блока «Фрегат» - до 25 ноября 2013 г., двух – до 25 ноября 2014 г.

It has details of rocket with 11С824Ф and Fregat (see from page 38)?

I am not sure what your question is.  If you wondering what "11С824Ф" is,  its "разгонный блок Д-2 для РН "Протон-К"", ie an old version of Blok-D.


The blok D-2 was designed to carry the ADU of Fobos and Mars probes; the ADU was the predecessor of Fregat.

So this is flagman stage?
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/fregat.html

Why three after 2013?

And the carrier rocket has stage timings of 120 and 480 seconds; so that isn’t Proton.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 05/07/2012 02:30 pm
So can someone help me understand this?

http://zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=3105458
See tab Документы заказа
АД Фрегат согласованная ДПСПР № 0173100004512000816 от 09.04.2012

Quote
Срок поставки товара: одного разгонного блока «Фрегат» - до 25 ноября 2013 г., двух – до 25 ноября 2014 г.

It has details of rocket with 11С824Ф and Fregat (see from page 38)?

I am not sure what your question is.  If you wondering what "11С824Ф" is,  its "разгонный блок Д-2 для РН "Протон-К"", ie an old version of Blok-D.


The blok D-2 was designed to carry the ADU of Fobos and Mars probes; the ADU was the predecessor of Fregat.

So this is flagman stage?
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/fregat.html

Why three after 2013?

And the carrier rocket has stage timings of 120 and 480 seconds; so that isn’t Proton.

I don't think so. If you look at this Energia document, you can see that 11С824Ф is a Blok-D variant used in 1988. I suspect that it is a version with no avionics  (to save mass), used for Phobos launches, using the flight computer on Phobos for control.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 05/07/2012 02:53 pm
So can someone help me understand this?

http://zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=3105458
See tab Документы заказа
АД Фрегат согласованная ДПСПР № 0173100004512000816 от 09.04.2012

Quote
Срок поставки товара: одного разгонного блока «Фрегат» - до 25 ноября 2013 г., двух – до 25 ноября 2014 г.

It has details of rocket with 11С824Ф and Fregat (see from page 38)?

I am not sure what your question is.  If you wondering what "11С824Ф" is,  its "разгонный блок Д-2 для РН "Протон-К"", ie an old version of Blok-D.


The blok D-2 was designed to carry the ADU of Fobos and Mars probes; the ADU was the predecessor of Fregat.

So this is flagman stage?
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/fregat.html

Why three after 2013?

And the carrier rocket has stage timings of 120 and 480 seconds; so that isn’t Proton.

I don't think so. If you look at this Energia document, you can see that 11С824Ф is a Blok-D variant used in 1988. I suspect that it is a version with no avionics  (to save mass), used for Phobos launches, using the flight computer on Phobos for control.


Flagman originally was a combination of Blok-D and Fregat.
Sorry gave bad link
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/n1_d.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/18/2012 08:22 am
From the Nimiq 6 launch broadcast by ILS:

Talk about renovating one of the pads.

That explains why pad 200/39 is out of action for the next few months: the fueling stations, workstations and ventilation systems are being upgraded.

Strangely, in the video it was stated that three pads are currently active, with two available for commercial launches. Does it mean pad 81/23 is active? (don't think pad 200/40 was used since the late 1980's)

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: darkenfast on 05/19/2012 10:29 am
I find the differences between U.S. and Russian manned spacecraft launch complex operations fascinating. I have a some questions about Soyuz launches that I hope will be of general interest.

1. We usually see the crew get into the lift on the service structure (sometimes on one side, sometimes the other), but nothing after that. Are there any photos available showing what happens up on the level where they enter the spacecraft?

2. Given the tight space, are there launch complex personnel inside the orbital compartment to help the crew down into the descent capsule? Do the crew strap themselves in, or close the hatch to the orbital module?

3. Where is Launch Control now located? At what point does control pass to the Main Control Center at Star City?

4. Where are the back-up crew at launch? Do they have any part to play in launch day preparations?

5. How close are unprotected personnel to the launch complex at liftoff?

Thanks in advance!   
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 05/20/2012 07:21 pm
1. We usually see the crew get into the lift on the service structure (sometimes on one side, sometimes the other), but nothing after that. Are there any photos available showing what happens up on the level where they enter the spacecraft?

2. Given the tight space, are there launch complex personnel inside the orbital compartment to help the crew down into the descent capsule? Do the crew strap themselves in, or close the hatch to the orbital module?

An official Roscosmos video recently released shows the boarding of a Soyus spaceship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWSD8xvl4TY

3. Where is Launch Control now located?

Still in the launch bunker, near the launch pad.

4. Where are the back-up crew at launch? Do they have any part to play in launch day preparations?

They watch the launch with the public...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: darkenfast on 05/21/2012 02:18 am
Thank you very much, Nicolas! A lot of that was new video that I hadn't seen before.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 05/22/2012 09:47 pm
1. We usually see the crew get into the lift on the service structure (sometimes on one side, sometimes the other), but nothing after that. Are there any photos available showing what happens up on the level where they enter the spacecraft?

2. Given the tight space, are there launch complex personnel inside the orbital compartment to help the crew down into the descent capsule? Do the crew strap themselves in, or close the hatch to the orbital module?

An official Roscosmos video recently released shows the boarding of a Soyus spaceship.



Its a little hard to tell if the actual boarding is in the video, or some sort of training exercise. Clearly, though the elevator scenes show the crew about to board the Soyuz, and that is new footage. In fact, most of the gantry scenes are new to me.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 05/24/2012 05:39 am
Hey, I get to ask a question here:

Many Russian launch vehicles use the Bizer system as a flight control system, but Buran used Bizer as well, much as the Shuttle used a 5 computer system. My question is why and how could Buran use a launch vehicle avionics system for orbital flight? Yeah, I know that it was a Bizer-4 as thus somewhat different than the Bizer-3 or Bizer-6 used to day, but probably not much different, was it?

Are there other Russian or Soviet launch control systems that are also used in satellites?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 05/24/2012 06:52 am
My question is why and how could Buran use a launch vehicle avionics system for orbital flight?

When Energia-Buran program has begun, Biser should be on Energia rocket and Buran spacecraft, but NIIAP (Moscow) was overloaded and decision was made to give control system of Energia to NPO EP (Kharkov).

As for an using of control system of rocket in spacecraft, there are no problems at all. The question is only available weight for it and software. Biser-4 was system with four computers, other Biser systems - with three computers.

Are there other Russian or Soviet launch control systems that are also used in satellites?

Yes, for example, control systems of Energia and Rokot rockets and Oko-2 satellite are practically identical and were made by NPO EP (Kharkov); control systems of Briz-M upper stage and Elektro-L and Spektr-R satellites are practically identical and were made by MOKB Mars (Moscow).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 06/17/2012 11:31 am
I was checking documentation for the propulsion systems of manned spacecrafts, and I found inconsistencies with the performance of the main engine of the current Soyuz versions (TM/TMA). In here (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soymapao.htm) the KTDU-80 engine was described to have three thrust modes: 300N, 700N and 6000N. However in the Soyuz Crew Operations Manual on L2, the main engine's thrust was given as 300+-30 kgf, which corresponds to about 3000N. Which one is right?  ???
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: apace on 06/17/2012 11:45 am
I was checking documentation for the propulsion systems of manned spacecrafts, and I found inconsistencies with the performance of the main engine of the current Soyuz versions (TM/TMA). In here (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soymapao.htm) the KTDU-80 engine was described to have three thrust modes: 300N, 700N and 6000N. However in the Soyuz Crew Operations Manual on L2, the main engine's thrust was given as 300+-30 kgf, which corresponds to about 3000N. Which one is right?  ???

http://suzymchale.com/ruspace/soymod.html write 400kgf, which is about 880lbs...?!
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: truth is life on 06/22/2012 04:00 pm
I am trying to nail down a firm timeline on the development and production of the NK-33/NK-43. Given that a large number of engines survived the cancellation of the N-1, production must have started some time prior to 1976, perhaps in 1972 or earlier, correct? When did development on the engines start? What are good sources to consult about the engine's history, if any such English-language sources (unfortunately, I am totally incapable of reading Russian) exist?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 06/22/2012 05:09 pm
I can tell you that Glusko took over Energia in 1974, so production of NK-33 engines should have stopped quite soon after that.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: truth is life on 06/22/2012 06:23 pm
I can tell you that Glusko took over Energia in 1974, so production of NK-33 engines should have stopped quite soon after that.


Would make sense, I might have misremembered the schedule (thus why I am trying to pin down a timeline). I would think cancellation would have more to do with the N-1 itself, though, which, IIRC, survived for a while after Glushko's takeover--or maybe I'm misremembering and it survived for a while after 7L blew up, which would fit with the 1974 timeline.

Ah well, I'll have Siddiqi tonight and maybe he has something about it.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 06/22/2012 08:11 pm
I can tell you that Glusko took over Energia in 1974, so production of NK-33 engines should have stopped quite soon after that.


Would make sense, I might have misremembered the schedule (thus why I am trying to pin down a timeline). I would think cancellation would have more to do with the N-1 itself, though, which, IIRC, survived for a while after Glushko's takeover--or maybe I'm misremembering and it survived for a while after 7L blew up, which would fit with the 1974 timeline.

Ah well, I'll have Siddiqi tonight and maybe he has something about it.

I believe that 7L blew up in 1972, and there was about 2 years of debate and design review and some construction until Glushko came along and put it out of its misery.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: truth is life on 06/23/2012 07:39 pm
I believe that 7L blew up in 1972, and there was about 2 years of debate and design review and some construction until Glushko came along and put it out of its misery.

Well, yes and no. I looked up the NK-33 in Siddiqi, and he doesn't have much, unfortunately. However, he does say that Kuznetsov continued the test/certification program for the engines into early 1977 (!) in a move somehow related to the emerging Energia program. Futilely, of course, since he was competing with Glushko, but there's the possibility that he was building engines into 1976...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/27/2012 01:16 pm
Surprisingly, according to Chertok and Poroshkov, the Mars/Venus probes of 1962 are numbered this way :

- 2MV-1 n°3
- 2MV-1 n°4
- 2MV-2 n°1
- 2MV-3 n°3
- 2MV-3 n°4
- 2MV-4 n°1

Someone knows why the 2MV-1 and 2MV-3 are not numbered 1 and 2 ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 07/04/2012 09:54 am
A question about the Soyuz-2 LV: we know that it can accept roll programs (earlier versions of the R-7 family can't), so the launch pad needs to turn to the proper azimuth before launch (the one in French Guiana, of course, don't). So does the launch pads in Baikonur/Plesetsk still turns before a launch of a Soyuz-2 LV, given that it is not necessary to do so?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 07/04/2012 10:02 am
So does the launch pads in Baikonur/Plesetsk still turns before a launch of a Soyuz-2 LV, given that it is not necessary to do so?

Launch pads 31/6 and 43/4, which are modernized for Soyuz-2 rockets, do not turn before Soyuz-2 launches.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 07/05/2012 06:31 pm
So does the launch pads in Baikonur/Plesetsk still turns before a launch of a Soyuz-2 LV, given that it is not necessary to do so?

Launch pads 31/6 and 43/4, which are modernized for Soyuz-2 rockets, do not turn before Soyuz-2 launches.

Can they still turn, rotate?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 09/07/2012 05:44 am
Do cosmonauts still do their flight training in the L-39? My information is that the Russian Air Force disbanded the air wing in late 2009, but a Roskosmos video (http://tvroscosmos.ru/frm/vestidata/2012/vesti11_08_12_1.php) shows cosmonauts still flying the jet.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Olaf on 09/07/2012 02:00 pm
Do cosmonauts still do their flight training in the L-39? My information is that the Russian Air Force disbanded the air wing in late 2009, but a Roskosmos video (http://tvroscosmos.ru/frm/vestidata/2012/vesti11_08_12_1.php) shows cosmonauts still flying the jet.
The L-39 are now part of the TsPK, not of the Russian air force.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Zero-G on 09/13/2012 10:05 am
In the theme park "Europa Park" in Rust, near Freiburg in Southwest Germany, there is a full-size mockup of the Mir space station, including the core, Kvant-1, Kvant-2 and Kristall modules. It is there since 1994 and is supposed to be a former "training model".

I wonder if this is really true? Where was it located originally and what was it really built and used for originally?

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 09/30/2012 12:06 pm
Could someone explain me what is, in Russian terminology, a "Command Radio Link" ?

Russian : БКРЛ (бортовая командная радиолиния).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: ChileVerde on 09/30/2012 01:54 pm
Could someone explain me what is, in Russian terminology, a "Command Radio Link" ?

Russian : БКРЛ (бортовая командная радиолиния).

I believe it's what's called a "command uplink" in US terminology.

See http://vostoksupersite.weebly.com/ground-support.html for examples. (The stuff at the bottom is for the telemetry downlink and, as usual, mistranslates "kontrol'" as "control.")
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: aquarius on 10/27/2012 05:32 pm
Am I right in thinking that Laveikin was the last person to have returned to earth earlier than planned because of a medical condition?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/09/2013 06:36 pm
So how to interpret these designations?
 ...
Comments?

11F632 No. 138151102 has probably an omission -- number should be either 8 or 10 digits. Of course there existed six-digit numbers in 1958-1959 but we consider the period of the 1970s and later.

Right now, there are two probable lines of decoding, the same for launch vehicles and spacecraft...

11F695 No. 47822563

478 = code of producer (probably three for each space company)
22 = code of production date (half-year and year)
next two digits in a 10-digit number probably aren't significant
563 = actual number

Sequential production number (as known for Molniyas) may be based on this three-digit number (as in 1990s and 2000s) or may be quite different.  Molniya 3 58 and 59 are also known as 258 and 259 etc. But the very first Molniya 3 was 80091198...

It's those 'quite different' cases that are frustrating me. If they actually carry information it would be nice to know what. If they are just random noise meant to confuse for security reasons, I don't see any reason to use them.

I suspect you mean that the three-digit number may be based on the sequential production number (not the other way around)? Surely the sequential production number exists first, and then someone makes up the
three-digit-number? Or not?

Quote
Another line of thinking is that first four digits in a 8D-number are insignificant (while these do contain producer's code), the next two are a party code and the last two are the number in the party. Essentially this  is equivalent to say that each year we have several parties of vehicles depending on their purpose.

I think you mean 'block' or 'subseries' not 'party'

Yes, I am almost inclined to the latter model but there are cases where the rollover in the last digits of 99 to 100 does  make the previous digit change... I might suggest first four digits are producercode+noise,
next 2.5 digits are subseries code and last 2.5 digits are number in subseries

 It looks like these 8 or 10-digit numbers are more order or procurement numbers. They are not what is used in the factory? For TsSKB-Progress they use machine-series numbers and for Lavochkin there is a four digit number?

 One other thing to note is that the fifth-digit indicating year is the same across manufactures for payloads to fly on Soyuz or Molniya rockets.

So my best guess of year of release
11Ф637 №11Л  80091198  1974    21.11.1974 
11Ф637 №12Л  79491199  1974    14.04.1975 
11Ф637 №13Л  80041200  1974/2  14.11.1975 

11Ф637 №15Л  79456515  1975/2  27.12.1975 
11Ф637 №16Л  80056516  1975/2  12.05.1976 
11Ф637 №17Л  79412617  1976    28.12.1976 
11Ф637 №18Л  80062618  1976/2  28.10.1977 
11Ф637 №19Л  79462619  1976/2  28.04.1977 
11Ф637 №20Л  80062620  1976/2  24.01.1978 
11Ф637 №21Л  79428721  1977    05.06.1979 
11Ф637 №22Л  80088722  1977/2  13.10.1978 
11Ф637 №23Л  79488723  1977/2  18.01.1979 
11Ф637 №24Л  80088724  1977/2  24.03.1981 
11Ф637 №25Л  79425825  1978    09.01.1981 
11Ф637 №26Л  80095826  1978/2  18.04.1980 
11Ф637 №27Л  79495827  1978/2  18.07.1980 
11Ф637 №28Л  80027800  1979    11.09.1981 
11Ф637 №29Л  79427801  1979    24.03.1982 
11Ф637 №30Л  80043830  1980    09.06.1981 
11Ф637 №31Л  79473831  1980/2  17.10.1981 
11Ф637 №32Л  80059132  1981    30.08.1983 
11Ф637 №33Л  79459133  1981    27.08.1982 
11Ф637 №34Л  80014234  1982    11.03.1983 
11Ф637 №35Л  79414235  1982    21.12.1983 
11Ф637 №36Л  80054236  1982/2  16.01.1985 
11Ф637 №37Л  79454237  1982/2  17.07.1985 
11Ф637 №38Л  80092338  1983    03.10.1985 
11Ф637 №39Л  79422339  1983/2  29.05.1985 
11Ф637 №40Л  80056440  1984    24.12.1985 
11Ф637 №41Л  79456441  1984    20.10.1986 
11Ф637 №42Л  80076442  1984/2  22.01.1987 
11Ф637 №43Л  79476443  1984/2  18.04.1986 
11Ф637 №44Л  80071544  1985    19.06.1986 
11Ф637 №45Л  79471545  1985    08.06.1989 
11Ф637 №46Л  80091546  1985/2  28.11.1989 
11Ф637 №47Л  79448147  1986    13.06.1990 
11Ф637 №48Л  80048148  1986    17.09.1991 
11Ф637 №49Л  79425249  1987    26.05.1988 
11Ф637 №50Л       250          14.10.1992 
11Ф637 №51Л  79469351  1988    29.09.1988 
11Ф637 №52Л  80089352  1988/2  22.12.1988 
11Ф637 №53Л  79489353  1988/2  23.01.1990 
11Ф637 №54Л  80017454  1989    20.09.1990 
11Ф637 №55Л  79453355  1990    22.03.1991 

11Ф637 №64Л  80035764  1998    25.10.2001 
11Ф637 №65Л  79474365  2000    19.06.2003 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/12/2013 11:09 am
Am I right in thinking that Laveikin was the last person to have returned to earth earlier than planned because of a medical condition?

Thanks.

Zholobov too, during Soyuz-21 flight to Salyut-5 space station.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Archibald on 01/30/2013 08:10 am
(I hope this is the right place to ask that question)

In the Challenge to Apollo monography Asif Siddiqi mentions that

Quote
In the case of the LOK, sixteen ships had been originally ordered. Of these, by February 1970, seven had been manufactured, although only three were being ground-tested for future flight operations

Only one LOK was ever flown, on the last N-1 late 1972.
The obvious question is, does anybody knows what happened to all the other LOKs ? were they scrapped ? I mean, we are talking about a bunch of lunar Soyuz(s) there...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/30/2013 02:51 pm
(I hope this is the right place to ask that question)

In the Challenge to Apollo monography Asif Siddiqi mentions that

Quote
In the case of the LOK, sixteen ships had been originally ordered. Of these, by February 1970, seven had been manufactured, although only three were being ground-tested for future flight operations

Only one LOK was ever flown, on the last N-1 late 1972.
The obvious question is, does anybody knows what happened to all the other LOKs ? were they scrapped ? I mean, we are talking about a bunch of lunar Soyuz(s) there...

There is one at MAI, and one sitting underneath Korolyev College.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 02/18/2013 04:13 am
What will be the last mission that Kurs-A will be used on?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 02/18/2013 04:33 am
What will be the last mission that Kurs-A will be used on?

Kurs-A will be around for a long time, since it represents the active component of any Kurs system.

What is going away is Kurs-cm, the current centimeter band version which has been around since the mid-1980s. Kurs-cm has both active and passive components.

The new system had some problems during its test on Progress, so I cannot say when it will be flown exclusively, so that the current Kurs system can be retired.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 02/18/2013 04:47 am
What will be the last mission that Kurs-A will be used on?

Kurs-A will be around for a long time, since it represents the active component of any Kurs system.

What is going away is Kurs-cm, the current centimeter band version which has been around since the mid-1980s. Kurs-cm has both active and passive components.

The new system had some problems during its test on Progress, so I cannot say when it will be flown exclusively, so that the current Kurs system can be retired.


Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nickolai on 03/18/2013 04:04 pm
Did the Russians do a sort of "go/no go" polling like they do in America? Does anyone have any footage of them doing such a poll?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/18/2013 04:17 pm
Did the Russians do a sort of "go/no go" polling like they do in America? Does anyone have any footage of them doing such a poll?

I think they do, although given that most of the staff on console are doing this in the underground bunker (at least for most Soyuz / Proton launches) it's not as visible as launches from other countries. Also they use numbers as console callsigns (http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=10418) (e.g. 1 = launch director; the Chinese use a similar system with the LD at console zero).

Maybe someone here can expand on this....
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 03/18/2013 06:52 pm
What is this white thing ??

http://www.energia.ru/ru/news/news-2013/news_03-18.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 03/19/2013 11:04 am
What is this white thing ??

http://www.energia.ru/ru/news/news-2013/news_03-18.html

A blok-d?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 03/19/2013 05:14 pm
It was my first thought, but it seems to be too little... Don't you think so ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: erioladastra on 03/19/2013 11:40 pm
Did the Russians do a sort of "go/no go" polling like they do in America? Does anyone have any footage of them doing such a poll?

I don't believe they do.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 03/21/2013 02:21 am
What is this white thing ??

http://www.energia.ru/ru/news/news-2013/news_03-18.html

It is a Block DM in the KIS. It looks small due to the perspective of the view.

In this photo and the previous in the series, people are looking up at something in the KIS, but that something is not the Block-DM. There used to be a shuttle in the KIS that people would look up at, but it is gone. So, there is something interesting in the KIS that is quite tall.

BTW, the greenish object in the back of the photo would be the MLM.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/14/2013 02:34 am
What is the maximum power generated by the solar panels on the current Soyuz spacecraft? I can't find the figure anywhere in the documents I have (including those one L2!)...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/14/2013 12:04 pm
What is the maximum power generated by the solar panels on the current Soyuz spacecraft? I can't find the figure anywhere in the documents I have (including those one L2!)...

The generally accepted figure has been a max of 1,000 watts. However, the panels were recently upgraded.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: trothamel on 04/20/2013 03:52 pm
What orientation is the Soyuz in when it separates into the three modules before re-entry?

Watching video of the re-entry taken from the ISS, it looks like the descent module winds up ahead of the orbital and propulsion-instrumentation modules. I was wondering how this occurred while avoiding recontact.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/20/2013 04:13 pm
What orientation is the Soyuz in when it separates into the three modules before re-entry?

Watching video of the re-entry taken from the ISS, it looks like the descent module winds up ahead of the orbital and propulsion-instrumentation modules. I was wondering how this occurred while avoiding recontact.

The Soyuz attitude is perpendicular to the flight path at separation. That means that the three modules follow the same flight path, but the OM is "lower" and the PAO is "higher" in relation to the descent module. After aerodynamic forces are felt, the descent module effectively flies away from the other modules.

Relative separation velocity for the modules is a good fraction of a meter per second, so after 30 seconds or so, the modules are some distance from each other.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 04/30/2013 08:41 pm
I was surprised to see that there's a Zenit-derived return capsule at the Museum of Flight in Seattle: the one of the Resurs 500, which flew in orbit for 7 days in 1992. Apparently it does not carry cameras (or does it? Does anybody knows?).
I would like to see if someone got detailed pictures of the inside and exterior of the capsule during a visit.

Resurs-500 was nothing more than a publicity stunt.   The spacecraft contained nothing useful, just trunkets to give to the Americans, it intentionally splashed down, was recovery by the Americans and the flight was declared a success.

This plaquette at the museum flight (http://coolnewz.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/13_resurs-500.jpg) tells, that it was of the Resurs-F1 (14F43) type. If this is true, ther should have been cameras. My impression was , that it was a standard Resurs-F1 mission flown with additional stuff as a public relations mission.

I would really like to see a pre-launch photo of Resurs-500

It says 17F41?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrysophylax/200700694/sizes/o/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mhammergren/336575093/in/photostream/
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 05/02/2013 04:31 pm
On the other hand, Resurs-500 could simply have taken the spacecraft shell from an unused Resurs-F1 - that is, without its camera system - and filled with trivia and junk to be sold in the USA.   That would make more sense that there being a photographic component of the Resurs-500 mission.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 05/02/2013 08:04 pm
On the other hand, Resurs-500 could simply have taken the spacecraft shell from an unused Resurs-F1 - that is, without its camera system - and filled with trivia and junk to be sold in the USA.   That would make more sense that there being a photographic component of the Resurs-500 mission.

Thing is there are gaps in Resurs-F sequence, but no gaps in the 17F41. Nor is there any apparent spares rockets.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Remes on 05/25/2013 10:29 pm
What are the marked parts in picture 1 used for?

I assume the parts can be extracted by pyrotechnic actuators. But the shroud is jettisoned when nearly no air is present, so it wouldn't make any difference if they extracted (e.g. to support the shroud separation process).

In the (last) picture from the video the shroud is jettisoned and the marked parts remain in their position.

The only thing I can think of is that they are used in a launch abort sequence to get rid of the shroud. But somehow it is weird. It's it really not as aerodynamic as you would expect from outer rocket parts.

I saw the same panels on a Russian ICBM, but they were on the first stage. Most likely they had the same function as a separation booster.

Edit: Just found that:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RP1357_p51_Soyuz_launch_pad_abort_sequence.svg
Looks like it stabilizes the las?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 05/26/2013 06:08 am
What are the marked parts in picture 1 used for?

I assume the parts can be extracted by pyrotechnic actuators. But the shroud is jettisoned when nearly no air is present, so it wouldn't make any difference if they extracted (e.g. to support the shroud separation process).

In the (last) picture from the video the shroud is jettisoned and the marked parts remain in their position.

The only thing I can think of is that they are used in a launch abort sequence to get rid of the shroud. But somehow it is weird. It's it really not as aerodynamic as you would expect from outer rocket parts.

I saw the same panels on a Russian ICBM, but they were on the first stage. Most likely they had the same function as a separation booster.

Edit: Just found that:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RP1357_p51_Soyuz_launch_pad_abort_sequence.svg
Looks like it stabilizes the las?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22651.0
http://www.cosmopark.ru/r7/r726.htm
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Remes on 05/26/2013 12:12 pm
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22651.0
http://www.cosmopark.ru/r7/r726.htm
Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 05/31/2013 04:01 am
Someone asked on a Reddit forum, why is the Orlan spacesuit creamy-colored and not white? Googling brings me no information, only that the outer layer is made of a heat-resistant fabric called phenylon (via this PDF document (http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen3036/Orlan.pdf)). Is the fabric that color naturally?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 05/31/2013 12:50 pm
This may be a stupid question, but where were the soft-landing engines on Voskhod spacecraft ??
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 05/31/2013 01:02 pm
This may be a stupid question, but where were the soft-landing engines on Voskhod spacecraft ??

In the parachute harness.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 05/31/2013 05:31 pm
This may be a stupid question, but where were the soft-landing engines on Voskhod spacecraft ??

In the parachute harness.

Look at this picture I've taken in Samara :

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/satellites/foton/visite/08/fig4-3.jpg

You can see what seems to be a solid engine in the parachute compartment. Is it really the soft landing engine ?

If yes, it raises two questions :

1. Is there soft-landing engines on all Bion and Foton spacecrafts ?
2. How does it works, if it is directed toward the "up" direction ?

In another place in Samara, there was a Bion on display, with the same engine next to it :

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/satellites/bion/visite/10/10.html

You can read "1..Д50".

In this page of NK forum, they speak about an "14Д50" engine...

http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum9/topic11293/
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Moe Grills on 05/31/2013 06:22 pm
Two questions:

1) When was the first Soviet/Russian satellite launched into GEO?

2) When was the first Soviet/Russian satellite launched into polar orbit?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: 360-180 on 05/31/2013 06:39 pm
This may be a stupid question, but where were the soft-landing engines on Voskhod spacecraft ??

In the parachute harness.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skyrocket on 05/31/2013 07:45 pm
Two questions:

1) When was the first Soviet/Russian satellite launched into GEO?

On 26 March 1974 Kosmos-637 was launched into GEO. It was a mockup of the Raduga comsat.
The first functional GEO satellite was Molniya-1S on 29. July 1974. This was a Molniya satellite modified for GEO operations

2) When was the first Soviet/Russian satellite launched into polar orbit?
Which inclinations do you consider polar?
If 81° is polar enough, this would be Kosmos 144, a Meteor-1 weather satellite, on 28 February 1967
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 05/31/2013 08:44 pm
Someone asked on a Reddit forum, why is the Orlan spacesuit creamy-colored and not white? Googling brings me no information, only that the outer layer is made of a heat-resistant fabric called phenylon (via this PDF document (http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen3036/Orlan.pdf)). Is the fabric that color naturally?
This is something I would also like to know.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: AnalogMan on 05/31/2013 09:21 pm
Someone asked on a Reddit forum, why is the Orlan spacesuit creamy-colored and not white? Googling brings me no information, only that the outer layer is made of a heat-resistant fabric called phenylon (via this PDF document (http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen3036/Orlan.pdf)). Is the fabric that color naturally?

This is something I would also like to know.


As I understand it Phenylon® is a Russian tradename for a material  equivalent to Dupont's Nomex® - otherwise know to chemists as  poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide) or PMPI for short.

This is a high-performance polymer, with high thermal and mechanical resistance, described by Dupont as "inherently  flame-resistant, high-temperature fiber that will not melt, drip or  support combustion in air. It also delivers outstanding resistance to a  broad range of chemicals and is offered in paper, felt, fabric and fiber  forms”

The natural color of Nomex® is usually described as "off-white" or "ivory", and many variants are classed as non-dyeable.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 06/01/2013 03:35 am
Thanks! Mystery solved  :)
As I understand it Phenylon® is a Russian tradename for a material  equivalent to Dupont's Nomex® - otherwise know to chemists as  poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide) or PMPI for short.

This is a high-performance polymer, with high thermal and mechanical resistance, described by Dupont as "inherently  flame-resistant, high-temperature fiber that will not melt, drip or  support combustion in air. It also delivers outstanding resistance to a  broad range of chemicals and is offered in paper, felt, fabric and fiber  forms”

The natural color of Nomex® is usually described as "off-white" or "ivory", and many variants are classed as non-dyeable.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 06/01/2013 10:55 am
Someone asked on a Reddit forum, why is the Orlan spacesuit creamy-colored and not white? Googling brings me no information, only that the outer layer is made of a heat-resistant fabric called phenylon (via this PDF document (http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen3036/Orlan.pdf)). Is the fabric that color naturally?

This is something I would also like to know.


As I understand it Phenylon® is a Russian tradename for a material  equivalent to Dupont's Nomex® - otherwise know to chemists as  poly(m-phenylene isophthalamide) or PMPI for short.

This is a high-performance polymer, with high thermal and mechanical resistance, described by Dupont as "inherently  flame-resistant, high-temperature fiber that will not melt, drip or  support combustion in air. It also delivers outstanding resistance to a  broad range of chemicals and is offered in paper, felt, fabric and fiber  forms”

The natural color of Nomex® is usually described as "off-white" or "ivory", and many variants are classed as non-dyeable.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Moe Grills on 06/01/2013 06:34 pm


2) When was the first Soviet/Russian satellite launched into polar orbit?
Which inclinations do you consider polar?
If 81° is polar enough, this would be Kosmos 144, a Meteor-1 weather satellite, on 28 February 1967

Good enough for me. Thanks.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 06/03/2013 04:33 pm
This may be a stupid question, but where were the soft-landing engines on Voskhod spacecraft ??

In the parachute harness.

Look at this picture I've taken in Samara :

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/satellites/foton/visite/08/fig4-3.jpg

You can see what seems to be a solid engine in the parachute compartment. Is it really the soft landing engine ?

If yes, it raises two questions :

1. Is there soft-landing engines on all Bion and Foton spacecrafts ?
2. How does it works, if it is directed toward the "up" direction ?

In another place in Samara, there was a Bion on display, with the same engine next to it :

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/satellites/bion/visite/10/10.html

You can read "1..Д50".

In this page of NK forum, they speak about an "14Д50" engine...

http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum9/topic11293/

Good piece of detective work Nicolas! By the way have you discovered what happened to Bion №12?

Stan
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/03/2013 06:53 pm
By the way have you discovered what happened to Bion №12?

No. Are you sure it has ever been built ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 06/03/2013 07:05 pm
By the way have you discovered what happened to Bion №12?

No. Are you sure it has ever been built ?

 The previous Bion was 12КС №Н15000-11, and the Н indicates it was intended for 1993. It flew at the end of 1996.

 Bion №12 was planned for the summer of 1998. NASA dropped it's participation in 1997 after the recovery of Bion №11.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 06/09/2013 06:54 am
If Nauka is №17901 and Zarya is №17501, what were №17601, №17701 or №17801?

http://www.energia.ru/ru/news/news-2013/im/photo_04-04-02.jpg
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: PatekL on 06/11/2013 07:23 pm
If Nauka is №17901 and Zarya is №17501, what were №17601, №17701 or №17801?

http://www.energia.ru/ru/news/news-2013/im/photo_04-04-02.jpg
L+K 19/2000: USM/UDM, 77KMS No 17801
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 06/11/2013 08:24 pm
If Nauka is №17901 and Zarya is №17501, what were №17601, №17701 or №17801?

http://www.energia.ru/ru/news/news-2013/im/photo_04-04-02.jpg
L+K 19/2000: USM/UDM, 77KMS No 17801

Interesting, thank you!

Also seen references to №17502 for FGB-2.

http://88.210.62.157/content/numbers/131/09.shtml
http://88.210.62.157/content/numbers/200/29.shtml
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 06/12/2013 04:09 pm
Are there any good overview articles (English/Russian/other languages) on the control rooms (console positions etc) and other equipment of MCC-Moscow/TsUP?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 06/28/2013 07:48 am
I would like to know too! I have searched but can't find any details (on English sites, at least), and nothing on the TsUP site (http://www.mcc.rsa.ru). (NASA has an interactive diagram of their own MC on a page (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/behindscenes/index.html) of their site.)

Are there any good overview articles (English/Russian/other languages) on the control rooms (console positions etc) and other equipment of MCC-Moscow/TsUP?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Suzy on 07/16/2013 03:53 am
What are these (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-34/html/201212190009hq.html) being worn over the Sokol spacesuits before launch - protective covers? Or is it a new Sokol design?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 07/16/2013 09:01 am
What are these (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-34/html/201212190009hq.html) being worn over the Sokol spacesuits before launch - protective covers? Or is it a new Sokol design?

Definitely a cover, it was extremely cold on launch day. And I'm almost sure I've seen them used before.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 07/16/2013 11:53 am
Definitely a cover, it was extremely cold on launch day. And I'm almost sure I've seen them used before.

Yes, it is a cover to protect cosmonauts from the very cold temperature, developped by NPP Zvezda in Tomilino.

It was their first use, and the last for now.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 07/16/2013 07:01 pm
Definitely a cover, it was extremely cold on launch day. And I'm almost sure I've seen them used before.

Yes, it is a cover to protect cosmonauts from the very cold temperature, developped by NPP Zvezda in Tomilino.

It was their first use, and the last for now.


No; they are wearing special thermal garments, have a look at: http://rsc-etestpilot.blogspot.nl/2012/11/blog-post_20.html

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2413.html
New suits?

Thanks, Nice information. Here is another news.
http://ria.ru/science/20121219/915504283.html
Quote
"Equipment does not yet have its own name and is called simply" a thermal kit. "It is very light, does not restrict movement, and with the help of an assistant, is removed from the astronaut in seconds. We are very proud that today our overalls for the first time and successfully used. This heat shield was created by us in record time - just a couple of months from prototyping to production of the first sample, "- said Pozdnyakov.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: malenfant on 09/02/2013 07:19 am
Did the flown airlock on voskhod 2 have an outer fabric covering over the aeroboom  structure?  Most of the literature points that it did (unlike the test article now fitted to the capsule at the energia museum).  ...But leonovs paintings almost always show the aerobooms visible.  Maybe it's artistic license but it seems odd.  Did anyone ever ask him?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 09/07/2013 10:31 am
Trying to understand VNIIEM based satellites. Not sure about Resurs-O1.
http://jurnal.vniiem.ru/text/105/4.pdf


Platform/satellite bus: СП-I

30 satellites with an average lifespan of 3 years and 8 months.

22x 11F632 Meteor-2 (operational from 1975 to 1995)
6x Resurs-O1 (operational from 1980 to 2000)
Interkosmos-Bolgariya-1300 (1981-1983)
Astrofizika (1978-1979)

Meteor-2
Can’t find 30th December 1987, on Gunter’s or Jonathan’s lists?
http://planet4589.org/space/lvdb/launch/R-36
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/meteor-2.htm
http://www.eoportal.org/directory/pres_Meteor3Program.html

Resurs-O1
11Ф651 Resurs-OE
18.06.1980 №3-1 Meteor-Priroda 8А92М №76038313
24.07.1983 №3-2 Kosmos-1484 8А92М №77049376
11Ф697 Resurs-О1
03.10.1985 Kosmos-1689 8А92М №76053344
20.04.1988 Kosmos-1939 8А92М №И15000-78
04.11.1994 Ресурс-О1 №3
Document says 6?

Platforum/satellite bus: СП-II Resurs-UKP

9 satellites with an average lifespan of over 4 years.

7x Meteor-3
Ресурс-О1 №4
Meteor-3M №1

Platforum/satellite bus: Modified Resurs-UKP

Elektro №1

Platforum/satellite bus: Modified Resurs-UKP

Koronas-Foton

Platforum/satellite bus: UKP-M

4x Meteor-M

Platforum/satellite bus: UKP-M3

Meteor-M №3

 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Bob Shaw on 09/07/2013 11:42 am
Did the flown airlock on voskhod 2 have an outer fabric covering over the aeroboom  structure?  Most of the literature points that it did (unlike the test article now fitted to the capsule at the energia museum).  ...But leonovs paintings almost always show the aerobooms visible.  Maybe it's artistic license but it seems odd.  Did anyone ever ask him?

I'd also like to know the colour of the capsule, and if the air bottles had thermal covers too (and the upper 'tower').
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 09/15/2013 07:29 am
Trying to understand VNIIEM based satelites. Not sure about Resurs-O1.
http://jurnal.vniiem.ru/text/105/4.pdf


Platforum/satellite bus: СП-I

30 satellites with an average lifespan of 3 years and 8 months.

22x 11F632 Meteor-2 (operational from 1975 to 1995)
6x Resurs-O1 (operational from 1980 to 2000)
Interkosmos-Bolgariya-1300 (1981-1983)
Astrofizika (1978-1979)

Meteor-2
Can’t find 30th December 1987, on Gunter’s or Jonathan’s lists?
http://planet4589.org/space/lvdb/launch/R-36
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/meteor-2.htm
http://www.eoportal.org/directory/pres_Meteor3Program.html

Resurs-O1
11Ф651 Resurs-OE
18.06.1980 №3-1 Meteor-Priroda 8А92М №76038313
24.07.1983 №3-2 Kosmos-1484 8А92М №77049376
11Ф697 Resurs-О1
03.10.1985 Kosmos-1689 8А92М №76053344
20.04.1988 Kosmos-1939 8А92М №И15000-78
04.11.1994 Ресурс-О1 №3
Document says 6?

Platforum/satellite bus: СП-II Resurs-UKP

9 satellites with an average lifespan of over 4 years.

7x Meteor-3
Ресурс-О1 №4
Meteor-3M №1

Platforum/satellite bus: Modified Resurs-UKP

Elektro №1

Platforum/satellite bus: Modified Resurs-UKP

Koronas-Foton

Platforum/satellite bus: UKP-M

4x Meteor-M

Platforum/satellite bus: UKP-M3

Meteor-M №3

Another publication that says 22 Meteor-2?

http://www.kuriermedia.ru/data/objects/2036/70_VNIIEM.pdf

Also if we trust Wikipedia

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ФГУП_«НПП_ВНИИЭМ» (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ФГУП_«НПП_ВНИИЭМ»)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skyrocket on 09/15/2013 11:52 am

Meteor-2
Can’t find 30th December 1987, on Gunter’s or Jonathan’s lists?
http://planet4589.org/space/lvdb/launch/R-36
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/meteor-2.htm
http://www.eoportal.org/directory/pres_Meteor3Program.html


I am also somewhat puzzled, were this 30th December 1987 launch comes from. IFAIK, it is sure, that there was no successful orbital launch on this date. Also there are no hints on an Tsiklon-3 launch failure.

In the eoportal list, the 30th December 1987 launch has exactly the same orbital data as the 06th December 1985 launch (which is also wron, as there was launch on this date, but on 26th December 1985). Iguess, there is somethin mixed up in the eoPortal list.


Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 09/16/2013 05:42 am
Rokot is launched from a transport and launch container.

If I understand correctly there were six of these in Baikonur that required disposal.

However there were only three Rokot from Baikonur

So when were they launched?

29.03.1990
20.11.1990
21.12.1990
26.11.1991
20.12.1991
26.12.1994

http://planet4589.org/space/lvdb/launch/UR-100N

http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=1163830
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 10/18/2013 09:03 pm
If I understand the following, then the attempted recovery of Foton-M is to be in 2015?

http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=7313789

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 11/15/2013 05:44 pm
Photographs of Kosmos-772 descent module

http://www.otvaga2004.ru/fotoreportazhi/voyennye-muzei/kapsula-kosmos-772-fotoobzor/
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 11/16/2013 05:14 pm
Thank you Stan !!!!!!

http://museumvdv.ru/podarok-iz-baykonura.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: SMS on 01/23/2014 04:04 pm
Today there were publish Progress M-22M cargo photos at Roscosmos web page.

One was at: http://www.federalspace.ru/media/gallery/big/20148/2758483809.jpg

What is it or what could it be? Any idea?

Thanks for your assistance.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 01/23/2014 09:09 pm
Today there were publish Progress M-22M cargo photos at Roscosmos web page.

One was at: http://www.federalspace.ru/media/gallery/big/20148/2758483809.jpg

What is it or what could it be? Any idea?

Thanks for your assistance.
Propellant (UDMH) tank?

From the press release

"Параллельно были выполнены запланированные операции с ТГК перед его транспортировкой на заправочную станцию. Работы по заправке баков двигательной установки ТГК компонентами топлива планируется выполнить в конце текущей недели."
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/23/2014 10:48 pm
Today there were publish Progress M-22M cargo photos at Roscosmos web page.

One was at: http://www.federalspace.ru/media/gallery/big/20148/2758483809.jpg

What is it or what could it be? Any idea?

Thanks for your assistance.
Propellant (UDMH) tank?

From the press release

"Параллельно были выполнены запланированные операции с ТГК перед его транспортировкой на заправочную станцию. Работы по заправке баков двигательной установки ТГК компонентами топлива планируется выполнить в конце текущей недели."

It would seem to be internal cargo, given the context of the other photos. Besides, it is far too small to be one of the prop tanks, and these installed at the factory, not the launch site. IIRC, prop tanks are colored dark green.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Remes on 01/31/2014 03:19 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lVlwzTc0xis

I found this great video, which gives a lot of inside views in the technology of the Soyuz LV. Could someone tell/translate me, what the men at 10:42 is explaining? Are that the actuators for the vernier engines?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: baldusi on 01/31/2014 04:36 pm
I've got another question. Is there any estimation of how much payload a Proton-M/Briz-M would have to GTO (1,500m/s) if launched from Kourou, for example?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/31/2014 04:39 pm
I've got another question. Is there any estimation of how much payload a Proton-M/Briz-M would have to GTO (1,500m/s) if launched from Kourou, for example?

It can be estimated by using SeaLaunch/LandLaunch as an analog, so the result is about double.

YMMV.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/01/2014 05:41 am
I've got another question. Is there any estimation of how much payload a Proton-M/Briz-M would have to GTO (1,500m/s) if launched from Kourou, for example?

I tried Schilling's launch performance calculator to answer this very question some time ago - IIRC the answer is >8 tonnes (maybe closer to 8.5 with all the performance refinements lately).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Remes on 04/10/2014 10:15 pm
http://www.energia.ru/ru/news/news-2014/im/photo_04-09-12.jpg

The valves shown in the upper right corner (3 rather large valves, not the solenods on the right end):
- are they the same as on the ATV External Bay?
- Are that switched or linear valves?
- Does anyone know what kind of actuator is used? Solenoid/Brushless/Stepper/...
- Is any Feedbackdevice embedded? (Pressure sensor, some position sensor, ...)

Generally what kind of actuators are Russian/Ukrainian/... systems using on their valves for rockets, modules, engines, ...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/14/2014 06:21 pm
http://www.energia.ru/ru/news/news-2014/im/photo_04-09-12.jpg

The valves shown in the upper right corner (3 rather large valves, not the solenods on the right end):
- are they the same as on the ATV External Bay?
- Are that switched or linear valves?
- Does anyone know what kind of actuator is used? Solenoid/Brushless/Stepper/...
- Is any Feedbackdevice embedded? (Pressure sensor, some position sensor, ...)

Generally what kind of actuators are Russian/Ukrainian/... systems using on their valves for rockets, modules, engines, ...

These look to be ТМДТ valves, similar to those on Pirs.

Assuming this is the case, the fuel and oxidizer lines would both have a pressure sensor and a temperature sensor (actually, a pressure sensor for each manifold).

The L2 documentation may have more specific information for the Node module.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Remes on 04/23/2014 12:11 am
These look to be ТМДТ valves, similar to those on Pirs.
What does the acronym stand for? Couldn't find anything.

http://technomag.edu.ru/doc/50693.html

This site mentions brushless DC motors in use since the 60's. In Chertok's book typical valve types where mentioned (pyro, pneumatic, solenoid, stepper).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 04/23/2014 05:04 am
These look to be ТМДТ valves, similar to those on Pirs.
What does the acronym stand for? Couldn't find anything.


Its the propellant lines.

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: fregate on 04/23/2014 05:09 am
These look to be ТМДТ valves, similar to those on Pirs.
What does the acronym stand for? Couldn't find anything.

http://technomag.edu.ru/doc/50693.html (http://technomag.edu.ru/doc/50693.html)

This site mentions brushless DC motors in use since the 60's. In Chertok's book typical valve types where mentioned (pyro, pneumatic, solenoid, stepper).
Система ТМДТ (транзитные магистрали дозаправки топливом) IMHO the best translation would be refueling system feed line
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 05/21/2014 05:27 pm
Someone has an idea of which Progress is shown in this video, at 3'18" ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu5Cghs4ZC8
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 05/21/2014 05:33 pm
Someone has an idea of which Progress is shown in this video, at 3'18"?

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/inspector-1.htm
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 07/21/2014 10:39 am
14К034 is the code used to cover a complete rocket and satellite system.

What I can find out is that the launch is to use:-
Fregat upper stage.
Debris from the launch is to fall in the Arkhangelsk Region and the town Vashka in the Komi Republic (Архангельской области и Республики Коми в местечке Вашка).

So are those normal drop zones for a Soyuz Fregat launch from Plesetsk?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 07/21/2014 03:10 pm
This is a question about the launch processing of the Soyuz rocket (or the Semyorka):

Earlier this month 2 launches of the Soyuz were done from the same pad in the span of less than 10 days (Meteor-M #2 on July 8 and Foton-M #4 on July 18, both from pad 31/6 at Baikonur, with the later being a unique launch that requires the rocket rolling out just 1 day before launch due to last-minute load of biological experiments!), something that even the R-7 hasn't done for quite some time. My questions are:
1. How much maintenance is needed for the Soyuz pads between launches?
2. Can a same pad support a 10-day turnaround between 2 launch operations for more than a few launches if necessary?
3. Are there any configuration changes required at the pads between different R-7 variants flying today (of course the new Soyuz-2.1v would need some changes, but what about between a Soyuz-2 and a Soyuz-U? What about the Molniya-M when it used to fly?)
4. In theory, how many launch operations can the different Soyuz pads (at Baikonur, Plesetsk and at Kourou, as well as at Vostochny in the next year or 2) support today in one calender year?

I must say that I am impressed at the launch pace the R-7 can support even in 2014, especially considering that I heard the launch processing of the Soyuz rocket requires quite a bit of manual operations and unique procedures for rockets worldwide (e.g. using hydrogen peroxide for powering engine turbopumps)! A certain SoCal aerospace company might be able to learn from the engineers of Samara....  ;)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 08/11/2014 05:06 pm
This is a question about the launch processing of the Soyuz rocket (or the Semyorka):

Earlier this month 2 launches of the Soyuz were done from the same pad in the span of less than 10 days (Meteor-M #2 on July 8 and Foton-M #4 on July 18, both from pad 31/6 at Baikonur, with the later being a unique launch that requires the rocket rolling out just 1 day before launch due to last-minute load of biological experiments!), something that even the R-7 hasn't done for quite some time. My questions are:
1. How much maintenance is needed for the Soyuz pads between launches?
2. Can a same pad support a 10-day turnaround between 2 launch operations for more than a few launches if necessary?
3. Are there any configuration changes required at the pads between different R-7 variants flying today (of course the new Soyuz-2.1v would need some changes, but what about between a Soyuz-2 and a Soyuz-U? What about the Molniya-M when it used to fly?)
4. In theory, how many launch operations can the different Soyuz pads (at Baikonur, Plesetsk and at Kourou, as well as at Vostochny in the next year or 2) support today in one calender year?

I must say that I am impressed at the launch pace the R-7 can support even in 2014, especially considering that I heard the launch processing of the Soyuz rocket requires quite a bit of manual operations and unique procedures for rockets worldwide (e.g. using hydrogen peroxide for powering engine turbopumps)! A certain SoCal aerospace company might be able to learn from the engineers of Samara....  ;)

Bumping this since I really want to know how on Earth the pad turn-around is so quick!? I mean look at SpaceX trying to get a 3 week turn-around and it looks like the limit isn't very far from that......  :o
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 08/12/2014 03:16 am
Remember that R-7 was designed to fly frequently from a single pad at Baikonur, and was conceived at a time when missiles flew frequently from a handful of pads around the world.

Long pad times are a US invention.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 08/12/2014 05:02 am
Remember that R-7 was designed to fly frequently from a single pad at Baikonur, and was conceived at a time when missiles flew frequently from a handful of pads around the world.

Long pad times are a US invention.

....but how much of the original R-7 design still lives on in, say, the Soyuz-2 series? You can't use the Soyuz-2 as an ICBM after all.....  ;)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 08/12/2014 08:09 pm
Remember that R-7 was designed to fly frequently from a single pad at Baikonur, and was conceived at a time when missiles flew frequently from a handful of pads around the world.

Long pad times are a US invention.

....but how much of the original R-7 design still lives on in, say, the Soyuz-2 series? You can't use the Soyuz-2 as an ICBM after all.....  ;)

To be specific, the core Soyuz 2.1a stage, as an example, is quite similar to the Sputnik R-7 stage. The engines are slightly different, and the avionics are digital, but other than that ........
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: markododa on 08/13/2014 08:03 pm
Is the Proton LV erected on the launch pad fully fueled?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: anik on 08/13/2014 08:18 pm
Is the Proton LV erected on the launch pad fully fueled?

No, only spacecraft and upper stage fueled (Briz-M - fully, DM - partially).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 10/01/2014 01:03 pm
 Kosmos-2382 GLONASS number 711 is a bit of an oddity. It was the only GLONASS with 5 years of resource; but it was not a 14F113 GLONASS-M.
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/sap/2004/vienna/presentations/wednesday/pm/revnivyk.pdf
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/sap/2006/zambia/presentations/02-03.pdf

 Looking back at some older articles from 1998 there are references to GLONASS M1 and GLONASS M2.



News from Moscow No. 41/98
Quote
For GLONASS they have already implemented a small improvement to extend the life from 3 to 5 years. This modification is named GLONASS M1 to be still hermetically sealed. For GLONASS M2 they propose a new platform with the life extended to 7 to 10 years and decreased overall weight.

PM-4.1 Satellite Bus
Applications
Navigation and geodetic satellites on
circular inclined orbits.
Characteristics
Orbit: 1000 to 20000 km, circular
Bus weight: 1180 kg
Payload weight: 340 kg
Bus power supply: 1590 W
Payload consumption: 1100 W
Orbital life: 7-10 years
Launcher: clustered launches on Proton with Breeze upper stage (Baikonur); single launches on Soyuz 2 with Fregat upper stage (Plesetsk)
Project: GLONASS-M (2000); Tsykada-M-UTTKh (2001); GEO-IK-2 (2002)
December 1998

 Also included is an accurate picture of what the GLONASS-M did turn out.



News from Moscow No. 1/99
Quote
Speaking of the future GLONASS launches, Mr. Milov said that build and assembly of the first GLONASS M satellite were not yet complete, so two options are looked at now for the next GLONASS launch: either three standard GLONASS satellites or two standard
GLONASS + one GLONASS M1.
Mr. Milov, deputy director of the Russian Space Agency
January 1999

 The next launch did not occur until October 2000.



14F17 is associated with Kosmos-2382; but the following article just seems to confuse things.

http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/~turyshev/material/Shargorodsky-laser-ranging-1uas-2007.pdf
Quote
Тип КАВысота орб. кмГод запускаКол. КАКол. СВ на КАРазмер системы ретрорефлт.,мм
ГЛОНАСС-М (Россия)19 10020001132∅1660-∅2380
ГЛОНАСС 14Ф1719 10020021124804х804(крест. зона)
ГЛОНАСС М219 10020031112∅1510-∅2311
ГЛОНАСС19 10020032132∅1660-∅2380



 Another way to refer to GLONASS-K1 is GLONASS-K block I; and GLONASS-K2 as GLONASS-K block II. It sounds like the first K2 will be satellite number 13.
http://www.iss-reshetnev.com/images/File/magazin/2010/m11-screen_en.pdf

 The 11F654 Uragan GLONASS satellites also underwent several iterations starting with block I (1413, 1490, 1491, 1519, 1520, 1554, 1555, 1593, 1594, 1650), IIA (Kosmos 1651, 1710, 1711, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1987, 2022, 2023), block IIB (Kosmos 1838, 1839, 1840, 1883, 1884, 1885, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1946, 1947, 1948) and then block IIV (I’m working off some scribbled notes so I might have made a mistake with those numbers).

Further information about the 14Ф17
http://www.kik-sssr.ru/Navigation__history_NPO_PM.htm
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: TakeOff on 10/19/2014 01:14 pm
Are the Russians developing nuclear electric propulsion? I heard Anatoly Zak say so on the Spaceshow, but I can't find much information about it. Does anyone know anything about it?
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2331
Not even on his own website:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: CardBoardBoxProcessor on 10/21/2014 07:14 pm
Does anyone know the core Diameter of the Angara 1st and 2nd stages?

OR where images of RD-175 can be found?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/23/2014 02:14 pm
Does anyone know the core Diameter of the Angara 1st and 2nd stages?



http://russianspaceweb.com/angara1.html#urm1
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 10/23/2014 02:16 pm
Question of the day:

In Russia, it is not uncommon for some workers to be put on 24 hour shifts, ie they come to work twice a week, but for 24 hours at a time.

Does this practice extend to aerospace industry?  I don't know if trains service places like Korolyev on a 24 hour basis, so it doesn't seem likely to me.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 01/02/2015 10:53 pm
Does Strela use hydraulics to extend and unextend?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/03/2015 08:40 am
Does Strela use hydraulics to extend and unextend?

No. Electric engines.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 01/03/2015 09:56 am
Does Strela use hydraulics to extend and unextend?

No. Electric engines.
Can you be more specific?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 01/03/2015 02:11 pm
Can you be more specific?

No, I can't :D
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: CardBoardBoxProcessor on 01/15/2015 02:32 pm
I've seen animations where the orange part (in the provided link) of the Soyuz 4rd stage jettisons. Is this true?

http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2010/725.asp
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: JWag on 01/17/2015 11:58 am
I had just recently learned that as well. Here's another source:

http://russianspaceweb.com/soyuz_lv_stage3.html

Quote from: RussianSpaceWeb
After the third stage separates from the second stage, the aft section also separates from the third stage and splits into three segments.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/17/2015 01:36 pm
I've seen animations where the orange part (in the provided link) of the Soyuz 4rd stage jettisons. Is this true?

http://www.arianespace.com/news-mission-update/2010/725.asp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhqclpAa208
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: CardBoardBoxProcessor on 01/17/2015 08:06 pm
Neet :)  so I guess it splits into 3 sections. and my goodness that booster sep is nutty.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 01/17/2015 09:11 pm
Neet :)  so I guess it splits into 3 sections. and my goodness that booster sep is nutty.

Soyuz has several unique features. Notice how the 1st stage boosters separate; they pivot upwards, remain attached at the top before tumbling away with the oxygen tanks venting to propel them. Also that burst as the payload separates from the third stage, once again an oxygen tank vent opens to push the third stage free.

For Proton there is a similar type of open lattice structure between its first and second stages, but it appears that the cylinder surrounding the second stage engines remains attached to the first stage. This is similar to the Long March rockets.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Remes on 01/26/2015 11:26 pm
The things depicted by red arrows, what is their function?
Is it a corner reflector, or a shielding against the other antenna, or some sort of reflector who focuses on a local antenna?

The deployable antenna is for Kurs, are the others (red arrow) for Kurs, too?

The blue lines, are they showing the path of radio signals?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 02/07/2015 05:15 pm
Everyone knows this famous picture of Chelomey's LK-1 spaceship.

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/lk1/tech/fig5.jpg

I've just found somewhere in my hard drive the very same picture, but with the ejection tower !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: saturnapollo on 02/07/2015 05:24 pm
Quote
The things depicted by red arrows, what is their function?

They are radar shields.

Keith
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manojgj on 04/29/2015 03:54 pm
while discussing about  Progress M-27M cargo mission to ISS is out of control, one of my friend argued that every space flights like satellites or cargo or any other kind of launches an explosives or detonator is attached to  every one of them for safety reasons like when the mission failed by any technical or other  error , the satellite/cargo will be exploded while its atmospheric re-entry .  is it true ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/29/2015 04:06 pm
Depends on the country. Russia/Former Soviet Union historically have used passive Flight Termination (FTS). They just close all the valves, shutdown the engines, and let the rocket just fall back to earth. The US on the other hand has historically used active termination, ie detcord/explosives to break up the stage/payload during a launch failure so that you don't have a large stage full of fuel and oxidizer land on say a school and go BOOM!.

Edit: Just reread your question. In Western countries FTS is used during launch, once in orbit, it is deactivated. So when a satellite reenters, it is not actively broken apart. Progress does not have any explosives on it (Minus the propellant tanks).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: the_other_Doug on 04/29/2015 06:11 pm
I know that unmanned test versions of early American manned spacecraft (specifically Mercury) had small bombs inside that were designed to destroy the craft if they sank or if they were going to land in a location where a competing world power (read: USSR) might get their hands on them.  The term SOFAR bomb comes to mind, but I can't swear that it's the correct designation.

I also seem to recall that there was a spirited debate as to whether or not to include these devices aboard the spacecraft that were actually manned, and that eventually they were removed.  But that there was some question as to whether or not Liberty Bell 7 might have been destroyed by such a device as it sank to the ocean floor, and that the group that eventually salvaged it were grateful that it had not been.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: ZANL188 on 05/31/2015 12:58 pm
What is the purpose of the spinning object on the right side of this Soyuz docking video?  I presume it's part of Kurs...

https://youtu.be/pRaZgSVnsNs
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Proponent on 05/31/2015 04:00 pm
I know that unmanned test versions of early American manned spacecraft (specifically Mercury) had small bombs inside that were designed to destroy the craft if they sank or if they were going to land in a location where a competing world power (read: USSR) might get their hands on them.  The term SOFAR bomb comes to mind, but I can't swear that it's the correct designation.

The purpose of the SOFAR bomb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofar_bomb) was quite benign: it helped the recovery team locate the spacecraft.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 05/31/2015 06:38 pm
What is the purpose of the spinning object on the right side of this Soyuz docking video?  I presume it's part of Kurs...


It is the 2AO mechanical scanning antenna, used for part of the short range approach.

The large АСФ1 and АСФ2 antennas scan electronically; together with the 2AO, they can provide the flight computer with a 3 dimensional model of the passive Kurs short range antennas on ISS during the flyaround - in other words, Progress or Soyuz flies around until the 3 Kurs active antennas get a 3D lock on the Kurs passive antennas, and then the flight computer is directed to hold position until the command to proceed is given.

I once read somewhere that the mechanical scanning antenna was to be dropped in favor of a software based solution, but I don't know if this happened.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 07/13/2015 06:40 pm
Gonets-M and Rodnik-S are the same type of satellite, but for different customers. Gonets-M are article 372АС11, whilst Rodnik-S are 14Ф132. They are usually launched in triplets by Rokot.

As with GLONASS a ‘blok’ number is assigned to each multiple launch. The attachment mechanism is article 372АС71 for Gonets-M, whilst for Rodnik-S it is 14С137.

The manufacturer ISS Reshetnev number the first operational satellite of a series as 11.

Gonets-M

Tenders point to blok № 11 with «Gonets-M» № 12, 13, 14. This ended up as «Gonets-M» № 13 and № 15 along with an older generation Strela-3, and the Yubileiny-2 small satellite.

Blok № 12 with «Gonets-M» № 15, 16, 17 however because of the previous launch this ended up as «Gonets-M» № 14, 16, 17.

Contract number 307-1197/12 dated 25th July 2012
Blok № 13 with «Gonets-M» № 18, 19, 20
Blok № 14 with «Gonets-M» № 21, 22, 23
Blok № 15 with «Gonets-M» № 24, 25

Contract number 307-1197/14/381 dated 5th December 2014
«Gonets-M» № 26
Blok № 16 with «Gonets-M» № 27, 28, 29
Blok № 17 with «Gonets-M» № 30, 31, 32

Rodnik-S

Blok № 11
Quote
8 сентября был произведен запуск ракеты-носителя с КА 14С137 и «Гонец-М».
http://www.sq.com.ua/rus/news/ekonomika/20.04.2011/v_2010_g_s_uchastiem_hartrona_bylo_proizvedeno_shest_puskov_raket_v_kosmos/
This ended up joined with «Gonets-M» № 12, and an older generation Strela-3.

Blok № 12 with № 14, 15, 16?

Blok № 13 with № 17, 18, 19?
Blok № 14 with № 20, 21, 22?
This tender refers to launches of 14С137 № 13, 14С137 № 14, 14Ф31 № 12. The customer indicates it was for Rodnik-S.
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/epz/contract/contractCard/common-info.html?reestrNumber=0173100004513000338

Upcoming launches:-
Blok № 15 with № 23, 24, 25?
Blok № 16 with № 26, 27, 28
Indicated in a procurement plan from the manufacturer.
Quote
Проведение дополнительных испытаний (ОИ, ДНК, РФА) ЭРИ, комплектующих аппаратуру КА 14Ф132 №26/16, 27/16, 28/16.
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/223/plan/public/download/download.html?id=1540420
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/223/plan/public/plan/info/actual-documents.html?planId=121794&planInfoId=602783&versioned=&activeTab=1
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: nimbostratus on 07/17/2015 07:08 am
Having viewed so many pics of Russian rockets, I haven't found any Russian rocket with umbilicals at launch pads. And even a lot of rockets don't need a tower at the launch pad. It is not common in the world.

    Is this what is called automation?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Moskit on 07/17/2015 08:37 am
They use different fuel, which doesn't need topping-off near launch time.
Gantry tower is used mainly for providing propellants to the second stage (to avoid pumping them through the whole rocket). For the first stage you can still have umbilicals near the base of the vehicle, without a tower.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Jim on 07/17/2015 10:52 am
Having viewed so many pics of Russian rockets, I haven't found any Russian rocket with umbilicals at launch pads. And even a lot of rockets don't need a tower at the launch pad. It is not common in the world.

    Is this what is called automation?

Proton uses storable propellants
Soyuz has umbilicals but they chose to disconnect them a few minutes before launch
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 11/14/2015 03:13 am
Does anyone have the dimensions of the Hydro Lab (similar to NASA's NBL) that Russia used prior to their current one?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Prof68 on 11/16/2015 06:56 am
Does anyone have the dimensions of the Hydro Lab (similar to NASA's NBL) that Russia used prior to their current one?

As far as I know, current russian hydrolab is their first dedicated facility.
It is build soon after SU restart their EVA program
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 11/16/2015 06:35 pm
Diameter : 23m
Depth : 12m

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/basesorga/tspk/des/hydrolab/hydrolab.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: manboy on 11/19/2015 05:39 am
Diameter : 23m
Depth : 12m

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/basesorga/tspk/des/hydrolab/hydrolab.html
That's Hydro Lab, I need the dimensions of the pool that came before it.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stan Black on 12/27/2015 04:14 pm
So how did Progress M-32 make a second docking to the Mir Complex?

When a Progress-M or Soyuz dock, if fitted the 2AO-VKA antenna is retracted. This cannot be reversed. If a second docking is required it has to be under manual command by TORU?

How many manually Progress dockings have there been?

Eight. Progress M-16, Progress M-24, Progress M-35, Progress M-38, Progress M1-4 (twice), Progress M-53 and Progress M-01M. Fourth docking in ISS program.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 12/27/2015 05:59 pm
Diameter : 23m
Depth : 12m

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/basesorga/tspk/des/hydrolab/hydrolab.html
That's Hydro Lab, I need the dimensions of the pool that came before it.

There was no pool before Hydrolab. Before Hydrolab, crews for firsts Salyut-6 expeditions used the standard training pool of Star City. But this was not intended for training purpose, it was just a "normal" pool...
See figure 1.4 in my article...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Danderman on 01/19/2016 10:20 pm
So how did Progress M-32 make a second docking to the Mir Complex?

When a Progress-M or Soyuz dock, if fitted the 2AO-VKA antenna is retracted. This cannot be reversed. If a second docking is required it has to be under manual command by TORU?

How many manually Progress dockings have there been?

Eight. Progress M-16, Progress M-24, Progress M-35, Progress M-38, Progress M1-4 (twice), Progress M-53 and Progress M-01M. Fourth docking in ISS program.

After the first docking attempt by Progress, all future docking attempts must baseline TORU for the last 100 meters or so after flyaround, except for Progress MS.

This was true for Progress M1-4 which failed to dock at ISS back in 2001.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Slarty1080 on 04/01/2018 11:04 pm
Is there any info or pictures on site concerning the Russian space race moon rocket (N1?)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Bob Shaw on 04/01/2018 11:46 pm
Lots.

Mr Google will assist.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Slarty1080 on 04/02/2018 09:13 am
yes of course! - domain specific search - doh! thx
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Archibald on 04/04/2018 07:06 am
try "challenge to apollo" SP-4408 in the NASA histories. One of the best book on the Soviet space program.

Or this web page http://www.russianspaceweb.com/n1.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Archibald on 04/11/2018 05:42 am
Hmmm...  ;D
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skylab on 04/11/2018 11:03 am
Hmmm...  ;D
As Archibald noted, I posted the same link. In my defense, it was while running Android on a pc, that's far from ideal. Back on Windows now. Try these, for starters:
https://www.space.com/10763-soviet-moon-rocket-infographic.html

https://jalopnik.com/this-insane-rocket-is-why-the-soviet-union-never-made-i-1448356326

And one in German (open in Chrome and choose 'translate')
https://www.bernd-leitenberger.de/hercules.shtml
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: leovinus on 04/11/2018 11:53 am
The links below were mentioned in previous posts here at NSF but I cannot find the old posts at the moment. Lots of great info. http://www.starbase1.co.uk/pages/n-1.html (http://www.starbase1.co.uk/pages/n-1.html) and http://thespacereview.com/article/2954/1 (http://thespacereview.com/article/2954/1)
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Archibald on 04/22/2018 04:34 pm
Hmmm...  ;D
As Archibald noted, I posted the same link. In my defense, it was while running Android on a pc, that's far from ideal. Back on Windows now. Try these, for starters:
https://www.space.com/10763-soviet-moon-rocket-infographic.html

https://jalopnik.com/this-insane-rocket-is-why-the-soviet-union-never-made-i-1448356326

And one in German (open in Chrome and choose 'translate')
https://www.bernd-leitenberger.de/hercules.shtml

Sure, internet on a mobile phone is a nightmare for me, too. For those who ever saw Hotel Transylvania , I sometimes feel like Drac' - a Youtube video is worth a lot of words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpmBUheLLao
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Michel Van on 05/17/2018 06:07 pm
on Books there is this:

N-1:From the Moon and Mars - a Reference guide to the Soviet superbooster

by Matthew Johnson Nick Steven
Arapress
ISBN 978-0-9899914-0-7

the best about N1 rocket and rich illustrated and Picture
sadly its sold out
and as second hand is absurd expensive around $1000 !


Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: lucspace on 06/01/2018 02:07 pm
At what point did the flight controls return to the OM? There have been several photo's of astronauts training at the cupola over the past few years.

The Soyuz cupola: what is its function, given that during docking, the crew remains in the descent module?

 Soyuz-TM did have flight controls up until Soyuz TM-23; but they were removed as part of the mass reductions when the Soyuz-U2 became no longer available… (someone want to correct me; can’t find any references at the moment)

 Soyuz LOK - the moon version had a cupola with controls.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soy7klok.htm

 Soyuz TM-24 lost it's orbital module cupola controls and the LASER range finder.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/136/01.shtml
Quote
Для облегчения корабля №73 было предложено планировать стыковку только с одного захода и отказаться от варианта ручной стыковки. Поэтому на “Союзе” сняли все средства ручного сближения, в том числе и лазерный дальномер.

 Also of interest is Soyuz T-13 which did not feature Igla
http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/n_i_j/1985/11/letopis.html
http://epizodsspace.ru/bibl/savinyh/zapiski/obl.html
http://lib.rus.ec/b/147688
 Also of note is a possible issue with the pressure inside Soyuz T-13?
http://epizodsspace.ru/bibl/savinyh/zapiski/03.html

 And another question is what happened to the Soyuz-U2 that was being prepared for Soyuz TM-23?
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/109/01.shtml
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.shuttle/browse_thread/thread/874f6c25684f7a03/215dcf8dfed71665?#215dcf8dfed71665
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mobile1 on 06/06/2018 01:15 am
Soviet space capsule question.

I watched one TV show that said that when a Soviet capsule returns from space, the cosmonauts bail out at 10,000 feet and parachute to the ground.

Is this true?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Proponent on 06/06/2018 02:18 am
The earliest cosmonauts bailed out of the Vostok spacecraft, yes, but that was in the early 1960's.  It was a touchy point, because the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale requires that a pilot lands with the aircraft if a record is to be set.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mobile1 on 06/06/2018 02:20 am
What do they do now?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Proponent on 06/06/2018 02:22 am
They stay in the craft as it descends under parachute.  Just before touchdown -- on land -- retrorockets fire.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Steve G on 06/06/2018 12:46 pm
Is there any good footage of cosmonauts getting into the Soyuz on the launchpad? Lots of egress shots on landing, but I've never seen them get into the capsule.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: mobile1 on 06/06/2018 02:18 pm
Thank you.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: lucspace on 06/06/2018 02:59 pm
IIRC there was a cameraman with the Soyuz TM-21 crew as they travelled in the lift up the launch tower and there were views of at least some of the crew members crawling into the spacecraft... I cannot find it on Youtube though...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Steve G on 06/07/2018 04:15 am
I've searched and I've never seen a "white room" view equivalent of a crew boarding a soyuz. It must be quite the crawl entering the orbital module hatch and then a significant drop to the seats wearing the spacesuits. Does anyone know the detailed ingress process?

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Saage on 06/10/2018 06:41 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWSD8xvl4TY&index=36&list=LLffSvEDGcN7bRed4SjMBnig&t=749s

starting at around 8:00
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Phillip Clark on 06/10/2018 11:23 am
I asked about the lack of footage of crews entering the Soyuz when Mark Shuttleworth attended a meeting of the British Interplanetary Society.   He said that there's simply not enough room for a cameraman to operate without getting into people's way.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: darkenfast on 06/10/2018 05:36 pm
Here you go: "9 Minutes Before Space". English-dubbed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJPB-F8C168
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Steve G on 06/10/2018 07:12 pm
Awesome video. Watched the entire thing. Thanks so much.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/11/2018 06:57 pm
Somebody knows if "SL-x" designation for Soviet launch vehicles were given by CIA, NATO, or anyone else ?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Proponent on 06/11/2018 08:18 pm
Or maybe the Library of Congress?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: GClark on 06/12/2018 05:34 am
SL-x designations were DOD.

The Library of Congress/Sheldon system was the letter-number designations.

The NATO designations were names, the first letter of which told you what kind of vehicle it was - S for surface-to-surface, G for Ground-to-Air, etc.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: libra on 10/13/2019 05:29 pm
I was checking spacecraft list on that excellent, detailed website

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e8-5m.htm
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e8-5.htm
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e8.htm

And I'm left wondering:
Was there a Lunokhod number 202 ? what happened to it ?

And about the Luna  sample return ships - seems number 409 and 411 are missing.

Were they mockups or ground-test engineering models ? (in the N-1 sequence the mockups were included)

It is mind-boggling, the number of sample scoopers the Soviets build, and the percentage lost to defective Protons.  :o
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Skyrocket on 10/13/2019 06:08 pm
I was checking spacecraft list on that excellent, detailed website

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e8-5m.htm
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e8-5.htm
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e8.htm

And I'm left wondering:
Was there a Lunokhod number 202 ? what happened to it ?

And about the Luna  sample return ships - seems number 409 and 411 are missing.

Were they mockups or ground-test engineering models ? (in the N-1 sequence the mockups were included)

It is mind-boggling, the number of sample scoopers the Soviets build, and the percentage lost to defective Protons.  :o


Concerning serial numbers 202 and 206: They existed, but were not Lunokhod rovers. These were the E-8LS orbiter missions Luna 19 and Luna 22. These orbiters featured instrument modules, which were in fact Lunokhod hulls without wheels and motors to house the scientific instruments - hence the serial numbers in the Lunokhod series.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e8ls.htm


Concerning serial numbers 409 and 411: i have never figured out, if they have been built (or partially) built before being cancelled.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: libra on 10/14/2019 04:17 am
Ah great. The webmaster himself. Your website is great, incidentally.

That explains a lot of things, thank you. As for the scoopers, considered the number that went up in smoke with the Proton, perhaps these two were cannibalized in urgency to create others that flew...
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: libra on 10/14/2019 03:37 pm
the case of the Soyuz LOK is bizarre, too. Sixteen planned but seven build as of 1970, ok. But is the final number of vehicle build still unknown, 50 years after ?  Is your source A.Siddiqi SP-4408, Challenge to Apollo ? 

I find a little odd that five decades after nobody (not even Siddiqi, the best of the best specialist of the soviet space program) can assess for sure how many LOK were build. Or maybe it just tell about the Soviet opacity, waste, secrecy and paranoia...  :(
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: libra on 08/17/2020 03:35 pm
Hello to all

A lot of Soviet robotic lunar landers (Luna 9 and 13), the LK planned landing spot, and also Chelomei and Barmin lunar plans (Barmingrad and LK-700) - all seems to target the same corner of the Moon: Oceanus Procellarum, better know as the Ocean of Storms.

http://www.astronautix.com/l/lk-700.html as this to say  (with the usual caveats !)

Quote
The preferred landing site was in the Sea of Fertility or Ocean of Storms, which allowed the best angle of intersection of the hyperbolic departure trajectory with the lunar surface, requiring the minimum rearrangement of internal systems.

Just to be clear. When launching a lunar lander (robotic or manned) from Baikonur, are there some orbital mechanics constraints resulting in that peculiar place on the lunar near side ?

I swear I've read similar stuff to the astronautix tibdit elsewhere - but can't find them.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: PM3 on 01/04/2021 09:26 pm
For some reason, I am trying to figure out which of the Soviet republics were operating own satellites.

Of course, the Russian SFSR did. But what about e.g. Ukrainian, Byelorus, Kazakh, Georgian SSR? Did they operate any satellites?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: B. Hendrickx on 01/08/2021 11:08 am
For some reason, I am trying to figure out which of the Soviet republics were operating own satellites.

Of course, the Russian SFSR did. But what about e.g. Ukrainian, Byelorus, Kazakh, Georgian SSR? Did they operate any satellites?

The Yuzhnoye design bureau in Dnepropetrovsk (Ukraine) built its own satellites, but you can't call those Ukrainian satellites (at least not before the collapse of the Soviet Union). They were built in the interests of the Soviet Union and operated by the Soviet Union. 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: libra on 01/09/2021 07:20 pm
In his 1996 book "Rocket corporation Energiya" Yuriy Semyonov says

- Zond 4 (April 1968) was blown over the Gulf of Biscay (between France and Spain !) when all other sources says the Gulf of Guinea. They are 3000 km apart !

- Cosmos 133 (November 1966) was lost over China rather than blown up and the debris landing at the bottom of the Mariana trench. 3000 km apart, too ! Quite a huge difference.

Now the book is dated (24 years ago)  and obviously, other testimonies (Chertok) and histories have come since then.

What troubles me is that Semyonov was manager of both Soyuz and Zond programs when all this happened in the mid-60's - so he was much more than an insider or a witness.

Why did his version of these two events differed so much from what has transpired since then ? 
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: PM3 on 01/25/2021 10:23 am
For some reason, I am trying to figure out which of the Soviet republics were operating own satellites.

Of course, the Russian SFSR did. But what about e.g. Ukrainian, Byelorus, Kazakh, Georgian SSR? Did they operate any satellites?

The Yuzhnoye design bureau in Dnepropetrovsk (Ukraine) built its own satellites, but you can't call those Ukrainian satellites (at least not before the collapse of the Soviet Union). They were built in the interests of the Soviet Union and operated by the Soviet Union.

Who operated those satellites after the Soviet Union ceased to exist? Did Ukraine then take over any satellite operation?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Stardust on 01/25/2021 11:28 am
Who operated those satellites after the Soviet Union ceased to exist? Did Ukraine then take over any satellite operation?

Please excue my not so good english. I have collected and analysed all "Kosmos"-Satellites up to 1990. The Satellites from Yushnoje (today Ukraine) ju must see as a intergarl part of the programms from USSR. The ukranian part founded on the rockets Kosmos in the variants 1, 2, 3 and 3M plus Strela. All this rockets habe the basis on IRMB and ICBM from Yushnoje. Some of the satellites had purely sientific purpose. But the overwhelming part was military- mostly military- sientific.  For Example the was: radar calibration, study of gravitational field (especially for trajectorys of ICBM´s. And very important: The ASAT-Program.
After 1991 all this cheased.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DaveS on 09/03/2021 01:42 am
Question on the DKS main thrusters of the TKS-derivatives like the various Mir modules along with the FGB and MLM of the ISS: Do they use actuated covers similar to the main thruster of Soyuz/Progress?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 09/08/2021 07:43 am
I don't really know, but what is sure is that the cover is not the same type as the Soyuz one.

See these two pictures. The first one was took in space in 2004, the second one was took by me in Toulouse.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DaveS on 09/14/2021 12:40 am
Thanks for the second photo Nicolas, that one answers my question nicely. While there is a cover over the actual thruster, it isn't a mechanical motorized cover like the ones used on the Soyuz/Progress. The grey structure made it look like it was hinged and therefore mechanical but the photo shows it to be static with the cover being soft fabric of some sort that is most likely destroyed at the first use of the thruster.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: DaveS on 09/17/2021 04:18 pm
On a similar subject, does anyone have any close up photos of the forward firing thrusters of the FGB? I need to see how they are attached the actual thruster block that houses the upward/downward firing thrusters.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: AnniCrow on 10/08/2021 08:17 pm
Sorry to Jump in here with a random question.
But does anyone know where I could find the soviet/russian mission patches?
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: dondar on 10/09/2021 11:46 pm
check out this page for the FGB photos:

https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/134728/

Answer to the patches question:
the soviets didn't have mission patches. Everything you see is fake.

But: after Apollo-Soyuz program they had introduced special "solidarity patches" for the Interkosmos missions with flags of participating nations. No names, no mission numbers, only flags and year (sometimes). Beside patches they had distributed also small badges for these missions.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: libra on 10/12/2021 10:47 am
A question similar to an earlier one. This time, related to Ye-6 lunar landers.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e6m.htm   has Luna 13 as the Ye-6 serial 205.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e6s.htm : Kosmos 111 and Luna 10 are Ye-6s serials 204 and 206.

I was wondering whether there were Ye-6 serials 201 / 202 / 203 ? Did Luna 13 had some kind of backup ?

Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: AS_501 on 10/13/2021 12:15 am
Sorry to Jump in here with a random question.
But does anyone know where I could find the soviet/russian mission patches?

Welcome to the forum!  No need to apologize for "jumping in".
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: libra on 10/13/2021 10:54 am
Sorry to Jump in here with a random question.
But does anyone know where I could find the soviet/russian mission patches?

Welcome to the forum!  No need to apologize for "jumping in".

Yep. Q&A threads are here just for that - for people who wants to "jump in" with a question. Welcome !
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: dondar on 10/13/2021 09:54 pm
A question similar to an earlier one. This time, related to Ye-6 lunar landers.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e6m.htm   has Luna 13 as the Ye-6 serial 205.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e6s.htm : Kosmos 111 and Luna 10 are Ye-6s serials 204 and 206.

I was wondering whether there were Ye-6 serials 201 / 202 / 203 ? Did Luna 13 had some kind of backup ?
there were two sub series. of e-6 (Lavochkin build).
With lander: no. 201-- engineering mock-up, no.202---- Luna 9,no. 205--- Luna 13.
orbital observatories: no. 203-- engineering mock-up, no. 204 --- Kosmos 111, no. 206--Luna 10.
In parallel they were redesigning sat. bus which was used in Luna 12 and Luna 14. The design was named obviously e-6LF (LF, where LF =Lavochkin).
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: libra on 10/14/2021 05:04 am
Thanks a lot, really. It helps.
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 10/14/2021 07:58 am
You can find here a list of all Soviet Moon probes with their type and serial number :

https://www.kosmonavtika.com/satellites/lune/sondes/sondes.html
Title: Re: Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A
Post by: libra on 10/14/2021 11:35 am
Merci, cher compatriote !