-
#220
by
Spacenick
on 25 May, 2008 19:57
-
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.
-
#221
by
Suzy
on 27 May, 2008 06:13
-
Can the Soyuz be flown in unmanned/automated mode - i.e. controlled from the ground?
-
#222
by
anik
on 27 May, 2008 14:24
-
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.
-
#223
by
dchill
on 28 May, 2008 21:44
-
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
)
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!
-
#224
by
Suzy
on 29 May, 2008 01:40
-
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!
-
#225
by
edkyle99
on 29 May, 2008 18:39
-
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
-
#226
by
koennecke
on 05 Jun, 2008 10:53
-
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
-
#227
by
edkyle99
on 06 Jun, 2008 20:21
-
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
-
#228
by
MikeM.
on 12 Jun, 2008 22:46
-
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?
-
#229
by
Jim
on 12 Jun, 2008 23:08
-
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
-
#230
by
MikeM.
on 12 Jun, 2008 23:43
-
Thanks for the quick answer Jim.
-
#231
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 15 Jun, 2008 17:02
-
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 !
-
#232
by
anik
on 15 Jun, 2008 21:46
-
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.
-
#233
by
Suzy
on 16 Jun, 2008 05:43
-
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 (in Russian)
-
#234
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 16 Jun, 2008 16:11
-
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.
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...
-
#235
by
Danderman
on 14 Jul, 2008 05:35
-
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?
-
#236
by
Jim
on 14 Jul, 2008 11:06
-
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
-
#237
by
Danderman
on 14 Jul, 2008 18:55
-
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.
-
#238
by
maxx
on 18 Jul, 2008 18:51
-
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]
-
#239
by
Phillip Clark
on 19 Jul, 2008 15:47
-
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.
)
)