-
#260
by
EE Scott
on 28 Sep, 2008 20:57
-
Any chance Russian space science will get something interesting (unmanned probes)? Or will the additional funding go into Soyuz/ISS, etc. expenditures?
-
#261
by
pm1823
on 29 Sep, 2008 01:42
-
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.
-
#262
by
eeergo
on 29 Sep, 2008 21:39
-
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
-
#263
by
siatwork
on 29 Sep, 2008 22:39
-
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
)
-
#264
by
pm1823
on 29 Sep, 2008 23:46
-
-
#265
by
EE Scott
on 30 Sep, 2008 11:54
-
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.
-
#266
by
Danderman
on 30 Sep, 2008 13:31
-
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.
-
#267
by
Danderman
on 30 Sep, 2008 13:32
-
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.
-
#268
by
Danderman
on 30 Sep, 2008 13:33
-
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.
-
#269
by
Jorge
on 30 Sep, 2008 15:42
-
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.
-
#270
by
Danderman
on 30 Sep, 2008 16:18
-
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.
-
#271
by
Danderman
on 30 Sep, 2008 16:22
-
"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.
-
#272
by
Jorge
on 30 Sep, 2008 16:31
-
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.
-
#273
by
eeergo
on 30 Sep, 2008 21:58
-
Note I'm clueless about who is Lavochkin
Joking?
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.
-
#274
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 13 Oct, 2008 19:39
-
I am wondering what was the first ever manned night landing ?
Soyouz-15 ?
-
#275
by
Phillip Clark
on 25 Oct, 2008 20:46
-
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.
-
#276
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 26 Oct, 2008 14:38
-
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 ?
-
#277
by
anik
on 26 Oct, 2008 16:54
-
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.
-
#278
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 26 Oct, 2008 21:41
-
OK, but what about 7K-STM n°1 to 50 ? And how were used 7K-STM n°201 to 203 ?
-
#279
by
anik
on 27 Oct, 2008 14:22
-
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.
Thanks for the link (though I could have been a bit less lazy and looked it up!) and to siatwork for the answer too.