-
#280
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 27 Oct, 2008 16:55
-
OK, thank you very much Anik !
-
#281
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 01 Nov, 2008 14:37
-
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 !
-
#282
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 15 Dec, 2008 20:43
-
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 !
-
#283
by
TJL
on 16 Dec, 2008 12:32
-
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.
-
#284
by
anik
on 16 Dec, 2008 15:11
-
Do you know what is the OFFICIAL name of the Molnia when it is fitted with the SO-L upper stage (for Prognoz launches)?
Molni
ya-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 Orl
an spacesuits do not require such checks.
-
#285
by
Lars_J
on 23 Dec, 2008 00:44
-
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?
-
#286
by
Jim
on 23 Dec, 2008 00:54
-
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
-
#287
by
MBK004
on 23 Dec, 2008 02:29
-
]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.
-
#288
by
anik
on 23 Dec, 2008 15:45
-
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.
-
#289
by
William Graham
on 23 Dec, 2008 19:18
-
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.
-
#290
by
eeergo
on 01 Feb, 2009 10:38
-
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?
-
#291
by
The-Hammer
on 01 Feb, 2009 21:28
-
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.
-
#292
by
eeergo
on 02 Feb, 2009 10:20
-
I see, it didn't occur to me they might use thrusters, even though it's quite a reasonable procedure
Thank you!
-
#293
by
William Graham
on 02 Feb, 2009 22:43
-
What is the current status of United Start Corporation?
-
#294
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 24 Feb, 2009 15:22
-
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 :
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 !
-
#295
by
Spacenick
on 24 Feb, 2009 19:08
-
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)...
-
#296
by
Danderman
on 25 Feb, 2009 00:06
-
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
-
#297
by
Spacenick
on 25 Feb, 2009 19:15
-
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?
-
#298
by
Danderman
on 25 Feb, 2009 19:30
-
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.
-
#299
by
Bill White
on 25 Feb, 2009 19:52
-
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.
Thank you!