-
#360
by
aquarius
on 03 Oct, 2009 18:51
-
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 hadnīt been detected prior to launch?
-
#361
by
anik
on 03 Oct, 2009 19:15
-
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 hadnīt been detected prior to launch?
Here is reported that brain tumour was developed owing to rigid landing of Soyuz TM-3 spacecraft.
-
#362
by
aquarius
on 03 Oct, 2009 19:41
-
Thanks, anik.
-
#363
by
Jim
on 06 Oct, 2009 19:37
-
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
-
#364
by
AlexInOklahoma
on 06 Oct, 2009 23:35
-
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
-
#365
by
aquarius
on 11 Oct, 2009 15:52
-
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.
-
#366
by
TJL
on 12 Oct, 2009 00:38
-
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...
-
#367
by
anik
on 12 Oct, 2009 15:51
-
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.
-
#368
by
TJL
on 18 Oct, 2009 20:48
-
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.
-
#369
by
Danderman
on 18 Oct, 2009 23:27
-
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.
-
#370
by
anik
on 19 Oct, 2009 15:28
-
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.
-
#371
by
Danderman
on 20 Oct, 2009 14:22
-
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.
-
#372
by
sdsds
on 20 Oct, 2009 17:32
-
Soyuz TMA/Soyuz FG Capability
Does a modern Soyuz launching from Baikonur have maneuvering capability sufficient to reach a 28.6° LEO rendezvous?
-
#373
by
Jorge
on 20 Oct, 2009 17:38
-
Soyuz TMA/Soyuz FG Capability
Does a modern Soyuz launching from Baikonur have maneuvering capability sufficient to reach a 28.6° LEO rendezvous?
No.
-
#374
by
Danderman
on 21 Oct, 2009 01:20
-
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.
-
#375
by
Hungry4info3
on 22 Oct, 2009 05:57
-
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.
-
#376
by
Fuji
on 23 Oct, 2009 01:32
-
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.
-
#377
by
Hungry4info3
on 23 Oct, 2009 13:12
-
Thanks, it looks roomier in there than I expected.
-
#378
by
kevin-rf
on 23 Oct, 2009 15:08
-
Aren't fish eye lenses great
-
#379
by
Hungry4info3
on 24 Oct, 2009 15:14
-
Aren't fish eye lenses great
The first and second images are fish-eyed?
