-
#380
by
Suzy
on 24 Oct, 2009 20:39
-
Links to two inflight photos from Soyuz TMA-6:
1,
2 (ESA)
-
#381
by
TJL
on 25 Oct, 2009 16:39
-
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.
-
#382
by
anik
on 25 Oct, 2009 17:29
-
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.
-
#383
by
Orbital Debris
on 04 Nov, 2009 21:51
-
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.
-
#384
by
TJL
on 08 Nov, 2009 19:14
-
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.
-
#385
by
Satori
on 08 Nov, 2009 19:47
-
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.
-
#386
by
TJL
on 08 Nov, 2009 21:37
-
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.
-
#387
by
Satori
on 09 Nov, 2009 17:26
-
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.
-
#388
by
TJL
on 09 Nov, 2009 20:30
-
Thanks, Satori...appreciate your (and Andreys') time.
-
#389
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 16 Dec, 2009 12:38
-
Do you know what is precisely the so-called "Космический центр "Южный"" ?
-
#390
by
anik
on 16 Dec, 2009 13:46
-
Do you know what is precisely the so-called "Космический центр "Южный""?
Space center "Yuzhniy" is branch of TsENKI enterprise on Baikonur cosmodrome.
-
#391
by
TJL
on 20 Dec, 2009 20:07
-
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.
-
#392
by
anik
on 20 Dec, 2009 20:23
-
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.
-
#393
by
TJL
on 20 Dec, 2009 20:28
-
Thanks, Anik....I never realized those were the rooms the cosmonauts actually stayed in...thank you.
-
#394
by
Danderman
on 22 Dec, 2009 20:08
-
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/StationsMir/1991.phpThe 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.
-
#395
by
Danderman
on 22 Dec, 2009 20:13
-
-
#396
by
Danderman
on 31 Dec, 2009 16:49
-
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?
-
#397
by
anik
on 31 Dec, 2009 17:32
-
-
#398
by
Danderman
on 31 Dec, 2009 18:37
-
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 ....
-
#399
by
kraisee
on 10 Jan, 2010 03:01
-
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.