-
#500
by
Antares
on 08 Sep, 2010 22:44
-
I'd take a multichamber, single shaft engine with little chance of combustion instability over the massive development problem that was F-1. There seems to be a size limit on Russian HC chambers.
-
#501
by
kevin-rf
on 09 Sep, 2010 13:41
-
However the Russians do not throw out a good working rocket quite as much as the US and so you see the same rockets in use 40-50 years latter.
Don't know, The RL-10 is the workhorse of US upper stages and it dates back to the 60's. The AJ-10 (Delta II upper, Shuttle OMS, Apollo CSM) dates back to Vanguard. The main engine of the pre RD-180 Atlas and Delta II's came from the Navaho Intercontinental Cruise Missile program.
It's only with the EELV, and new COT's launchers (Falcon 9, Taurus II) that new rocket engines have been adopted. Before that the last major change was the SSME back in the early 1980's.
So isn't that to Pathfinder's point? US has developed noteworthy engines every decade. (Taurus II doesn't fall into that category though, since the NK-33 is Russian).
Since when ? The US developed and deployed a bunch of engines in the 1950's/early 1960's, Developed one new engine (SSME) in the 70's while still relying on for most things the engines from 50's and 60's, then had to fast forward to the 90's before RS-68, an SSME evolution. We still rely on the RL-10 for upper stages, and only over the last 10 years are replacing a Navaho derived engine in the first stages of the Atlas, Delta while retiring Titan. And then new Merlin from SpaceX.
We have used over and over the same engines (updated yes) for decades, and are just now (last 10 years) replacing them.
-
#502
by
JimO
on 13 Sep, 2010 15:42
-
Did these questions ever get answered? I have suddenly become much more interested in this topic! Thanks!
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!
-
#503
by
JimO
on 13 Sep, 2010 16:13
-
Fundamental questions about the new TsVM-101 computer in the 'digital Soyuz'.
Where is it? Which module?
Will the October 'digital Soyuz' also have the "lighter digital equivalent called МБИЦ, MBITS", in the Instrumentation Module to replace the five separate analog systems, or will the TsVM-101 perform that role there, as well as replacing the Argon unit?
Or will the TsVM-101 be in the Descent Module, replacing the KSO20M computer as well?
I need more specific on which flight computers where are being replaced by what. Thanks!
-
#504
by
Nickolai
on 13 Sep, 2010 17:37
-
Also, does anyone know how much weight is being saved by these changes?
-
#505
by
anik
on 13 Sep, 2010 18:40
-
Where is it? Which module?
TsVM-101 computer is in the instrumentation/propulsion module of Soyuz TMA spacecraft on place of Argon-16 computer.
Will the October 'digital Soyuz' also have the "lighter digital equivalent called МБИЦ, MBITS", in the Instrumentation Module to replace the five separate analog systems, or will the TsVM-101 perform that role there, as well as replacing the Argon unit?
MBITS system will be on Soyuz TMA-01M spacecraft.
Or will the TsVM-101 be in the Descent Module, replacing the KSO20M computer as well?
Installation of TsVM-101 computer in the descent module of Soyuz TMA spacecraft with replacing of KS-020M computer by TsVM-101 computer is planned in future.
Also, does anyone know how much weight is being saved by these changes?
Argon-16 computer's weight was in eight times more than weight of TsVM-101 computer.
-
#506
by
JimO
on 13 Sep, 2010 19:19
-
Spasibo bolshoye, this is very timely and useful.
Are there any specific questions that others here want me to ask
at the Expedition press conference on Sept 15 here in Houston?
Aside from photos of the computers themselves, I cannot find any illustrations of the changes. Are there any suggestions or advice for further searching?
How about the "малогабаритная бортовая информационная телеметрическая системая" (МБИТС), that will replace the five deparate analog telemetry systems?
One more question -- the 'guidance computer' that was scavenged off Progress vehicles and brought back on shuttles -- that was the КС020М, right?
-
#507
by
Captain Scarlet
on 16 Sep, 2010 16:36
-
Is it true one cosmonaut screamed at the engineers down the loop for failing in their job while his Soyuz tumbled to Earth, resulting in his death?
-
#508
by
ycs86
on 03 Oct, 2010 18:01
-
What is it exactly? And what is it purpose and how does it work? Does it stay in the way when opening the front hatch after a successful docking?
-
#509
by
DaveS
on 03 Oct, 2010 18:09
-
What is it exactly? And what is it purpose and how does it work? Does it stay in the way when opening the front hatch after a successful docking?
That's the docking probe and I believe it is removed post-docking from the station side.
-
#510
by
Mark Dave
on 03 Oct, 2010 18:11
-
It's the docking probe. The ball point extends out prior to to docking and when it contacts the interface port it retracts. You can see it on the Rassvet module here
-
#511
by
jabe
on 03 Oct, 2010 18:12
-
watch the video from
it shows how it works really well.. watch from 1:31..shows a cutaway on what happens to the probe after docking...
jb
-
#512
by
ycs86
on 03 Oct, 2010 18:19
-
Ok, thanks guys for the explanation!
-
#513
by
Space Pete
on 03 Oct, 2010 18:49
-
Yup, it's a docking probe. The probe latches onto the docking drogue on the ISS (see Fig. 1), which is what provides the initial capture for the Soyuz. One the relative motion has dampened out, the probe retracts and brings the two docking collars together for hard dock.
One the ISS drogue hatch is opened (see Fig. 2), the entire probe assembly then swings out of the way like a door to allow access between the Soyuz and ISS.
-
#514
by
Space Pete
on 03 Oct, 2010 18:54
-
On the Progress, the probe assy. can actually be separated from the hatch (see Fig. 3 & 4) to allow larger payloads to be transferred through the hatchway (the probe precludes this). The probe cannot be separated from the hatch on the Soyuz for safety reasons (if the Soyuz had to suddenly undock in an emergency, the crew would not have time to retrieve & re-install the probe). If they undocked without the probe installed, then they would not be able to re-dock with the ISS if the all-clear was given.
-
#515
by
ycs86
on 03 Oct, 2010 19:05
-
Yup, it's a docking probe. The probe latches onto the docking drogue on the ISS (see Fig. 1), which is what provides the initial capture for the Soyuz. One the relative motion has dampened out, the probe retracts and brings the two docking collars together for hard dock.
One the ISS drogue hatch is opened (see Fig. 2), the entire probe assembly then swings out of the way like a door to allow access between the Soyuz and ISS.
Very very interesting! Thank you!
-
#516
by
ycs86
on 03 Oct, 2010 19:05
-
On the Progress, the probe assy. can actually be separated from the hatch (see Fig. 3 & 4) to allow larger payloads to be transferred through the hatchway (the probe precludes this). The probe cannot be separated from the hatch on the Soyuz for safety reasons (if the Soyuz had to suddenly undock in an emergency, the crew would not have time to retrieve & re-install the probe). If they undocked without the probe installed, then they would not be able to re-dock with the ISS if the all-clear was given.
Very nice illustration! Thank you too!
-
#517
by
Mark Dave
on 08 Oct, 2010 21:31
-
I wonder how do the cosmonauts strap into the Soyuz? Well from photos the only entry is the orbital module. So does this mean the crew gets in and straps themselves in or does someone help?
-
#518
by
Danderman
on 08 Oct, 2010 22:02
-
The probe cannot be separated from the hatch on the Soyuz for safety reasons (if the Soyuz had to suddenly undock in an emergency, the crew would not have time to retrieve & re-install the probe). If they undocked without the probe installed, then they would not be able to re-dock with the ISS if the all-clear was given.
This sounds rather odd, there is really a protocol for re-docking at ISS after a crew abandons ship? Is the Soyuz supposed to loiter somewhere near ISS waiting for an all-clear? How long is the Soyuz supposed to wait, and how does this impact emergency landing zone calculations?
My assumption was that after a Soyuz departs ISS during an emergency, it would land as soon as possible.
-
#519
by
Danderman
on 09 Oct, 2010 15:36
-
Is it true one cosmonaut screamed at the engineers down the loop for failing in their job while his Soyuz tumbled to Earth, resulting in his death?
No.
You are thinking about Soyuz 1, where a parachute failed to deploy correctly. Since parachute deployment happens pretty late in the mission, there wasn't a lot of time for screaming after it failed to deploy. Prior to parachute deployment, there had been some problems with the spacecraft, but nothing that would have led to a fatality.
)
)