Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A

• #60 by Danderman on 27 Mar, 2007 18:21

• Quote

  anik - 27/3/2007  9:49 AM  The answer from Jonathan's Space Report No. 566:  Kosmos-2421 A Russian Navy US-PU satellite for ocean electronic surveillance was launched from Baykonur on Jun 25 and codenamed Kosmos-2421. The Tsiklon-2 rocket put it in an approximately 100 x 400 km transfer orbit, and the US-PU onboard engine performed the insertion burn to a 405 x 415 km x 65.0 deg operational orbit.

  Thanks, that 100 km perigee explains why not too many Tsyklon-2 upper stages are seen in orbit. 

• #61 by NotGncDude on 25 Apr, 2007 14:50
• Does anybody know the trajectory profile, burn schedules, etc, for the Soyuz or Progress when going up to the ISS? Or maybe a pointer to where to find this info? I'm curious about how it compares to the Shuttle.
• #62 by anik on 25 Apr, 2007 15:49
• Quote

  ianmga - 25/4/2007  6:50 PM
  
  Does anybody know the trajectory profile, burn schedules, etc, for the Soyuz or Progress when going up to the ISS?

  
  Two-day rendezvous: two burns on 3rd-4th orbits, one burn on 17th orbit, five-six burns on 32nd-33rd orbits, docking on 33rd-34th orbits...
  
  For example, Soyuz TMA-9:
  Launch - 18.09.2006 04:08:42.133 UTC
  First burn (3rd orbit) - 18.09.2006 07:45:01 UTC
  Second burn (3rd orbit) - 18.09.2006 08:15:42 UTC
  Third burn (17th orbit) - 19.09.2006 05:03:32 UTC
  Fourth burn (32nd orbit) - 20.09.2006 03:28:48 UTC
  Fifth burn (32nd orbit) - 20.09.2006 03:52:04 UTC
  Sixth burn (32nd orbit) - 20.09.2006 04:12:54 UTC
  Seventh burn (33rd orbit) - 20.09.2006 04:55:39 UTC
  Eighth burn (33rd orbit) - 20.09.2006 05:00:37 UTC
  Ninth burn (33rd orbit) - 20.09.2006 05:03:17 UTC
  Docking (34th orbit) - 20.09.2006 05:21:20 UTC
  
  Three-day rendezvous: two burns on 3rd-4th orbits, one burn on 33rd orbit, five-six burns on 48th-49th orbits, docking on 49th-50th orbits...
  
  For example, Progress M-58:
  Launch - 23.10.2006 13:40:35.849 UTC
  First burn (3rd orbit) - 23.10.2006 17:31:37 UTC
  Second burn (4th orbit) - 23.10.2006 17:56:33 UTC
  Third burn (33rd orbit) - 25.10.2006 14:19:54 UTC
  Fourth burn (48th orbit) - 26.10.2006 12:32:04 UTC
  Fifth burn (48th orbit) - 26.10.2006 12:56:20 UTC
  Sixth burn (49th orbit) - 26.10.2006 13:17:42 UTC
  Seventh burn (49th orbit) - 26.10.2006 13:58:38 UTC
  Eighth burn (49th orbit) - 26.10.2006 14:04:49 UTC
  Ninth burn (49th orbit) - 26.10.2006 14:07:12 UTC
  Docking (50th orbit) - 26.10.2006 14:29:18 UTC
• #63 by NotGncDude on 25 Apr, 2007 16:17
• Awesome! That's incredible. Thanks. I also found some info in L2 in the Soyuz Crew Ops Manual, with some diagrams that make a good complement to these burn schedules. I think it describes the 2 day rendezvous.
• #64 by Kyra's kosmos on 08 May, 2007 03:39
• Hi Everyone,
  
  Ok, here's what I'm up to: My goal is to write a Vostok Crew Operations Manual with the same type of content and material with the same level of detail as the Soyuz Crew Operations manual some of you have seen.
  Right now I'm in the information gathering stage. This is far from an easy task as little information exists online. Yuri Tiapchenko has published more about the controls on the cosmoworld site.
  
  The gold mine of information seems to exist at RGANDT. The trouble is they will not respond even if I write out what I'm looking for in Russian. One was for a picture in high resolution they have already published online !! (one month no reply to the photolab address)
  http://rgantd.ru/vzal/korolev/pics/018_010.jpg
  A photo that would be usefull if it were in high resolution !
  
  The other regards the Vostok's thrusters - were  there 2 sections (of 4) (8 thrusters) or 2 sections of 8 (16 thrusters total) - the wording here is unclear about the "2 blocks for 8 sopla (thrusters)?"
  http://bibliotekar.ru/index.files/2/0-40.htm
  How can a ship steer well on three axis (roll pitch yaw) with backups on 8 thrusters ? This system had to be duplicated !
  
  Are there any special protocols for asking for info I may have not known ?
  
  Thanks in advance for any ideas or help here !
  
  Kyra
  
  
• #65 by MKremer on 08 May, 2007 06:10
• Might I suggest writing/emailing the largest Russian embassy to where you are - after you get someone to contact concerning space science/engineering, tell them about what you want and ask about further information and/or contacts about asking for more detailed design engineering, diagrams, and even anecdotes they've heard about or experienced in developing/manufacturing/flying the hardware and people involved.
  Heck, tell whoever you talk to you'll give them credit in the introduction to your publication.
  
• #66 by sammie on 12 May, 2007 00:12
• taken the liberty to answer this question in the Q&A, instead of the launch schedule section
  
  from mainengine:
  

  Quote

  Is it possible to watch any launch at baikonur ? Can one go as a tourist there ?

  
  It is possible to view a rocket launch from Baikonur, it's actually what a number of forum members are planning to do, for more information here and here.
  
  Without joining a tour things get a bit more complicated. The main problem is that travelling independently in Kazakstan isn't done very often. There aren't any scheduled flights to Baikonur, so either you have to join a some sort of tour or take the train. The problem with either approach is that launch dates tend to slip, so if you scheduled a visit, you have no garantue to see an actual launch. In general flights to ISS are pretty reliable timewise, so your best bet is to try and catch one of those
• #67 by Ankle-bone12 on 23 Jun, 2007 03:59
• Has anybody heard any news whatsoever of Kliper. Are Energia and RSC currently building it or is it just not taking off like I wish it were. I know ESA is involved with it pretty well and the Russian Govt. dosn't care much and probably barely knows what it is. Will someone with knowlege please inform me.
• #68 by sammie on 03 Jul, 2007 12:36
• I think the Kliper is one of the paper projects that is being worked on by Energia. They are definitly not getting any government (EU or Russia) funding for the project. So my best guess is that Energia claims to be working on the Kliper, but its not cutting any metal yet.
  
  
  I have another question about a different space programme, the Nadezhda/CosPas programme. This is a satellite constalation that started in the seventies and features the cooperation between Russia, the USA, France and India. Its a set of satellites that pick up distress signals. (more here). The last Russian launch of an improved Nadezhda M was in 2002. Are there plans for another similar satellite in the next years? Or is the task being taken over by different constellations and satellites?
• #69 by anik on 03 Jul, 2007 14:00
• Quote

  sammie - 3/7/2007  4:36 PM
  
  Are there plans for another similar satellite in the next years? Or is the task being taken over by different constellations and satellites?

  
  There will not be one more Nadezhda satellite in future... It is planned that new Sterkh satellites will replace Nadezhda satellites... Sterkh No. 1 launch is planned in 2007 aboard Kosmos-3M rocket, Sterkh No. 2 launch - in 2008...
  
  Information about Sterkh satellite (in Russian) is on http://www.polyot.su/main.php?id=96
• #70 by anik on 04 Jul, 2007 18:41
• Quote

  anik - 3/7/2007  6:00 PM
  
  Sterkh No. 1 launch is planned in 2007 aboard Kosmos-3M rocket, Sterkh No. 2 launch - in 2008...

  
  According to http://www.space.com.ua/gateway/news.nsf/hronolR/91E94B40916AC9D8C225730E002721C3!open (in Russian), both Sterkh satellites will be launched in 2008 now...
• #71 by faustod on 30 Aug, 2007 11:53
• I believe that there is a mistake in the most Satellite Launch Tables .
  
  On April 15, 1960 a Luna probe was launched from Baykonur.
  The probe failed to reach the Moon.
  But I notice that all the parameters of the  flight,were in all similar to those
  of USA Pioneer 1 and 3 in 1958.
  So if in 1958 USA have 7 orbital launches, in 1960 URSS have 4 launches.
  Otherwise if URSS in 1960 have 3 launches, in 1958 USA have only 5 launches.
  
  Jonathan McDowell, in his site is correct:
  
  1958 Oct 11 1958 ETA  Pioneer 1
  1958 Dec  6 1958 THE  Pioneer 3
  1960 Apr 15 1960-U01  [Luna-4]
  
  Note hat the Luna launch is listed as Unannounched one.
• #72 by Olaf on 30 Aug, 2007 12:30
• According to astronaut.ru, the object ?-3 ?1, which was launched on Apr 15, 1960 to the moon only reached a hight of 200km and then fell down to earth.
• #73 by faustod on 30 Aug, 2007 13:19
• From Enciclopedia Astronautica - by Mark Wade:
  
  15 April 1960 Nation: USSR. Launch Site: Baikonur . Launch
  
  Complex: LC1. Launch Vehicle: Luna 8K72 . LV Configuration:
  
  Luna 8K72 s/n L1-9. FAILURE: The third stage RO-5 engine
  
  either did not reach full thrust or shut down early.
  Luna Program: Luna. Payload: E-3 s/n 1. Class: Planetary.
  
  Type: Lunar. Spacecraft: Luna E-3. COSPAR. Summary: Reached
  
  an altitude of 200,000 km before plunging back to earth.
   
  
  From Russian SpaceWeb.com - by  Anatoly Zac
  
  April 15, 1960 E-3 No. 1 - Flyby  8K72/I1-9 3rd stage
  
  failure. Reached 200,000 km distance.
  
  
  From www.zarya.info:
  1960 Apr 15
   15:06
   E-3-1 spacecraft launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome by
  
  Vostok rocket on a mission to hit the Moon by way of a
  
  direct ascent trajectory - under-performance of the final
  
  rocket stage means that it has insufficient velocity to
  
  reach the Moon
   
  1960 Apr 16
   ---
   E-3-1 spacecraft reaches a distance of 200,000 kilometres
  
  from the Earth and then falls back
   
  1960 Apr 16
   ---
   E-3-1 spacecraft re-enters the Earth atmosphere where it is
  
  destroyed by frictional heating
  
• #74 by tnphysics on 03 Sep, 2007 23:46
• How can the Russians make using staged combustion engines work economically?
• #75 by meiza on 04 Sep, 2007 00:10
• Cause they don't use hydrogen engines like USA, they've chosen staged combustion hydrocarbon engines instead.
• #76 by tnphysics on 04 Sep, 2007 00:25
• Why does that help? Besides, the RD-0120 is oxygen/hydrogen and has SSME performance.
• #77 by Jim on 04 Sep, 2007 01:05
• Quote

  tnphysics - 3/9/2007  7:46 PM
  
  How can the Russians make using staged combustion engines work economically?

  
  cheaper labor rates which applies to all russian hardware
• #78 by meiza on 04 Sep, 2007 01:32
• They seem to want to stay away from hydrogen, at least in first stages. I don't know about the price of RD-0120 compared to RD-191, or the complexity differences. Afaik RD-0120 runs oxidizer rich too, no?
  At least dealing with hydrogen on the pad is hard and expensive.
• #79 by pippin on 04 Sep, 2007 09:40
• Quote

  tnphysics - 4/9/2007  1:46 AM
  
  How can the Russians make using staged combustion engines work economically?

  
  long heritage, lots of experience, keeps development costs for new projects (mainly derivatives, like RD-180 and RD-191) down.
  Been  there, done that helps a lot on complex developments.