-
#600
by
Hungry4info3
on 22 Jan, 2011 16:13
-
Have you tried
this site?
-
#601
by
Satori
on 23 Jan, 2011 10:12
-
Have you tried this site?
Thanks! Already checked... nothing there...
-
#602
by
Hungry4info3
on 23 Jan, 2011 23:57
-
Have you tried this site?
Thanks! Already checked... nothing there...
Isn't it the second link?
One word "Poehali!" (We're going!) said by the first man in the space. With this word a new era of space exploration begins
-
#603
by
Malderi
on 27 Jan, 2011 22:20
-
What is the relationship between the Angara and Rus-M rocket programs? From what I understand, Angara is farther along, and Rus-M is a longer-term, heavier-lift project. But Angara-5 and Angara-7 are supposed to be man-rated, and so is the initial Rus-M.
Can someone explain why both of these programs appear to be serving similar purposes and yet are under development at the same time?
-
#604
by
Eraser
on 28 Jan, 2011 06:06
-
What is the relationship between the Angara and Rus-M rocket programs? From what I understand, Angara is farther along, and Rus-M is a longer-term, heavier-lift project. But Angara-5 and Angara-7 are supposed to be man-rated, and so is the initial Rus-M.
Can someone explain why both of these programs appear to be serving similar purposes and yet are under development at the same time?
Angara is created mainly for the MoD purposes, to launch heavy military satellites from Plesetsk, commercially it will be operated from the Baikonur Cosmodrome as the Baiterek project. Rus-M will be created for manned space program and will be launched from the Vostochny Cosmodrome.
Have two systems, whose capabilities is somewhat overlapping, it is useful for redundancy, to load industry, job retention and reduce the monopoly on launch services.
-
#605
by
Malderi
on 28 Jan, 2011 15:10
-
I understand that - EELV (Atlas/Delta) is a good example. I wasn't sure if there was anything else I was missing, though. Thanks for the answer.
-
#606
by
Stan Black
on 06 Feb, 2011 10:07
-
-
#607
by
Stan Black
on 20 Feb, 2011 07:16
-
-
#608
by
Mark Dave
on 24 Feb, 2011 01:14
-
I am curious as to how come the Buran's carbon TPS for it's nose and wing leading edges is darker than the US shuttle RCC. Is it a different material mixture as to why the colors differ? In art of Buran and photos, the leading edges and nose of Buran look the same color as the HRSI tiles, and difficult to tell apart.
Again on Buran, why is it the nose gear is below the payload bay than the nose like on the US shuttle? What is the purpose of this?
-
#609
by
Jorge
on 24 Feb, 2011 01:20
-
Again on Buran, why is it the nose gear is below the payload bay than the nose like on the US shuttle? What is the purpose of this?
This allowed the nose gear to be longer, placing Buran at something closer to zero angle of attack at nose gear touchdown, contrasted to the negative angle of attack of the shuttle. That in turn reduced the "downlift" loads on the main gear, decreasing the odds of a tire blowout.
-
#610
by
Generacy
on 14 Mar, 2011 17:21
-
Is it possible for the Soyuz to dock to the ISS at a different roll/clocking angle? The docking port on the Soyuz seems to be somewhat roll symmetric, but I imagine it would be a problem for the RDS to accommodate a docking at a different roll angle. Is this true?
-
#611
by
Danderman
on 14 Mar, 2011 17:58
-
Is it possible for the Soyuz to dock to the ISS at a different roll/clocking angle? The docking port on the Soyuz seems to be somewhat roll symmetric, but I imagine it would be a problem for the RDS to accommodate a docking at a different roll angle. Is this true?
Compared to what? Soyuzes at Zvezda aft are clocked at an angle, those at the other ports are not.
-
#612
by
Generacy
on 14 Mar, 2011 18:04
-
I guess my question is, is there more than one clocking angle that a Soyuz can dock to a specific docking port? Or is there only one singular clocking angle that the port will accept a Soyuz?
-
#613
by
TJL
on 15 Mar, 2011 21:26
-
Why is it that sometimes the Soyuz backup crew is made up of crew members that are not assigned to fly together in the near future?
Thank you...
-
#614
by
DMeader
on 15 Mar, 2011 21:43
-
I guess my question is, is there more than one clocking angle that a Soyuz can dock to a specific docking port? Or is there only one singular clocking angle that the port will accept a Soyuz?
I know that Progress must dock at a particular angle so that various fluid and electrical connectors mate for the fuel transfer.
-
#615
by
Danderman
on 15 Mar, 2011 21:47
-
I guess my question is, is there more than one clocking angle that a Soyuz can dock to a specific docking port? Or is there only one singular clocking angle that the port will accept a Soyuz?
No. Yes.
-
#616
by
Danderman
on 29 Mar, 2011 19:02
-
-
#617
by
jcm
on 30 Mar, 2011 13:02
-
Does anyone know the soviet designation of Kosmos-1940?
34Kh6.
Just spotted this thread... so 74Kh6 is Oko-S, 71Kh6 is Oko-1 and 34Kh6 is this mysterious one. What's with the Kh6 designators, do we understand them?
Can we guess from the similarity of 74Kh6 and 34Kh6 that 34Kh6 was a modification of the Oko-S bus? I know it's been claimed that 1940 was a modified Meteor which would make it VNIIEM rather than Lavochkin...
-
#618
by
anik
on 30 Mar, 2011 17:41
-
34Kh6 is this mysterious one
It was experimental satellite for detection of nuclear explosions.
-
#619
by
jcm
on 31 Mar, 2011 02:07
-
34Kh6 is this mysterious one
It was experimental satellite for detection of nuclear explosions.
OK, I have heard that suggestion too. So the Meteor/Elektro connection is bogus?
