-
#660
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 28 Aug, 2011 06:22
-
I have some questions about the ground support equipment for the R-7 series:
1. Where are the rockets fueled? Looking at satellite images of Baikonur and Plesetsk, I can't see the usual propellant tanks that stores kerosene and (most importantly, due to boil-off) liquid oxygen around the pads. So how are the rockets fueled before launch? And what is the timeline for fueling?
2. Is pad 43/3 at Plesetsk still in active service? The pad was not used for any launches since the disastrous failure of the Soyuz-U/Foton-M-1 launch in October 2002, so was the (minor) damages to the pad repaired? If done, then why would the pad be left unused?
Thanks!
One more question: where are the chemical plants used for producing the kerosene/liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen/hypergolic fuel located around the main launch sites (I am thinking of Baikonur and Plesetsk)? How are the fuel transported to the launch facilities?
-
#661
by
anik
on 28 Aug, 2011 12:27
-
2. Is pad 43/3 at Plesetsk still in active service?
After failure in 2002 it was repaired. It was readied for use, but there were not need for it. Now it is modernizing for Soyuz-2 launches.
-
#662
by
Stan Black
on 29 Aug, 2011 19:13
-
I have some questions about the ground support equipment for the R-7 series:
1. Where are the rockets fueled? Looking at satellite images of Baikonur and Plesetsk, I can't see the usual propellant tanks that stores kerosene and (most importantly, due to boil-off) liquid oxygen around the pads. So how are the rockets fueled before launch? And what is the timeline for fueling?
2. Is pad 43/3 at Plesetsk still in active service? The pad was not used for any launches since the disastrous failure of the Soyuz-U/Foton-M-1 launch in October 2002, so was the (minor) damages to the pad repaired? If done, then why would the pad be left unused?
Thanks!
One more question: where are the chemical plants used for producing the kerosene/liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen/hypergolic fuel located around the main launch sites (I am thinking of Baikonur and Plesetsk)? How are the fuel transported to the launch facilities?
If you look at pre-launch pictures you will see tanks mounted on railway carriages.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041118051248/http://www.tsenki.com/Start1Show.asp?STARTID=82
-
#663
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 31 Aug, 2011 10:23
-
-
#664
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 01 Sep, 2011 15:48
-
Another question: there are access towers intended for crew access at the Zenit launch complex at Baikonur. So, what manned spacecrafts would be launched on the Zenit before the collapse of the USSR? (Soyuz? Zarya? Something else? Paper spacecrafts?) And what would the Zenit for manned launches look like? How about the launch profile?
-
#665
by
Jim
on 01 Sep, 2011 16:54
-
Soyuz at onetime
-
#666
by
Stan Black
on 02 Sep, 2011 14:52
-
Another question: there are access towers intended for crew access at the Zenit launch complex at Baikonur. So, what manned spacecrafts would be launched on the Zenit before the collapse of the USSR? (Soyuz? Zarya? Something else? Paper spacecrafts?) And what would the Zenit for manned launches look like? How about the launch profile?
Zarya
-
#667
by
Phillip Clark
on 02 Sep, 2011 17:34
-
There were also rumours of the space plane programme called Uragan that would have used the Zenit-2 for launches into polar orbits.
There are differing reports whether Uragan was a real programme or purely imaginary (without even PowerPoints!).
-
#668
by
Danderman
on 07 Sep, 2011 16:55
-
One more question: where are the chemical plants used for producing the kerosene/liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen/hypergolic fuel located around the main launch sites (I am thinking of Baikonur and Plesetsk)? How are the fuel transported to the launch facilities?
There is a prop factory at Baikonur on the road north of Tyuratam, about 10 km; its located on the rail line for transport to the launch pads.
-
#669
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 24 Sep, 2011 03:35
-
Yet another question....
I've been mulling over the Hexagon revelations. What a fantastically complex machine! Yet, I have to wonder, what advantages did Hex really have over the Soviet Zenit? Fewer launches, sure, but at the cost of creating a massively complex and costly satellite, coupled with a big, expensive launch vehicle. With so much at stake on each mission, reliability was absolutely essential. If Zenit had a problem, the Soviets could just roll out another R-7. The individual launches probably provided more mass to play with too.
Of course the U.S. never quite had an R-7 equivalent to play with.
Can't help but wonder what is going on today, and why the Pentagon chose to drop Lockheed for awhile, at great cost, etc.
- Ed Kyle
Speaking of the Zenit (and the Yantar) series, does anybody have good links that has in depth details of Soviet's early film reconnaissance satellites and programmes on the web? Thanks!
-
#670
by
TJL
on 26 Oct, 2011 21:06
-
Does anyone know what became of the original Soyuz 2 (Bykovsky, Khrunov, and Yeliseyev) spacecraft that was grounded by the Soyuz 1 accident?
Is it displayed?
Modified, and later flown?
Dismantled?
Thank you.
-
#671
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 27 Oct, 2011 03:43
-
Does anyone know what became of the original Soyuz 2 (Bykovsky, Khrunov, and Yeliseyev) spacecraft that was grounded by the Soyuz 1 accident?
Is it displayed?
Modified, and later flown?
Dismantled?
Thank you.
According to
this Russian article the original spacecraft to be used in the Soyuz 2 mission (7K-OK #5) was later flown as
Kosmos 188, acting as the passive spacecraft in the first successful automatic spacecraft docking mission of the world.
-
#672
by
TJL
on 27 Oct, 2011 21:11
-
Does anyone know what became of the original Soyuz 2 (Bykovsky, Khrunov, and Yeliseyev) spacecraft that was grounded by the Soyuz 1 accident?
Is it displayed?
Modified, and later flown?
Dismantled?
Thank you.
According to this Russian article the original spacecraft to be used in the Soyuz 2 mission (7K-OK #5) was later flown as Kosmos 188, acting as the passive spacecraft in the first successful automatic spacecraft docking mission of the world.
Thank you...sure wish there was a way of translating that article...looks very interesting.
Tom
-
#673
by
AnalogMan
on 27 Oct, 2011 22:14
-
Does anyone know what became of the original Soyuz 2 (Bykovsky, Khrunov, and Yeliseyev) spacecraft that was grounded by the Soyuz 1 accident?
Is it displayed?
Modified, and later flown?
Dismantled?
Thank you.
According to this Russian article the original spacecraft to be used in the Soyuz 2 mission (7K-OK #5) was later flown as Kosmos 188, acting as the passive spacecraft in the first successful automatic spacecraft docking mission of the world.
Thank you...sure wish there was a way of translating that article...looks very interesting.
Tom
Two ways to get a machine translation:
GoogleGo to
http://translate.google.comCopy and paste the Russian article URL into the box - this is:
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtml
Select Russian as the input language then click the translate button.
Microsoft TranslatorClick on the following link:
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru%2Fcontent%2Fnumbers%2F231%2F37.shtml(might need to select Russian rather than auto-detect)
-
#674
by
TJL
on 27 Oct, 2011 22:56
-
FANTASTIC!
Thank you very much.
-
#675
by
kevin-rf
on 28 Oct, 2011 12:47
-
Also, if you use google chrome as a browser, if often auto detects "other" languages and offers to translate them into a semblance of english.
-
#676
by
Fuji
on 05 Nov, 2011 05:43
-
Soyuz 4/5 question:
[SNIP]
Shatalov opened the Soyuz-4 orbital module hatch; from inside the descent module.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/36.shtml
[SNIP]
Yes, but I don't believe that the hatch can be opened from the inside anymore, which begs the question as to whether the Soyuz 4/5 hatches were specially designed, or whether Soyuz design has since been changed.
From the 2010 NASA "Worldwide Spacecraft Crew Hatch History" document, NASA/TP–2010–216131. (http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TP-2010-216131.pdf)
The OM also has a docking/transfer hatch and a crew entry/exit hatch that serves as an EVA hatch. Both crew hatches are inward opening and pressure sealed.
So I guess it still can be done, which makes sense if you have some emergency that might be fixable during EVA, quite some time after undocking from ISS, or want to fix a docking mechanism issue by EVA before docking.
It would not help much, if you don't have EVA suits on board. AFAIK Soyuz spacecraft do not routinely carry Orlan suits on board.
Soyuz 4 and 5 Rendezvous & Docking: Four in the Cosmos pt1-2 1969 Russian 14min
We can see the old russian EVA suits video at 12:10.
Interesting video
-
#677
by
Danderman
on 05 Nov, 2011 10:46
-
[Snipped all earlier quotes]
It would not help much, if you don't have EVA suits on board. AFAIK Soyuz spacecraft do not routinely carry Orlan suits on board.
True, but still having the option to employ Orlan suits on specific flights can prove beneficial.
I don't think that a current Orlan suit can fit through the Soyuz OM lateral hatch (the one used for EVA on Soyuz 4-5). It barely fits through the docking hatch, which is much wider.
-
#678
by
Stan Black
on 11 Nov, 2011 21:37
-
-
#679
by
Danderman
on 11 Nov, 2011 21:51
-
This contains some interesting bits of information about the electronics onboard Russian spacecraft
http://english.irz.ru/files/IRZ_space_2011_ENG.pdf
Page 7 is very timely.
Page 13 implies that the company builds or rebuilds Kurs boxes (they do give credit to NIITP for design), which is new to me.
Its interesting that Soyuz and Progress TM systems are glossed over in the presentation, perhaps Energia has changed to a new vendor.
