-
#720
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 03 Mar, 2012 15:51
-
-
#721
by
Satori
on 03 Mar, 2012 18:11
-
In this video, someone knows which failed flight is shown at 03:30 ?
http://www.energia.ru:8080/ramgen/iss/r7a.rm
Humm, isn't that the failed launch of the 11Ф61 Zenit-2 (3) by the 8A92 Vostok (E15000-01) rocket on June 1, 1962 (0937:52UTC)?
-
#722
by
Art LeBrun
on 03 Mar, 2012 18:25
-
Did one of the strap ons come off at launch? Some major fire on the ground.
-
#723
by
Satori
on 03 Mar, 2012 18:32
-
Did one of the strap ons come off at launch? Some major fire on the ground.
There was an explosion in one of the strap-on boosters right after ignition.
-
#724
by
Suzy
on 04 Mar, 2012 02:28
-
An extreme trivia note - I found out what the stick used in the Soyuz to poke at controls is called: Указател, Ukazatel, which just means "Pointer" (via Chris Hadfield
twitpic)
-
#725
by
Suzy
on 04 Mar, 2012 02:44
-
-
#726
by
TJL
on 05 Mar, 2012 00:33
-
-
#727
by
Art LeBrun
on 05 Mar, 2012 00:51
-
1) must be a telephoto shot for that perspective and 2) what is the distance of the lighting towers from the pad?
-
#728
by
e of pi
on 07 Mar, 2012 19:13
-
I'm looking at the specs on the Zenit launcher, and I'm curious about the upper stage. It seems like there should be enough room in a 10.4 m long, 3.9 m diameter stage for more like 126 metric tons of fuel instead of the 81 it can apparently carry according to RussianSpaceWeb and Astronautix. Does anyone have diagrams or pictures that show the construction of the upper stage so I can understand why it seems to have less actual tank volume than it appears it could? Is it just really ineffcient arrangement of the tanks (perhaps a large intertank between the LOX and the kero)?
RussianSpaceWeb has a cutaway
on this page, but it's so small I can't make out any details at all on the second stage.
-
#729
by
baldusi
on 07 Mar, 2012 19:28
-
I'm looking at the specs on the Zenit launcher, and I'm curious about the upper stage. It seems like there should be enough room in a 10.4 m long, 3.9 m diameter stage for more like 126 metric tons of fuel instead of the 81 it can apparently carry according to RussianSpaceWeb and Astronautix. Does anyone have diagrams or pictures that show the construction of the upper stage so I can understand why it seems to have less actual tank volume than it appears it could? Is it just really ineffcient arrangement of the tanks (perhaps a large intertank between the LOX and the kero)?
RussianSpaceWeb has a cutaway on this page, but it's so small I can't make out any details at all on the second stage.
Look for the Sea Launch SL User's Guide. There's a nice schematic. It basically has a LOX tank, and the Kerosen tank is a torus.
-
#730
by
e of pi
on 07 Mar, 2012 19:31
-
Thanks, baldusi! Very informative document, and exactly the kind of image I was looking for!
Why was the toroidal tank selected? To make it easier to run the plumbing to the engine from the LOX tank?
-
#731
by
baldusi
on 07 Mar, 2012 19:45
-
Thanks, baldusi! Very informative document, and exactly the kind of image I was looking for! Why was the toroidal tank selected? To make it easier to run the plumbing to the engine from the LOX tank?
I ignore it. But from the schematics it seems that they have been able to put the engine and huge nozzle inside the torus, thus, making the overall stage shorter. The Zenit 3SL is already thin and tall (3.9m x 60m, or 15.28 diameters long). If I had to take a wild guess, I would say it was to keep it as short as possible on the 3.9m size. Probably a train transport limitation to Baikonour (from Ukraine). The Proton can do with 4.1m. But that's probably because it goes through a different train line.
I seem to recall that the limitation for the Eastern Launch Site was going to be something like 3.8m x 25m or so.
-
#732
by
truth is life
on 18 Mar, 2012 19:40
-
Does anyone know if the Soviets developed a Landsat/SPOT-type Earth observation system in the 1970s or 1980s, or even had any plans to do so? It seems like something that would both be obvious (given the success of Landsat) and yet problematic (given that it might have implications for national security).
Also, in a completely different question, does anyone know why the ESA-Russian cooperation on Kliper fell through? RussianSpaceWeb says things were going great up until the formal meeting to decide whether or not the ESA was going to get involved, when they unexpectedly decided not to, which seems to accord with my (admittedly rather vague) memories.
-
#733
by
Skyrocket
on 18 Mar, 2012 20:58
-
Does anyone know if the Soviets developed a Landsat/SPOT-type Earth observation system in the 1970s or 1980s, or even had any plans to do so? It seems like something that would both be obvious (given the success of Landsat) and yet problematic (given that it might have implications for national security).
Yes they did develop a civil earth observation capability - but initally also on a film return type
Film return types: Fram, Resurs-F1, Resurs-F2
Electro-optical: Meteor-Priroda, Resurs-OE, Resurs-O
-
#734
by
manboy
on 19 Mar, 2012 07:22
-
What are the differences between the APAS-89 and APAS-95 mechanisms? Do the internal electronics differ? What is that four-tube connector on APAS-89?
-
#735
by
mdo
on 28 Mar, 2012 21:19
-
USSTRATCOM reports this reentry location for Meteor 1-1 (1969-029A):
1. 2012-03-26 21:22:00 GMT +/- 1 minute, 47° N 95° E (Mongolia)
RIA Novosti quotes a spokesperson of the Russian Space Forces (
http://ria.ru/science/20120327/607235043.html):
2. 2012-03-26 22:17 GMT, 80,9° S 5,63° W (Antarctica)
Although wildly different, both time/location pairs appear plausible when compared to the ground track of the final orbits.
Is there another source to verify against?
-
#736
by
Phillip Clark
on 29 Mar, 2012 18:56
-
USSTRATCOM reports this reentry location for Meteor 1-1 (1969-029A):
1. 2012-03-26 21:22:00 GMT +/- 1 minute, 47° N 95° E (Mongolia)
RIA Novosti quotes a spokesperson of the Russian Space Forces (http://ria.ru/science/20120327/607235043.html):
2. 2012-03-26 22:17 GMT, 80,9° S 5,63° W (Antarctica)
Although wildly different, both time/location pairs appear plausible when compared to the ground track of the final orbits.
Is there another source to verify against?
You need to compare the declared error bounds for the re-entry times. Space-Track always shows them on the TIPS re-entry notifications.
-
#737
by
mdo
on 30 Mar, 2012 07:22
-
You need to compare the declared error bounds for the re-entry times. Space-Track always shows them on the TIPS re-entry notifications.
+/- 1 minute
(as given in the original post)
-
#738
by
Phillip Clark
on 30 Mar, 2012 19:06
-
You need to compare the declared error bounds for the re-entry times. Space-Track always shows them on the TIPS re-entry notifications.
+/- 1 minute
(as given in the original post)
No error bound in the Russian data - so do we assume that it was zero?
-
#739
by
mdo
on 01 Apr, 2012 02:10
-
No error bound in the Russian data - so do we assume that it was zero?
Yes, the point about matching intervals is understood and no, we are trying not to presume anything. The 2nd record is simply incomplete. Thanks for the response. The original question remains though - namely whether somebody knows of another source (stating bounds).
As an update: This
note issued by the press office of the Russian department of defence appears to be the basis for various news articles quoting reentry coordinates over Antarctica. It does not provide an indication of its accuracy either. It is phrased such that a reader (using machine translation) must think that they pinpointed the area where some surviving fragments may have reached the surface. We know that the reentry location is a matter of definition and debris are spread depending on various properties. Irrespective of that it would take +/- 1 hour to match up the data from the US and Russia. In general, giving the midpoint of such a lengthy interval without even mentioning that it is part of an interval would render such a press release pretty useless (I'm not saying it is either way.)
Why was the toroidal tank selected? To make it easier to run the plumbing to the engine from the LOX tank?