-
#740
by
Phillip Clark
on 01 Apr, 2012 07:34
-
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.)
My query about the error bound for the Russian data is simply because the United States has a far wider net for tracking space debris than has Russia. Based upon this, unless a re-entry was actually seen (eg, rocket stage sticking in the Kremlin wall!!) you would expect the Russian error bounds in their predictions to be greater than those of the United States data.
-
#741
by
Satori
on 01 Apr, 2012 13:38
-
I understand that spectators are allowed to view Soyuz launches a bit closer than we were allowed to view Shuttle.
The attached photo of Soyuz TM-28 taking off shows a few people in the foreground. Any idea how far they are from the pad? They seem to be extremely close.
Thanks.
http://www.spacefacts.de/graph/drawing/drawings2/soyuz-tm-28_launch.jpg
Viewing area is 1.5 km from the launch pad for PU-5.
-
#742
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 01 Apr, 2012 19:16
-
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?
Some aditional info to clarify, based mainly on my vague recollection of my structural dynamics days at Rockwell in the early '90s.
On the APAS-89, which was used at Mir, either side can be "active," so it's truly an "androgynous" system. Prior to docking, one side is kept latched down ("passive" side"), and the other side is extended to attenuate structural loads ("active" side), but EITHER side can be selected to be active prior to docking. Therefore, any APAS-89 unit can dock to any other one.
But APAS-89 units were developed for Soyuz-class spacecraft (typically 6500 kg or so at docking). For docking the Shuttle to ISS (~100,000 kg), the mechanism was modified (by RSC-E & Rockwell) to be "softer" to prevent structural loads exceedances on deployed ISS components like the PV Arrays. Because of this, one side was permanently latched down (and the unnecessary control electronics removed, reducing mass). This is the APAS-95 configuration: a "Passive" APAS-95 on ISS, and an Active APAS-95 on the matching Shuttle. An Active APAS-95 can dock to Passive APAS-95 or Active APAS-95, but Passive APAS-95 (on ISS) can only dock with Active APAS-95 -- therefore, APAS-95 comes in "pairs", and APAS-89 doesn't.
IIRC, NASA/JSC Missions Operations Directorate (MOD) has stated that vehicles smaller than the Shuttle might be able to use the APAS-89 to dock to ISS, but it would take some structural loads analysis to confirm/approve (which is the case for any docking/berthing of a new vehicle to ISS anyway).
I remember seeing a briefing on LIDS (and the patent) that stated that APAS is not fully androgynous, which is a bit of misdirection since APAS is fully androgynous unless modified not to be.
Ben Muniz
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5863.15
-
#743
by
Jason1701
on 03 Apr, 2012 22:13
-
Why does some red smoke appear in the Proton's plume?
-
#744
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 03 Apr, 2012 23:33
-
Why does some red smoke appear in the Proton's plume?
That's (IIRC) nitrogen tetraoxide (N
2O
4) venting from the Proton's first stage.
-
#745
by
manboy
on 04 Apr, 2012 03:30
-
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?
Some aditional info to clarify, based mainly on my vague recollection of my structural dynamics days at Rockwell in the early '90s.
On the APAS-89, which was used at Mir, either side can be "active," so it's truly an "androgynous" system. Prior to docking, one side is kept latched down ("passive" side"), and the other side is extended to attenuate structural loads ("active" side), but EITHER side can be selected to be active prior to docking. Therefore, any APAS-89 unit can dock to any other one.
But APAS-89 units were developed for Soyuz-class spacecraft (typically 6500 kg or so at docking). For docking the Shuttle to ISS (~100,000 kg), the mechanism was modified (by RSC-E & Rockwell) to be "softer" to prevent structural loads exceedances on deployed ISS components like the PV Arrays. Because of this, one side was permanently latched down (and the unnecessary control electronics removed, reducing mass). This is the APAS-95 configuration: a "Passive" APAS-95 on ISS, and an Active APAS-95 on the matching Shuttle. An Active APAS-95 can dock to Passive APAS-95 or Active APAS-95, but Passive APAS-95 (on ISS) can only dock with Active APAS-95 -- therefore, APAS-95 comes in "pairs", and APAS-89 doesn't.
IIRC, NASA/JSC Missions Operations Directorate (MOD) has stated that vehicles smaller than the Shuttle might be able to use the APAS-89 to dock to ISS, but it would take some structural loads analysis to confirm/approve (which is the case for any docking/berthing of a new vehicle to ISS anyway).
I remember seeing a briefing on LIDS (and the patent) that stated that APAS is not fully androgynous, which is a bit of misdirection since APAS is fully androgynous unless modified not to be.
Ben Muniz
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5863.15
I saw that but to me it doesn't make sense because there are no pressure seals on the APAS-89 mechanism on Kristall which means it is not fully androgynous. Bmuniz also doesn't clarify if there's any difference between active APAS-95 and active APAS-89. And he doesn't mention that strange four-tubed connecter you see on Kristall's mechanism.
-
#746
by
Stan Black
on 06 Apr, 2012 13:23
-
-
#747
by
Stan Black
on 07 Apr, 2012 06:30
-
http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/Книги%20о%20предприятии/Самарские%20ступени%20Семерки.PDF
Contains lots of curious information.
The serial number Х15000-13 is quoted for Interkosmos-6.
It lists Kosmos 368 as a Bion 11F690, which was followed by Bion 12KS.
Mentions 11А511 С15000-26, С15000-27, С15000-30 and С15000-31 but can anyone help with a translation?
Soyuz-U 76043731 18.05.73
Around page 108 of that document
On 19th February 1973
Before the Almaz Salyut 2 and DOS Kosmos 557
Three Soyuz manned spacecraft & rockets allocated for the next DOS space station
Soyuz 7K-T № 36 - 11А511 № С15000-27
Soyuz 7K-T № 37 - 11А511 № С15000-30
Soyuz 7K-T № 38 - 11А511 № С15000-31
For Almaz Salyut 2
Soyuz 7K-T № 61 - 11А511 № С15000-26
This does slightly contradicted an article in Novosti Kosmonavtiki
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtmlSoyuz 7K-T № 35A - 11А511 № С15000-28
and according to Novosti Kosmonavtiki above, 35A did not reach orbit. Instead it was used for a test of the 7K-TM launch abort system, for ASTP.
Also the 11A511 Soyuz rockets were being modified in the wake of the failure of 11A57 Voskhod rocket 271.
These helped:-
http://www.newocr.com/http://babelfish.yahoo.com/
-
#748
by
Stan Black
on 10 Apr, 2012 19:24
-
http://www.samspace.ru/WEB/Книги%20о%20предприятии/Самарские%20ступени%20Семерки.PDF
Contains lots of curious information.
The serial number Х15000-13 is quoted for Interkosmos-6.
It lists Kosmos-368 as a Bion 11F690, which was followed by Bion 12KS.
Mentions 11А511 С15000-26, С15000-27, С15000-30 and С15000-31 but can anyone help with a translation?
Soyuz-U 76043731 18.05.73
Around page 108 of that document
On 19th February 1973
Before the Almaz Salyut-2 and DOS Kosmos-557
Three Soyuz manned spacecraft & rockets allocated for the next DOS space station
Soyuz 7K-T № 36 - 11А511 № С15000-27
Soyuz 7K-T № 37 - 11А511 № С15000-30
Soyuz 7K-T № 38 - 11А511 № С15000-31
For Almaz Salyut-2
Soyuz 7K-T № 61 - 11А511 № С15000-26
This does slightly contradicted an article in Novosti Kosmonavtiki
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/numbers/231/37.shtml
Soyuz 7K-T № 35A - 11А511 № С15000-28
and according to Novosti Kosmonavtiki above, 35A did not reach orbit. Instead it was used for a test of the 7K-TM launch abort system, for ASTP.
Also the 11A511 Soyuz rockets were being modified in the wake of the failure of 11A57 Voskhod rocket 271.
These helped:-
http://www.newocr.com/
http://babelfish.yahoo.com/
So if the original order of flights were to be
61 - first for Salyut-2 Almaz; later flown as Kosmos-656.
35A - long duration solo flight? Later used to test launch abort system for ASTP
36 - first for Kosmos-557 DOS space station.
37 - second for Kosmos-557 DOS space station.
38 - third for Kosmos-557 DOS space station.
In 1973 the USSR attempted to put into orbit two space stations. Both failed. The first an Almaz named Salyut-2 failed before a crew arrived and the other a DOS, failed before being called Salyut and was covered with the generic Kosmos-557 label.
It looks like the DOS was to have launched second but occupied first?
-
#749
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 19 Apr, 2012 02:47
-
I was surprised to see that there's a Zenit-derived return capsule at the Museum of Flight in Seattle: the one of the Resurs 500, which flew in orbit for 7 days in 1992. Apparently it does not carry cameras (or does it? Does anybody knows?).
I would like to see if someone got detailed pictures of the inside and exterior of the capsule during a visit.
-
#750
by
Phillip Clark
on 19 Apr, 2012 06:17
-
I was surprised to see that there's a Zenit-derived return capsule at the Museum of Flight in Seattle: the one of the Resurs 500, which flew in orbit for 7 days in 1992. Apparently it does not carry cameras (or does it? Does anybody knows?).
I would like to see if someone got detailed pictures of the inside and exterior of the capsule during a visit.
Resurs-500 was nothing more than a publicity stunt. The spacecraft contained nothing useful, just trunkets to give to the Americans, it intentionally splashed down, was recovery by the Americans and the flight was declared a success.
-
#751
by
Skyrocket
on 19 Apr, 2012 07:00
-
I was surprised to see that there's a Zenit-derived return capsule at the Museum of Flight in Seattle: the one of the Resurs 500, which flew in orbit for 7 days in 1992. Apparently it does not carry cameras (or does it? Does anybody knows?).
I would like to see if someone got detailed pictures of the inside and exterior of the capsule during a visit.
Resurs-500 was nothing more than a publicity stunt. The spacecraft contained nothing useful, just trunkets to give to the Americans, it intentionally splashed down, was recovery by the Americans and the flight was declared a success.
This plaquette at the museum flight (
http://coolnewz.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/13_resurs-500.jpg) tells, that it was of the Resurs-F1 (14F43) type. If this is true, ther should have been cameras. My impression was , that it was a standard Resurs-F1 mission flown with additional stuff as a public relations mission.
I would really like to see a pre-launch photo of Resurs-500
-
#752
by
Phillip Clark
on 19 Apr, 2012 12:16
-
I understood that Resurs-500 carried no imaging system - it was removed to carry the stuff that was being set to the USA as a "present". Maybe it was originally built as a Resurs-F1 satellite and then stripped.
Might have been cheaper and more reliable to use the postal services, of course.
-
#753
by
Stan Black
on 19 Apr, 2012 17:59
-
-
#754
by
Stan Black
on 19 Apr, 2012 20:41
-
-
#755
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 25 Apr, 2012 14:33
-
Since the accident during the pressurization test, what is the current status of Soyuz-TMA no.704? Will the descent module be repaired, a new descent module will be used, or will all three modules be scrapped?
-
#756
by
anik
on 30 Apr, 2012 08:40
-
Since the accident during the pressurization test, what is the current status of Soyuz-TMA no.704? Will the descent module be repaired, a new descent module will be used, or will all three modules be scrapped?
SA will not be used. BO will be used in future flights. Some equipment in PAO will be replaced, and it will be used in future flights.
-
#757
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 04 May, 2012 03:13
-
Since the accident during the pressurization test, what is the current status of Soyuz-TMA no.704? Will the descent module be repaired, a new descent module will be used, or will all three modules be scrapped?
SA will not be used. BO will be used in future flights. Some equipment in PAO will be replaced, and it will be used in future flights.
This was answered by a member at NK: the descent module originally scheduled to fly on ship 707 (TMA-06M) will instead be coupled to the orbital and service modules of ship 704. This new ship (probably will receive the number 704A) will probably be used as Soyuz TMA-07M.
Source
-
#758
by
Stan Black
on 06 May, 2012 09:01
-
-
#759
by
Danderman
on 07 May, 2012 02:30
-
So can someone help me understand this?
http://zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=3105458
See tab Документы заказа
АД Фрегат согласованная ДПСПР № 0173100004512000816 от 09.04.2012
Срок поставки товара: одного разгонного блока «Фрегат» - до 25 ноября 2013 г., двух – до 25 ноября 2014 г.
It has details of rocket with 11С824Ф and Fregat (see from page 38)?
I am not sure what your question is. If you wondering what "11С824Ф" is, its "разгонный блок Д-2 для РН "Протон-К"", ie an old version of Blok-D.
