-
#880 by Remes on 26 Jan, 2015 23:26
-
The things depicted by red arrows, what is their function?
Is it a corner reflector, or a shielding against the other antenna, or some sort of reflector who focuses on a local antenna?
The deployable antenna is for Kurs, are the others (red arrow) for Kurs, too?
The blue lines, are they showing the path of radio signals?
-
#881 by Nicolas PILLET on 07 Feb, 2015 17:15
-
Everyone knows this famous picture of Chelomey's LK-1 spaceship.
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/lk1/tech/fig5.jpg
I've just found somewhere in my hard drive the very same picture, but with the ejection tower !
-
#882 by saturnapollo on 07 Feb, 2015 17:24
-
Quote
The things depicted by red arrows, what is their function?
They are radar shields.
Keith -
#883 by manojgj on 29 Apr, 2015 15:54
-
while discussing about Progress M-27M cargo mission to ISS is out of control, one of my friend argued that every space flights like satellites or cargo or any other kind of launches an explosives or detonator is attached to every one of them for safety reasons like when the mission failed by any technical or other error , the satellite/cargo will be exploded while its atmospheric re-entry . is it true ?
-
#884 by kevin-rf on 29 Apr, 2015 16:06
-
Depends on the country. Russia/Former Soviet Union historically have used passive Flight Termination (FTS). They just close all the valves, shutdown the engines, and let the rocket just fall back to earth. The US on the other hand has historically used active termination, ie detcord/explosives to break up the stage/payload during a launch failure so that you don't have a large stage full of fuel and oxidizer land on say a school and go BOOM!.
Edit: Just reread your question. In Western countries FTS is used during launch, once in orbit, it is deactivated. So when a satellite reenters, it is not actively broken apart. Progress does not have any explosives on it (Minus the propellant tanks). -
#885 by the_other_Doug on 29 Apr, 2015 18:11
-
I know that unmanned test versions of early American manned spacecraft (specifically Mercury) had small bombs inside that were designed to destroy the craft if they sank or if they were going to land in a location where a competing world power (read: USSR) might get their hands on them. The term SOFAR bomb comes to mind, but I can't swear that it's the correct designation.
I also seem to recall that there was a spirited debate as to whether or not to include these devices aboard the spacecraft that were actually manned, and that eventually they were removed. But that there was some question as to whether or not Liberty Bell 7 might have been destroyed by such a device as it sank to the ocean floor, and that the group that eventually salvaged it were grateful that it had not been. -
#886 by ZANL188 on 31 May, 2015 12:58
-
What is the purpose of the spinning object on the right side of this Soyuz docking video? I presume it's part of Kurs...
-
#887 by Proponent on 31 May, 2015 16:00
-
I know that unmanned test versions of early American manned spacecraft (specifically Mercury) had small bombs inside that were designed to destroy the craft if they sank or if they were going to land in a location where a competing world power (read: USSR) might get their hands on them. The term SOFAR bomb comes to mind, but I can't swear that it's the correct designation.
The purpose of the SOFAR bomb was quite benign: it helped the recovery team locate the spacecraft. -
#888 by Danderman on 31 May, 2015 18:38
-
What is the purpose of the spinning object on the right side of this Soyuz docking video? I presume it's part of Kurs...
It is the 2AO mechanical scanning antenna, used for part of the short range approach.
The large АСФ1 and АСФ2 antennas scan electronically; together with the 2AO, they can provide the flight computer with a 3 dimensional model of the passive Kurs short range antennas on ISS during the flyaround - in other words, Progress or Soyuz flies around until the 3 Kurs active antennas get a 3D lock on the Kurs passive antennas, and then the flight computer is directed to hold position until the command to proceed is given.
I once read somewhere that the mechanical scanning antenna was to be dropped in favor of a software based solution, but I don't know if this happened.
-
#889 by Stan Black on 13 Jul, 2015 18:40
-
Gonets-M and Rodnik-S are the same type of satellite, but for different customers. Gonets-M are article 372АС11, whilst Rodnik-S are 14Ф132. They are usually launched in triplets by Rokot.
As with GLONASS a ‘blok’ number is assigned to each multiple launch. The attachment mechanism is article 372АС71 for Gonets-M, whilst for Rodnik-S it is 14С137.
The manufacturer ISS Reshetnev number the first operational satellite of a series as 11.
Gonets-M
Tenders point to blok № 11 with «Gonets-M» № 12, 13, 14. This ended up as «Gonets-M» № 13 and № 15 along with an older generation Strela-3, and the Yubileiny-2 small satellite.
Blok № 12 with «Gonets-M» № 15, 16, 17 however because of the previous launch this ended up as «Gonets-M» № 14, 16, 17.
Contract number 307-1197/12 dated 25th July 2012
Blok № 13 with «Gonets-M» № 18, 19, 20
Blok № 14 with «Gonets-M» № 21, 22, 23
Blok № 15 with «Gonets-M» № 24, 25
Contract number 307-1197/14/381 dated 5th December 2014
«Gonets-M» № 26
Blok № 16 with «Gonets-M» № 27, 28, 29
Blok № 17 with «Gonets-M» № 30, 31, 32
Rodnik-S
Blok № 11Quote8 сентября был произведен запуск ракеты-носителя с КА 14С137 и «Гонец-М».
http://www.sq.com.ua/rus/news/ekonomika/20.04.2011/v_2010_g_s_uchastiem_hartrona_bylo_proizvedeno_shest_puskov_raket_v_kosmos/
This ended up joined with «Gonets-M» № 12, and an older generation Strela-3.
Blok № 12 with № 14, 15, 16?
Blok № 13 with № 17, 18, 19?
Blok № 14 with № 20, 21, 22?
This tender refers to launches of 14С137 № 13, 14С137 № 14, 14Ф31 № 12. The customer indicates it was for Rodnik-S.
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/epz/contract/contractCard/common-info.html?reestrNumber=0173100004513000338
Upcoming launches:-
Blok № 15 with № 23, 24, 25?
Blok № 16 with № 26, 27, 28
Indicated in a procurement plan from the manufacturer.QuoteПроведение дополнительных испытаний (ОИ, ДНК, РФА) ЭРИ, комплектующих аппаратуру КА 14Ф132 №26/16, 27/16, 28/16.
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/223/plan/public/download/download.html?id=1540420
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/223/plan/public/plan/info/actual-documents.html?planId=121794&planInfoId=602783&versioned=&activeTab=1 -
#890 by nimbostratus on 17 Jul, 2015 07:08
-
Having viewed so many pics of Russian rockets, I haven't found any Russian rocket with umbilicals at launch pads. And even a lot of rockets don't need a tower at the launch pad. It is not common in the world.
Is this what is called automation? -
#891 by Moskit on 17 Jul, 2015 08:37
-
They use different fuel, which doesn't need topping-off near launch time.
Gantry tower is used mainly for providing propellants to the second stage (to avoid pumping them through the whole rocket). For the first stage you can still have umbilicals near the base of the vehicle, without a tower. -
#892 by Jim on 17 Jul, 2015 10:52
-
Having viewed so many pics of Russian rockets, I haven't found any Russian rocket with umbilicals at launch pads. And even a lot of rockets don't need a tower at the launch pad. It is not common in the world.
Is this what is called automation?
Proton uses storable propellants
Soyuz has umbilicals but they chose to disconnect them a few minutes before launch -
#893 by manboy on 14 Nov, 2015 03:13
-
Does anyone have the dimensions of the Hydro Lab (similar to NASA's NBL) that Russia used prior to their current one?
-
#894 by Prof68 on 16 Nov, 2015 06:56
-
Does anyone have the dimensions of the Hydro Lab (similar to NASA's NBL) that Russia used prior to their current one?
As far as I know, current russian hydrolab is their first dedicated facility.
It is build soon after SU restart their EVA program -
#895 by Nicolas PILLET on 16 Nov, 2015 18:35
-
#896 by manboy on 19 Nov, 2015 05:39
-
Diameter : 23m
That's Hydro Lab, I need the dimensions of the pool that came before it.
Depth : 12m
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/basesorga/tspk/des/hydrolab/hydrolab.html -
#897 by Stan Black on 27 Dec, 2015 16:14
-
So how did Progress M-32 make a second docking to the Mir Complex?
When a Progress-M or Soyuz dock, if fitted the 2AO-VKA antenna is retracted. This cannot be reversed. If a second docking is required it has to be under manual command by TORU?How many manually Progress dockings have there been?
Eight. Progress M-16, Progress M-24, Progress M-35, Progress M-38, Progress M1-4 (twice), Progress M-53 and Progress M-01M. Fourth docking in ISS program. -
#898 by Nicolas PILLET on 27 Dec, 2015 17:59
-
Diameter : 23m
That's Hydro Lab, I need the dimensions of the pool that came before it.
Depth : 12m
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/basesorga/tspk/des/hydrolab/hydrolab.html
There was no pool before Hydrolab. Before Hydrolab, crews for firsts Salyut-6 expeditions used the standard training pool of Star City. But this was not intended for training purpose, it was just a "normal" pool...
See figure 1.4 in my article... -
#899 by Danderman on 19 Jan, 2016 22:20
-
So how did Progress M-32 make a second docking to the Mir Complex?
When a Progress-M or Soyuz dock, if fitted the 2AO-VKA antenna is retracted. This cannot be reversed. If a second docking is required it has to be under manual command by TORU?How many manually Progress dockings have there been?
Eight. Progress M-16, Progress M-24, Progress M-35, Progress M-38, Progress M1-4 (twice), Progress M-53 and Progress M-01M. Fourth docking in ISS program.
After the first docking attempt by Progress, all future docking attempts must baseline TORU for the last 100 meters or so after flyaround, except for Progress MS.
This was true for Progress M1-4 which failed to dock at ISS back in 2001.