-
#920
by
darkenfast
on 10 Jun, 2018 17:36
-
Here you go: "9 Minutes Before Space". English-dubbed.
-
#921
by
Steve G
on 10 Jun, 2018 19:12
-
Awesome video. Watched the entire thing. Thanks so much.
-
#922
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 11 Jun, 2018 18:57
-
Somebody knows if "SL-x" designation for Soviet launch vehicles were given by CIA, NATO, or anyone else ?
-
#923
by
Proponent
on 11 Jun, 2018 20:18
-
Or maybe the Library of Congress?
-
#924
by
GClark
on 12 Jun, 2018 05:34
-
SL-x designations were DOD.
The Library of Congress/Sheldon system was the letter-number designations.
The NATO designations were names, the first letter of which told you what kind of vehicle it was - S for surface-to-surface, G for Ground-to-Air, etc.
-
#925
by
libra
on 13 Oct, 2019 17:29
-
-
#926
by
Skyrocket
on 13 Oct, 2019 18:08
-
I was checking spacecraft list on that excellent, detailed website
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e8-5m.htm
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e8-5.htm
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e8.htm
And I'm left wondering:
Was there a Lunokhod number 202 ? what happened to it ?
And about the Luna sample return ships - seems number 409 and 411 are missing.
Were they mockups or ground-test engineering models ? (in the N-1 sequence the mockups were included)
It is mind-boggling, the number of sample scoopers the Soviets build, and the percentage lost to defective Protons. 
Concerning serial numbers 202 and 206: They existed, but were not Lunokhod rovers. These were the E-8LS orbiter missions Luna 19 and Luna 22. These orbiters featured instrument modules, which were in fact Lunokhod hulls without wheels and motors to house the scientific instruments - hence the serial numbers in the Lunokhod series.
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/luna_e8ls.htmConcerning serial numbers 409 and 411: i have never figured out, if they have been built (or partially) built before being cancelled.
-
#927
by
libra
on 14 Oct, 2019 04:17
-
Ah great. The webmaster himself. Your website is great, incidentally.
That explains a lot of things, thank you. As for the scoopers, considered the number that went up in smoke with the Proton, perhaps these two were cannibalized in urgency to create others that flew...
-
#928
by
libra
on 14 Oct, 2019 15:37
-
the case of the Soyuz LOK is bizarre, too. Sixteen planned but seven build as of 1970, ok. But is the final number of vehicle build still unknown, 50 years after ? Is your source A.Siddiqi SP-4408, Challenge to Apollo ?
I find a little odd that five decades after nobody (not even Siddiqi, the best of the best specialist of the soviet space program) can assess for sure how many LOK were build. Or maybe it just tell about the Soviet opacity, waste, secrecy and paranoia...
-
#929
by
libra
on 17 Aug, 2020 15:35
-
Hello to all
A lot of Soviet robotic lunar landers (Luna 9 and 13), the LK planned landing spot, and also Chelomei and Barmin lunar plans (Barmingrad and LK-700) - all seems to target the same corner of the Moon: Oceanus Procellarum, better know as the Ocean of Storms.
http://www.astronautix.com/l/lk-700.html as this to say (with the usual caveats !)
The preferred landing site was in the Sea of Fertility or Ocean of Storms, which allowed the best angle of intersection of the hyperbolic departure trajectory with the lunar surface, requiring the minimum rearrangement of internal systems.
Just to be clear. When launching a lunar lander (robotic or manned) from Baikonur, are there some orbital mechanics constraints resulting in that peculiar place on the lunar near side ?
I swear I've read similar stuff to the astronautix tibdit elsewhere - but can't find them.
-
#930
by
PM3
on 04 Jan, 2021 21:26
-
For some reason, I am trying to figure out which of the Soviet republics were operating own satellites.
Of course, the Russian SFSR did. But what about e.g. Ukrainian, Byelorus, Kazakh, Georgian SSR? Did they operate any satellites?
-
#931
by
B. Hendrickx
on 08 Jan, 2021 11:08
-
For some reason, I am trying to figure out which of the Soviet republics were operating own satellites.
Of course, the Russian SFSR did. But what about e.g. Ukrainian, Byelorus, Kazakh, Georgian SSR? Did they operate any satellites?
The Yuzhnoye design bureau in Dnepropetrovsk (Ukraine) built its own satellites, but you can't call those Ukrainian satellites (at least not before the collapse of the Soviet Union). They were built in the interests of the Soviet Union and operated by the Soviet Union.
-
#932
by
libra
on 09 Jan, 2021 19:20
-
In his 1996 book "Rocket corporation Energiya" Yuriy Semyonov says
- Zond 4 (April 1968) was blown over the Gulf of Biscay (between France and Spain !) when all other sources says the Gulf of Guinea. They are 3000 km apart !
- Cosmos 133 (November 1966) was lost over China rather than blown up and the debris landing at the bottom of the Mariana trench. 3000 km apart, too ! Quite a huge difference.
Now the book is dated (24 years ago) and obviously, other testimonies (Chertok) and histories have come since then.
What troubles me is that Semyonov was manager of both Soyuz and Zond programs when all this happened in the mid-60's - so he was much more than an insider or a witness.
Why did his version of these two events differed so much from what has transpired since then ?
-
#933
by
PM3
on 25 Jan, 2021 10:23
-
For some reason, I am trying to figure out which of the Soviet republics were operating own satellites.
Of course, the Russian SFSR did. But what about e.g. Ukrainian, Byelorus, Kazakh, Georgian SSR? Did they operate any satellites?
The Yuzhnoye design bureau in Dnepropetrovsk (Ukraine) built its own satellites, but you can't call those Ukrainian satellites (at least not before the collapse of the Soviet Union). They were built in the interests of the Soviet Union and operated by the Soviet Union.
Who operated those satellites after the Soviet Union ceased to exist? Did Ukraine then take over any satellite operation?
-
#934
by
Stardust
on 25 Jan, 2021 11:28
-
Who operated those satellites after the Soviet Union ceased to exist? Did Ukraine then take over any satellite operation?
Please excue my not so good english. I have collected and analysed all "Kosmos"-Satellites up to 1990. The Satellites from Yushnoje (today Ukraine) ju must see as a intergarl part of the programms from USSR. The ukranian part founded on the rockets Kosmos in the variants 1, 2, 3 and 3M plus Strela. All this rockets habe the basis on IRMB and ICBM from Yushnoje. Some of the satellites had purely sientific purpose. But the overwhelming part was military- mostly military- sientific. For Example the was: radar calibration, study of gravitational field (especially for trajectorys of ICBM´s. And very important: The ASAT-Program.
After 1991 all this cheased.
-
#935
by
DaveS
on 03 Sep, 2021 01:42
-
Question on the DKS main thrusters of the TKS-derivatives like the various Mir modules along with the FGB and MLM of the ISS: Do they use actuated covers similar to the main thruster of Soyuz/Progress?
-
#936
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 08 Sep, 2021 07:43
-
I don't really know, but what is sure is that the cover is not the same type as the Soyuz one.
See these two pictures. The first one was took in space in 2004, the second one was took by me in Toulouse.
-
#937
by
DaveS
on 14 Sep, 2021 00:40
-
Thanks for the second photo Nicolas, that one answers my question nicely. While there is a cover over the actual thruster, it isn't a mechanical motorized cover like the ones used on the Soyuz/Progress. The grey structure made it look like it was hinged and therefore mechanical but the photo shows it to be static with the cover being soft fabric of some sort that is most likely destroyed at the first use of the thruster.
-
#938
by
DaveS
on 17 Sep, 2021 16:18
-
On a similar subject, does anyone have any close up photos of the forward firing thrusters of the FGB? I need to see how they are attached the actual thruster block that houses the upward/downward firing thrusters.
-
#939
by
AnniCrow
on 08 Oct, 2021 20:17
-
Sorry to Jump in here with a random question.
But does anyone know where I could find the soviet/russian mission patches?
