Excalibur Almaz

[Jim]

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  9:29 AM

Jim - 13/3/2008  8:14 AM

But VA is not risk free from fire, the use of potassium superoxide  for oxygen generation has its risks

I was unaware that the Almaz capsule used Potassium Superoxide for Oxygen generation.

All Russian vehicles use it

[Capt. David]

Jim - 20/3/2008  10:19 AM

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  9:57 AM
t by using the RSC during reentry the capsule could be rolled about the trimmed angle of attack allowing the ballistic coefficient to be varied from 471.9  to 646.5 kg per sq. meter (the Apollo capsule was only about 379 kg per sq. meter). This made the Almaz capsule capable of a targeted controlled glide.

No different than Apollo

No different in that both could make targeted control glides using RSC roll techniques, but the Almaz capsule had quite a bit more control over its glide than the Apollo did over its glide.

[Capt. David]

Jim - 20/3/2008  10:21 AM

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  9:29 AM

Jim - 13/3/2008  8:14 AM

But VA is not risk free from fire, the use of potassium superoxide  for oxygen generation has its risks

I was unaware that the Almaz capsule used Potassium Superoxide for Oxygen generation.

All Russian vehicles use it

I am aware that the Vostok, Voskhod, and all Soyuz models used Oxygen Generators, but the Almaz capsule had externally mounted tanks to provide atmosphere and used Potassium Peroxide in its CO2 Scrubber.

[Capt. David]

Patchouli - 12/3/2008  8:02 PM

As for the shape of the VA capsule it's very similar to Apollo so attacking the VA shape vs Apollo's is baseless and there are no engineering reasons why the exact shape as apollo can't be made with the same features as the VA capsule.

There seems to be a common misconception as to the configuration of the Almaz capsule during reentry.



The shape on the left is the Almaz capsule upon landing. The RSC unit is still attached during atmosphere reentry as visualized on the right. You can see from this that during the reentry phase there is very little resemblance between the Almaz and Apollo capsules.

[Capt. David]

simonbp - 12/3/2008  10:38 PM

Well, it may be "superior", but was also 30% smaller, and could only handle LEO entry velocities. The Apollo CM was designed for a different purpose entirely (lunar orbital flight, rather than station resupply), so any comparison is arbitrary at best...

Simon

Actually, a proper comparison would have to include the whole system. The Apollo CM was dependant on the SM. Likewise, the Almaz VA was either part of the TKS or OPS. Either way makes the usable volume of the Almaz system superior.

The capsule itself was a variant of the LK-1 - LK-700 lunar capsule family.

The bottom line is that Chelomei really only had one manned capsule design, but it could be adapted to a BOATLOAD of different applications. The Apollo didn't have such a capacity.

[Jim]

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  12:01 PM



I am aware that the Vostok, Voskhod, and all Soyuz models used Oxygen Generators, but the Almaz capsule had externally mounted tanks to provide atmosphere and used Potassium Peroxide in its CO2 Scrubber.

"Potassium Peroxide" is an oxygen producer

[Jim]

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  1:22 PM

Actually, a proper comparison would have to include the whole system. The Apollo CM was dependant on the SM. Likewise, the Almaz VA was either part of the TKS or OPS. Either way makes the usable volume of the Almaz system superior.

The capsule itself was a variant of the LK-1 - LK-700 lunar capsule family.

The bottom line is that Chelomei really only had one manned capsule design, but it could be adapted to a BOATLOAD of different applications. The Apollo didn't have such a capacity.

Those are all unqualified and biased statements.  

VA/TKS was over kill for crew rotation

Volume is a minor consideration.

Apollo had more thrust, could navigate cislunar space and go into higher LEO orbits.

Apollo was  even more versatile.  Apollo, Skylab,  and Apollo/Soyuz proved this.  Also when including the LM, which is an "Apollo" spacecraft, is  even more proof

Almaz  was a dead end.  It never "was", and  "could be"  is not a valid.

But if "could be" would be include then, advanced studies using the CSM, mission modules and LM  showed much more that a "BOATLOAD " of applications

[Capt. David]

Jim - 20/3/2008  1:40 PM

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  12:01 PM



I am aware that the Vostok, Voskhod, and all Soyuz models used Oxygen Generators, but the Almaz capsule had externally mounted tanks to provide atmosphere and used Potassium Peroxide in its CO2 Scrubber.

"Potassium Peroxide" is an oxygen producer

I think I recall a True/False question on an IQ test one time that went something like, "If Potassium Peroxide is an Oxygen producer, and Potassium Superoxide is an Oxygen producer, then Potassium Peroxide is Potassium Superoxide."

I answered "False".

[Jim]

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  2:02 PM

Jim - 20/3/2008  1:40 PM

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  12:01 PM



I am aware that the Vostok, Voskhod, and all Soyuz models used Oxygen Generators, but the Almaz capsule had externally mounted tanks to provide atmosphere and used Potassium Peroxide in its CO2 Scrubber.

"Potassium Peroxide" is an oxygen producer

I think I recall a True/False question on an IQ test one time that went something like, "If Potassium Peroxide is an Oxygen producer, and Potassium Superoxide is an Oxygen producer, then Potassium Peroxide is Potassium Superoxide."

I answered "False".

same fire risk exists for both, which was the original point

[Capt. David]

Jim - 20/3/2008  1:54 PM


VA/TKS was over kill for crew rotation

Volume is a minor consideration.

Apollo had more thrust, could navigate cislunar space and go into higher LEO orbits.

Apollo was  even more versatile.  Apollo, Skylab,  and Apollo/Soyuz proved this.  Also when including the LM, which is an "Apollo" spacecraft, is  even more proof

Almaz  was a dead end.  It never "was", and  "could be"  is not a valid.

But if "could be" would be include then, advanced studies using the CSM, mission modules and LM  showed much more that a "BOATLOAD " of applications

I believe you know that VA/TKS was designed for FAR more than mere "crew rotation".  I believe you also know that two of the first three components of ISS were Almaz components. I believe you also know that the US space station program would have died with Skylab if it weren't for the Almaz design. If you don't know these things, you should stick to your "rocket science" and let historians respond to my statements.

[Capt. David]

Jim - 20/3/2008  2:06 PM

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  2:02 PM

Jim - 20/3/2008  1:40 PM

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  12:01 PM



I am aware that the Vostok, Voskhod, and all Soyuz models used Oxygen Generators, but the Almaz capsule had externally mounted tanks to provide atmosphere and used Potassium Peroxide in its CO2 Scrubber.

"Potassium Peroxide" is an oxygen producer

I think I recall a True/False question on an IQ test one time that went something like, "If Potassium Peroxide is an Oxygen producer, and Potassium Superoxide is an Oxygen producer, then Potassium Peroxide is Potassium Superoxide."

I answered "False".

same fire risk exists for both, which was the original point

Same risk perhaps, but the Almaz capsule didn't have Potassium Superoxide or Oxygen Generators. That's my point.

[Jim]

Potassium Peroxide is used in an oxygen generator

[Jim]

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  4:01 PM

I believe you also know that the US space station program would have died with Skylab if it weren't for the Almaz design.

That is incorrect
I know my spaceflight history for both countries (having been in the USAF, I received briefings on the USSR programs).  

The Almaz design was used to "save" money* and to employ former Soviet "rocket scientists".  SSF did not need the Almaz components.  There were many alternatives that could have been used.


* - SSF would have still gone forward without the Almaz, since it did not save money.   It was a political decision.

[Capt. David]

Jim - 20/3/2008  1:54 PM

Almaz  was a dead end.  It never "was", and  "could be"  is not a valid.

Now THAT'S an interesting statement. Since the Almaz OPS flew multiple times, the TKS likewise, as also the VA ... the "dead end" is, of course, a dead statement. I'm also at a loss for your definition of "never". Is that the "never" like was used by President Clinton when he said he "never" had sex with that woman ...?

As for the "could be" ... the Almaz program isn't over yet! Just ask the guys at "Excalibur Almaz". I believe "Rocket Scientist" is the LEAST of their list of credentials.

[Capt. David]

Jim - 20/3/2008  4:26 PM

I know my spaceflight history for both countries (having been in the USAF, I received briefings on the USSR programs).  

I was in the USAF, the USAF Reserves, and the USN. I have three Honorable Discharges. I know that the LAST place to find accurate info about USSR spaceflight history is the US military. A couple of my colleagues have been writing some excellent papers on just how much the US did and didn't know about the USSR space program.

You are correct about the need to employ Russian Rocket Scientist. But judging by the rate of design cut-backs and budget cuts, IF the US had ever launched a space station without the Russians (which I doubt) by the time it reached fruition it would have been little more than a coke can, with a Radio Shack solar cell, manned by a gerbil with a wire stuck in its butt!

[Capt. David]

Jim - 20/3/2008  1:54 PM

Almaz  was a dead end.  

BTW, just looked up the proper definition for "dead end" and saw a photo of the X-33. I suppose that will be replaced by the Orion eventually.

Ba-Dump-Pish!

[Capt. David]

Jim - 20/3/2008  4:26 PM


* - SSF would have still gone forward without the Almaz, since it did not save money.   It was a political decision.

Is this the same kind of "political decision" that will shortly have us TOTALLY dependant on the Russians for trips to and from this "space station" we could have built without their help? It's a fair question ... or better yet, a "FARE" question.

Ba-Da-Pish, AGAIN!!!

[Jim]

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  4:44 PM

1.   I know that the LAST place to find accurate info about USSR spaceflight history is the US military.

2.  A couple of my colleagues have been writing some excellent papers on just how much the US did and didn't know about the USSR space program.

1.  Last time I looked enlisted weren't privy to this type info.  Anyways who said it was military people providing the information?  Also it wasn't "history" yet when I got briefed.  

2.  Seems to me after the fact, we were right most of the time

[Jim]

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  5:40 PM

Jim - 20/3/2008  4:26 PM


* - SSF would have still gone forward without the Almaz, since it did not save money.   It was a political decision.

Is this the same kind of "political decision" that will shortly have us TOTALLY dependant on the Russians for trips to and from this "space station" we could have built without their help? It's a fair question ... or better yet, a "FARE" question.

Ba-Da-Pish, AGAIN!!!

Huh?   Explain "Ba-Da-Pish" because you are still wrong.  

1.  It is not the same kind of "political decision" , it is the fall out of the original decision.
2.  We are not TOTALLY dependent on them


Your manlove for Chelomei has clouded your judgement

[Jim]

Capt. David - 20/3/2008  4:28 PM

As for the "could be" ... the Almaz program isn't over yet! Just ask the guys at "Excalibur Almaz". I believe "Rocket Scientist" is the LEAST of their list of credentials.

pipe dream, just like all future russian plans.