Vokshod 1

So was talking with some folks about the Soyuz leak and someone joked about
finding who made the hole and sending him to Siberia or something like that.
I joked, "No, it'll be more like, 'Congrats Comrade, you've just earned a
seat on the next Soyuz flight'"

This was invoked by a memory of Vokshod 1.
I knew it was a ballsy flight, basically a Vostok without the ejection seat,
3 seats, and no space suits.

But reading up at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voskhod_1 I came across a
detail I had not heard before (or had missed).
There was NO launch escape system during the first 3 minutes of the flight.

I guess the shuttle wasn't the first.

Interesting.

In article ,
says...

So was talking with some folks about the Soyuz leak and someone joked about
finding who made the hole and sending him to Siberia or something like that.
I joked, "No, it'll be more like, 'Congrats Comrade, you've just earned a
seat on the next Soyuz flight'"

This was invoked by a memory of Vokshod 1.
I knew it was a ballsy flight, basically a Vostok without the ejection seat,
3 seats, and no space suits.

But reading up at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voskhod_1 I came across a
detail I had not heard before (or had missed).
There was NO launch escape system during the first 3 minutes of the flight.

I guess the shuttle wasn't the first.

Interesting.

Yea, that flight was to make sure they were the first to fly three
crewmembers on one vehicle. Pure publicity stunt to show they were
ahead of the Americans.

Of course the US safety record during those early years of spaceflight
was not much better. The "waste anything but time" mantra also meant
glossing over safety issues when it was expediant. Knee jerk reactions
like making Apollo Block I's hatch open inward "solved" one safey issue
while creating another and that was hardly the only issue with the Block
I's. Also, using a pure O2 atmosphere for a ground test at a relatively
high pressure was insanity.

RIP Grissom, White, and Chaffee.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

So was talking with some folks about the Soyuz leak and someone joked
about
finding who made the hole and sending him to Siberia or something like
that.
I joked, "No, it'll be more like, 'Congrats Comrade, you've just earned a
seat on the next Soyuz flight'"

This was invoked by a memory of Vokshod 1.
I knew it was a ballsy flight, basically a Vostok without the ejection
seat,
3 seats, and no space suits.

But reading up at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voskhod_1 I came across a
detail I had not heard before (or had missed).
There was NO launch escape system during the first 3 minutes of the
flight.

I guess the shuttle wasn't the first.

Interesting.

Yea, that flight was to make sure they were the first to fly three
crewmembers on one vehicle. Pure publicity stunt to show they were
ahead of the Americans.

Of course the US safety record during those early years of spaceflight
was not much better. The "waste anything but time" mantra also meant
glossing over safety issues when it was expediant. Knee jerk reactions
like making Apollo Block I's hatch open inward "solved" one safey issue
while creating another and that was hardly the only issue with the Block
I's. Also, using a pure O2 atmosphere for a ground test at a relatively
high pressure was insanity.

RIP Grissom, White, and Chaffee.

Jeff

Yeah, and arguably Vokshod 2 was similar with their spacewalk.

As for the O2 thing, it's sort of like foam hitting the shuttle tiles.. or O
ring burnthrus...
People far too confident in their analysis based on past history. "nothing
went wrong last time."

Sort of like an inverse gambler's fallacy... the engineer's fallacy.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

On 2018-09-06 06:41, Jeff Findley wrote:

I's. Also, using a pure O2 atmosphere for a ground test at a relatively
high pressure was insanity.

If you go back to those times, was this truly a "failure of imagination"
as the actor said in "From the Earth to the Moon", or was it really
cutting corners due to tight schedule?

Was it just simpler to get the Apollo module to release O2 from its own
tanks to increase internal pressure compared to plugging in an external
hose to pressurize the module?

I believe the CSM was pressurized from outside and the unplugged (since it
was a plugs out test).


(also, wouldn't the module start off with 14.7psi of normal air (mostly
nitrogen) and then add 5PSI of O2? Or did they truly fill it with 100%
O2 as the various movies made it look?



They filled it with pure O2. The reason for overpressuring it was to get a
trust test of the pressure difference once in orbit.

In actual operation with the Block II CSM, they launched at 14.7 psi with
basically normal air and bled it down to the pure O2 PSI.

In terms of launch escape, again, going back to those times, did the
knowledge/technology exist to build launcgh escape systems?


Of course Mercury had one. Vostok had one.
Gemini had ejection seats; which failed in one test. Well the seats
apparently worked, but the hatches didn't properly eject.

The quotes associated with that was (apparently from John Young to Grissom)

"That's a hell of a headache, but a short one."

In Apollo era, there appeared to be a "launch abort" red button. Was
this a full fledged launch escape system that could bring capsule out of
harm's way and land peacefully in water next to the beach? Or was it a
limited system usable only during certain phases of flight?

Apollo had complete abort capability all the way to orbit.
It could be initiated by the onboard flight computer OR by the CMP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_abort_modes has some details.

On the pad and at lower altitudes, basically the LES which was the structure
on top of the CSM which was basically a tower attached to the boost
protective cover would fire and and pull the CM away from the rest of the
stack. There was a SRM to make sure it was pulled to one side and not just
straight up (where an accelerating Saturn could then run into it).

Above a certain altitude the LES and boost protective cover would be
jettisoned.
In this case the CSM would use its engine to abort, or if high enough, the
S-IVB would attempt an abort to orbit.

Apollo had a fairly robust set of abort options.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

Of course the US safety record during those early years of spaceflight
was not much better. The "waste anything but time" mantra also meant
glossing over safety issues when it was expediant. Knee jerk reactions
like making Apollo Block I's hatch open inward "solved" one safey issue
while creating another and that was hardly the only issue with the Block
I's. Also, using a pure O2 atmosphere for a ground test at a relatively
high pressure was insanity.

RIP Grissom, White, and Chaffee.

Yeah, and arguably Vokshod 2 was similar with their spacewalk.

As for the O2 thing, it's sort of like foam hitting the shuttle tiles.. or O
ring burnthrus...
People far too confident in their analysis based on past history. "nothing
went wrong last time."

Actually they should have known, from aircraft experience, that pure
oxygen at (relatively) high pressures during a ground test was a very
bad idea. They thought controlling ignition sources would be "good
enough" when in hindsight that approach was bound to fail. Also, doing
the test with the CSM in a vacuum chamber, so that the spacecraft
pressure would have been at the nominal 5 psi (I think) would have been
the way to go (and I believe such tests were done, but I'm not going to
Google it at 7:00 a.m. to double check). Doing that test on the pad at
KSC was dumb in hindsight.

Also, they made the Apollo CSM and LEM atmospheres pure oxygen to save
mass. The N2, extra tanks, and all the equipment to handle it
(including making the spacecraft pressure vessels thicker and heavier)
would have added mass they didn't think they could afford. And as the
spacecraft grew in mass over initial predictions, they were right. But
luckily, the Saturn team didn't believe the initial mass estimates and
made the vehicle a Saturn V instead of a Saturn IV (numbered according
to the number of F-1 engines on the first stage).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

"Greg (Strider) Moore" writes:

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

[...]

In Apollo era, there appeared to be a "launch abort" red button. Was
this a full fledged launch escape system that could bring capsule out of
harm's way and land peacefully in water next to the beach? Or was it a
limited system usable only during certain phases of flight?

Apollo had complete abort capability all the way to orbit.
It could be initiated by the onboard flight computer OR by the CMP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_abort_modes has some details.

On the pad and at lower altitudes, basically the LES which was the structure on
top of the CSM which was basically a tower attached to the boost protective
cover would fire and and pull the CM away from the rest of the stack. There was
a SRM to make sure it was pulled to one side and not just straight up (where an
accelerating Saturn could then run into it).

Above a certain altitude the LES and boost protective cover would be
jettisoned.
In this case the CSM would use its engine to abort, or if high enough, the
S-IVB would attempt an abort to orbit.

FYI, the only two launch aborts (I'm not counting Challenger, which was
a launcher failure with no abort attempt) were performed by Soviet Soyuz
flights at the opposite ends of the launch envelope. The first had a
stage separation failure which led to the spacecraft having to separate
and make a brutal ballistic reentry (reportedly more than 20 Gs). As
small consolation, it is the longest suborbital flight. The second was
an on-pad abort when the launcher caught fire and the LES successfully
pulled the Soyuz and crew away very shortly before the launcher was
destroyed. They landed under parachute within a few km of the pad.

"Chris Jones" wrote in message ...

"Greg (Strider) Moore" writes:

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

[...]

In Apollo era, there appeared to be a "launch abort" red button. Was
this a full fledged launch escape system that could bring capsule out of
harm's way and land peacefully in water next to the beach? Or was it a
limited system usable only during certain phases of flight?

Apollo had complete abort capability all the way to orbit.
It could be initiated by the onboard flight computer OR by the CMP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_abort_modes has some details.

On the pad and at lower altitudes, basically the LES which was the
structure on
top of the CSM which was basically a tower attached to the boost
protective
cover would fire and and pull the CM away from the rest of the stack.
There was
a SRM to make sure it was pulled to one side and not just straight up
(where an
accelerating Saturn could then run into it).

Above a certain altitude the LES and boost protective cover would be
jettisoned.
In this case the CSM would use its engine to abort, or if high enough,
the
S-IVB would attempt an abort to orbit.

FYI, the only two launch aborts (I'm not counting Challenger, which was
a launcher failure with no abort attempt) were performed by Soviet Soyuz
flights at the opposite ends of the launch envelope. The first had a
stage separation failure which led to the spacecraft having to separate
and make a brutal ballistic reentry (reportedly more than 20 Gs). As
small consolation, it is the longest suborbital flight. The second was
an on-pad abort when the launcher caught fire and the LES successfully
pulled the Soyuz and crew away very shortly before the launcher was
destroyed. They landed under parachute within a few km of the pad.

Not sure if you're referring to STS-51-F or STS-51-L for Challenger. I'd
argue that STS-51-F was a valid abort mode.

And yeah, the Soyuz aborts do demonstrate that mode of abort can work. That
said, I think I'd hate the 20G abort. On the other hand, that and dying a
fiery death, I'll take the 20G abort.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 9 Sep 2018
12:44:06 -0400:


I take it 19.7PSI of pure O2 is still nowhere near the level where O2
becomes poisonous? (we learn that in scuba diving, but people don't
breathe pure O2 when scuba diving).


Prolonged exposure at that pressure will not be good for you.



Of course Mercury had one. Vostok had one.
Gemini had ejection seats; which failed in one test. Well the seats
apparently worked, but the hatches didn't properly eject.


If Vostok had one, you'd think it would have been adapted/reused for
Vokshod.


Why would you think that?



Apollo had complete abort capability all the way to orbit.


Thanks. With capsule launch eject, the need for those basket joyride
down a zip line was even less needed.


Even less needed than WHAT?

And I recall now that in From Earth to moon (or Apolloow 13) there is
mention of phase of flight where they "tower jet" to remove the rocket
that could lift capsule out.

stack. There was a SRM to make sure it was pulled to one side and not just
straight up (where an accelerating Saturn could then run into it).

Pardon my ignorance, what is SRM? software, innertial based hardware?
or just hardwired exhaust designed to give a slant to any ascention?


SRM == Solid Rocket Motor


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

On 2018-09-07 00:07, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

I believe the CSM was pressurized from outside and the unplugged (since
it
was a plugs out test).

If this is a leak test to ensure capsule can sustain 5PSI above
environment (5PSI vs vacuum or 19.7PSI vs 14.7), is there a difference
between filling it with O2 vs normal air (N2 and O2) ?

What need were they filling by pressurizing the capsule with O2 vs air ?

(Or what problem did they think would happen if it were filled with air ?)

I take it 19.7PSI of pure O2 is still nowhere near the level where O2
becomes poisonous? (we learn that in scuba diving, but people don't
breathe pure O2 when scuba diving).


Of course Mercury had one. Vostok had one.
Gemini had ejection seats; which failed in one test. Well the seats
apparently worked, but the hatches didn't properly eject.


If Vostok had one, you'd think it would have been adapted/reused for
Vokshod.


No, I wouldn't. Because I'd know that part of Vostok's abort capability was
its ejection seat.
But, they couldn't fit 3 cosmonauts in the capsule with that, and so
squeezed them in, made them lose weight and rotated the orientation 90
degrees.

And removed the tower to save weight.

3 cosmonauts weigh 3x as much as 1.


Apollo had complete abort capability all the way to orbit.

Thanks. With capsule launch eject, the need for those basket joyride
down a zip line was even less needed.

They served different purposes.


And I recall now that in From Earth to moon (or Apolloow 13) there is
mention of phase of flight where they "tower jet" to remove the rocket
that could lift capsule out.

That's basically it. Though there is a continuity error in the movie in
terms of that.



stack. There was a SRM to make sure it was pulled to one side and not
just
straight up (where an accelerating Saturn could then run into it).

Pardon my ignorance, what is SRM? software, innertial based hardware?
or just hardwired exhaust designed to give a slant to any ascention?
Solid Rocket Motor. It's not an SRB because it's not part of the boost
phase.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

JF Mezei writes:

On 2018-09-07 00:07, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

[...]

Of course Mercury had one. Vostok had one.
Gemini had ejection seats; which failed in one test. Well the seats
apparently worked, but the hatches didn't properly eject.


If Vostok had one, you'd think it would have been adapted/reused for
Vokshod.

There was no space for three crew and three ejection seats, There was
no room for three crew in space suits. Even with the more capable
launcher (a precursor of the Soyuz launcher), there probably enough
margin to orbit that mass even if it could fit.