5 Soviet Space Programs That Prove Russia Was Insane

On Apr 8, 5:31*pm, bob haller wrote:
a contribuiting cause of challengers loss was very high crosswinds
that helped unseal the o ring joint

Pressure of SRB during operation: 912 psi
Pressure on SRB at Max-Q: 5 psi (at 2,100 mph, 11 mile altitude)
Pressure on SRB crosswind: 0.02 psi (at 34.6 mph (30 knots))

30 knots is twice the cross wind speed allowed for shuttle
operations. It produces a load of 3 pounds per square foot. A little
less than 1/50th of a pound per square inch. Max Q on the spacecraft
during ascent occurs at 11 miles altitude whilst traveling at 2,100
mph - at 5 psi. Of course the big daddy of them all, is the pressure
inside the booster at 912 psi.

As Richard Feynman famously pointed out, the cold launch temperatures
caused the silicon based o-rings to be slow in filling the gaps
allowing significant blow through of the rocket exhaust. This
produced a torch like flame that cut through a support strut. The
release of this strut caused the SRB to rotate around the remaining
strut, puncturing the ET causing a massive hydrogen leak. The
hydrogen flowed aft and was detonated by the exhaust causing the loss
of the Challenger.

My problem is the fact they used the SRBs in the first place.

The low specific impulse of the solid propellant, combined with the
need to make the entire casing withst tremendous temperatures and
pressures, is the reason vonBraun and other rocket scientists from the
1960s onward, opposed the use of SRBs on the Shuttle.

The US Army insisted on the use of SRBs because NASA and the Army are
corrupt and they wanted to get kick backs from vendors they had in
their pockets since world war two and the cold war producing things
like the Nike missile propellant.

vonBraun knew SRBs posed a significant safety risk. That didn't
matter to NASA the US Army and the contractors who only wanted to dip
their hands deeply in America's pockets at the least cost and risk to
themselves.

Maxime Faget designed the Mercury Capsule and contributed to both the
Gemini and Apollo capsules. In response to the Space Group Task force
he developed a $5.9 billion shuttle program that used existing engines
and airframe technology and put 6 tons of payload into orbit and
delivered a fleet of six orbiters for this price capable of 30 flights
per year.

He called this the DC-3 in honor of the first profitable commercial
airliner - and in honor of Arthur Clarke's discussion of the topic in
science literature of the day.

Despite the workability of this approach, it wasn't good enough for
the corrupt aerospace contractors of the day. The USAF famously
argued for example, Faget's approach wasn't good enough because it had
insufficient cross range. This despite the fact that cross-range has
never ever been used on any mission. It was just an excuse to get
budgets up and keep the kick backs flowing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Faget

Now, one might say this is a special case, and in honor of the nation
and its space program we wouldn't talk too much about it. But, this
isn't a special case. Its business as usual for a corrupt government
that routinely lies to its people and bankrupts them for the illicit
gain of a criminal regime that deserves jail time if not public
hanging for what they've done, and are doing to our nation.

Slimy bags of pus - the cointelpro sockpuppets operating in these
groups have lied about me and what I have said in the past.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/22259...r_the_cia.html

They spread lies that I hate America for speaking the only truth that
will give America a fighting chance.

The fact is, those people are liars. I love my country and demand
more of our government because of that. I refuse to sweep the
bull**** under the rug anymore.

We need to storm the Bastille and take back our power.

As far as NASA is concerned, the presence of the SRBs on the shuttle
and the extreme cost overruns of every NASA program since Nixon can't
hide the truth of the long-standing corruption in every aspect of our
military-industrial complex, including NASA.

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/0/2stsnar0.jpg
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/s/snar70.jpg

Faget's DC-3 Shuttle featured an 2.4 m x 9.1 m payload bay, and a
cross-range of just 300 km. The orbiter was equipped with two booster
engines (XLR-129 modifications with 134,700 kgf), 2 orbital
manoeuvring engines (RL10's with 6800 kgf), and six air-breathing
engines (RB162-86's of 2,400 kgf burning JP-4 jet fuel). The booster
would be equipped with booster engines, and Pratt and Whitney TF-B
turbofan engines of 8,100 kgf for flyback.

The launch scenario was for the booster to take the orbiter to
altitude, release it, and then land at a down-range airfield. The
Booster is then refueled downrange with jet fuel and flies back on its
turbofan engines to the launch site.

The orbiter had a 27.7 m wingspan with a 14 deg wing leading-edge
sweep. The aluminium structure was protected by a silica-based thermal
protection system. The booster would be 61.9 m long, have a 43 m
wingspan with the same 14 degree sweep, and a total wing area of 264
square m. The leading edge would be protected by a pyrolised carbon
laminate, and the lower surface by a silica-based thermal protection
system.

The payload would be delivered into a 500 km orbit at a 51 deg
inclination.

It was expected a fleet of six orbiters and four boosters would
undertake 30 flights per year, each spacecraft having a life of 100
flights. It was expected a 48-hour reaction time between order for
launch and launch would be possible.

Total development cost of the orbiter was estimated as $2.77 billion,
with the first article costing $171.2 million. The booster would cost
$3.142 billion to develop, with a first article cost of $236 million.

LEO Payload: 5,700 kg (12,500 lb) to a 500 km orbit at 28.00 degrees
in 1985 dollars. Flyaway Unit Cost $: 38.000 million.

Status: Study 1970.
Gross mass: 998,775 kg (2,201,921 lb).
Payload: 5,700 kg (12,500 lb).
Height: 74.00 m (242.00 ft).
Diameter: 5.08 m (16.66 ft).
Thrust: 11,433.20 kN (2,570,286 lbf).
Apogee: 500 km (310 mi).

On Apr 8, 5:44*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
a contribuiting cause of challengers loss was very high crosswinds
that helped unseal the o ring joint

Uh, no.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

Uh yes, airliners in the area reported large crosswinds that day, and
after the joint sealed at launch the crosswinds stressed the joint
helping it to unseal just before breakup.

Fred believes he is a expert while really he knows little

On Apr 8, 6:25*am, David Spain wrote:
| wrote:
Replay the tapes of the shuttle liftoffs and there are repeated
episodes
of O ring burn thru. I had a standing bet back in those years with a
coworker
that there would be a disaster on shuttle liftoff. NASA was massively
"lucky" until
it wasn't.

Um, this statement leaves me puzzled.

I don't have the data right in front of me at the moment, but IIRC the only
Shuttle to have experienced complete burn-through through both sets of O Rings
was 51-L (Challenger).

Watching videos of any previous launches would not have shown anything because
burn through did not occur. You did have "erosion" of the primary O ring but
in all cases prior to 51-L the secondary ring did not fail, so I doubt that a
video from outside the booster casing would reveal anything.

The primary contributing factor as I remember it was joint rotation after
ignition. This was not expected behavior for the SRB joints and was not
compensated for during design of the original SRB tang-and-clevis segment
joint. This was what was leading to primary O ring erosion in the first place,
something that was NOT supposed to happen at all, even though two rings were
there to provide redundancy. Couple that fact with the fact that 51-L was the
coldest launch of Shuttle up to that time (it got a real cold soaking
overnight the night before launch with unusually low temperatures for the
Cape) and you got a situation where both rings failed.

However the root cause of the problem was not the O-ring, but the case joint.
It got a re-design after Challenger to fix the rotation issue that was causing
primary ring erosion. AFAIK that cured the erosion problem. If anyone has data
showing otherwise I'd sure like to see the cite.

We've been over this territory in this newsgroup many many times. In system
failures like this what we have seen now (twice) with Shuttle was that the
problem is somewhat more psychological than scientific or engineering based.
That is that idea that with complex systems with complex behaviors when
confronted with a not well understood situation, there is a tendency to rely
too heavily on past experience as proof that with the more successful
experiences one obtains with a system with fuzzy behaviors the less likely
that on the next launch there will be a problem. Just because you "got away
with it" the last time or even the last fifty times doesn't mean it won't
happen the next time.

Trig, a standing bet like that with a co-worker, if you knew that this is what
was going on, marks you as a good gambler.

Dave

What I recall was ignited flames along the side of the solid rocket
boosters
well above the bell nozzles as the shuttle was up and in full flight.
This was
well prior in the liftoff to space schedule prior to the Challenger
disaster.
It was early enough in time that 'Uncle Walter' was intoning his
comments on the
successful liftoff in one instances that I recall.

they had eyes but they could not see..................Trig

On Apr 8, 1:00*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
David Spain wrote:
| wrote:
Replay the tapes of the shuttle liftoffs and there are repeated
episodes
of O ring burn thru. I had a standing bet back in those years with a
coworker
that there would be a disaster on shuttle liftoff. NASA was massively
"lucky" until
it wasn't.

Um, this statement leaves me puzzled.

I don't have the data right in front of me at the moment, but IIRC the only
Shuttle to have experienced complete burn-through through both sets of O Rings
was 51-L (Challenger).

Watching videos of any previous launches would not have shown anything because
burn through did not occur. You did have "erosion" of the primary O ring but
in all cases prior to 51-L the secondary ring did not fail, so I doubt that a
video from outside the booster casing would reveal anything.

I believe that examination of past videos showed little pulses of
'smoke' from the SRB joints on some of them.

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

Smoke "hell" rather it was live flame for sure.

On Apr 9, 1:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Apr 8, 5:44 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
a contribuiting cause of challengers loss was very high crosswinds
that helped unseal the o ring joint

Uh, no.

Uh yes, airliners in the area reported large crosswinds that day, and
after the joint sealed at launch the crosswinds stressed the joint
helping it to unseal just before breakup.

Fred believes he is a expert while really he knows little

You really are a moron, aren't you? *Compare crosswind force to other
forces acting on the vehicle during boost. *Crosswind is microscopic
compared to the other aerodynamic forces.

Provide a cite for your claim (because we all know you're too stupid
to understand what you read).

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

so go back and check the vehicle first responded to those microscopic
winds, the flame appeared, andf the stack disengrated,.

you really need to go back and read the accident report

On Apr 9, 5:37*pm, |"
wrote:
On Apr 8, 6:25*am, David Spain wrote:





| wrote:
Replay the tapes of the shuttle liftoffs and there are repeated
episodes
of O ring burn thru. I had a standing bet back in those years with a
coworker
that there would be a disaster on shuttle liftoff. NASA was massively
"lucky" until
it wasn't.

Um, this statement leaves me puzzled.

I don't have the data right in front of me at the moment, but IIRC the only
Shuttle to have experienced complete burn-through through both sets of O Rings
was 51-L (Challenger).

Watching videos of any previous launches would not have shown anything because
burn through did not occur. You did have "erosion" of the primary O ring but
in all cases prior to 51-L the secondary ring did not fail, so I doubt that a
video from outside the booster casing would reveal anything.

The primary contributing factor as I remember it was joint rotation after
ignition. This was not expected behavior for the SRB joints and was not
compensated for during design of the original SRB tang-and-clevis segment
joint. This was what was leading to primary O ring erosion in the first place,
something that was NOT supposed to happen at all, even though two rings were
there to provide redundancy. Couple that fact with the fact that 51-L was the
coldest launch of Shuttle up to that time (it got a real cold soaking
overnight the night before launch with unusually low temperatures for the
Cape) and you got a situation where both rings failed.

However the root cause of the problem was not the O-ring, but the case joint.
It got a re-design after Challenger to fix the rotation issue that was causing
primary ring erosion. AFAIK that cured the erosion problem. If anyone has data
showing otherwise I'd sure like to see the cite.

We've been over this territory in this newsgroup many many times. In system
failures like this what we have seen now (twice) with Shuttle was that the
problem is somewhat more psychological than scientific or engineering based.
That is that idea that with complex systems with complex behaviors when
confronted with a not well understood situation, there is a tendency to rely
too heavily on past experience as proof that with the more successful
experiences one obtains with a system with fuzzy behaviors the less likely
that on the next launch there will be a problem. Just because you "got away
with it" the last time or even the last fifty times doesn't mean it won't
happen the next time.

Trig, a standing bet like that with a co-worker, if you knew that this is what
was going on, marks you as a good gambler.

Dave

What I recall was ignited flames along the side of the solid rocket
boosters
well above the bell nozzles as the shuttle was up and in full flight.
This was
well prior in the liftoff to space schedule prior to the Challenger
disaster.
It was early enough in time that 'Uncle Walter' was intoning his
comments on the
successful liftoff in one instances that I recall.

they had eyes but they could not see..................Trig- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yeah like shuttle returning with near wing burn thru but no concern
for future

its never been a problem before so all is well

On Apr 8, 12:31*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Apr 7, 6:36 pm, bob haller wrote:
Buran test flight was unmanned and flew successfully. A capability the
shuttle never had

Because it didn't need it. There were never plans to fly the Shuttle
unmanned. Why pay money for a feature you won't use?
Brian

The shuttle should of been built to fly unmanned if for no other
reason than the ability to have the first flight unmanned for saftety.

Besides it would of been a more versatile vehicle. and wouldnt of cost
nmuch more.

Exactly correct. *NASA even screwed up and had to put tonnes of lead
in the nose. *Imagine what a truly good US/Russian shuttle fleet could
have accomplished.

Perhaps someone should put some lead ballast in your nose to make you
better balanced?

Hint: *Lead ballast is used to move the CG of the vehicle back to
where it belongs based on how it's loaded. *This is not because "NASA
even screwed up" any more than water ballast on ships is because ship
designers "screwed up". *It's SUPPOSED to work like that.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

You fib, but what's new. The ballast was necessary because they
screwed up. This ballast was a fixed amount of dead/inert mass.

"Space shuttles carry two tons of lead blocks to compensate for
designerror"

A variable ballast mass would use something fluid.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Fred J. McCall wrote:

I believe that examination of past videos showed little pulses of
'smoke' from the SRB joints on some of them.



This I buy as possible since we know the joint sealed up (for awhile) on 51-L
after that puff of black smoke that occurred at SRB ignition. Smoke and or
soot coming out of the case joint would have been a huge huge red flag in any
scenario that didn't suffer from 'go fever'.

In fact Fred, I believe I recall this being mentioned by others on this
newsgroup a long time ago.

| wrote:

What I recall was ignited flames along the side of the solid rocket
boosters well above the bell nozzles as the shuttle was up and in full flight.
This was well prior in the liftoff to space schedule prior to the Challenger
disaster.

I cannot accept this without proof. For the simple reason that there was no
'blow by' of the secondary O rings on any flight prior to 51-L. If it was
flames you were seeing coming from the SRB's it wasn't coming from the case
joints.

It was early enough in time that 'Uncle Walter' was intoning his
comments on the
successful liftoff in one instances that I recall.


Uncle Walter was a space buff but not a rocket expert.

Dave

David Spain wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:

I believe that examination of past videos showed little pulses of
'smoke' from the SRB joints on some of them.



This I buy as possible since we know the joint sealed up (for awhile) on
51-L
after that puff of black smoke that occurred at SRB ignition. Smoke and
or soot coming out of the case joint would have been a huge huge red
flag in any scenario that didn't suffer from 'go fever'.

In fact Fred, I believe I recall this being mentioned by others on this
newsgroup a long time ago.


Actually after reviewing some of the documents I'm not so sure I buy this.
Doesn't seem possible to be able to get 'puffs of smoke' without having
evidence of blow by which to get out of the case joint would have to have been
past the secondary O-ring. In other words both would have had to have failed
to seal at least for a bit. From what I've read so far that didn't happen to
the case joints prior to 51-L. There was significant blow by of the primary
o-ring and noted cases of thermal erosion of both o-rings on previous flights
but no where have I read of a noted case of secondary o-ring blow by prior to
51-L. Any reputable/authoritative contrary cite appreciated.

Were these puffs of smoke at ignition with the 4 Hz cycle expected? Were they
from the case joints or the nozzle joints?

Dave

Going back to Faget's DC-3 ship;

LUNAR OPERATIONS

Payload Bay
9.1 m long x 2.4 diameter payload pay, carrying 5.68 metric tons of
payload.

Propellant Density
A 3.5 m long x 2.4 diameter propellant tank carries 5.68 metric tons
of of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen with a 6:1 oxidizer:fuel
ratio. (hydrogen rich).

Speed Requirement
To go from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to Lunar Free Return (LFR) trajectory
requires a speed of 10.85 km/sec. This means a 3.5 km/sec increase in
speed. Arriving at the Moon, a ship must impart another 2.4 km/sec to
the vehicle to land. Another 2.4 km/sec is needed to return to Earth
along a minimum energy orbit.

Payload of Lunar Injection Stage
The exhaust velocity in vacuum of an RL-10 engine with high expansion
ratio is 4.3 km/sec. So, we have

Lunar Injection
1-1/exp(Vf/Ve) = 1- 1/exp(3.5/4.3) = 0.5569 = 55.69% propellant

So, this means that 5.68 metric tons of propellant carried to orbit
aboard a single flight is capable of carrying an added 4.51 metric
tons.

This is enough to carry an 'open cockpit' lunar lander designed for
the Gemini Program which massed 3.3 metric tons 'wet'.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemnilor.htm

Lunar landing and take off would require a 4.8 km/sec delta vee, so
require

1-1/exp(4.8/4.3)=0.6725 = 67.25% propellant

With a total mass budget of 4.51 metric tons this leaves 1.72 metric
tons of usable payload after subtracting 2.79 metric tons of
propellant.

Hydrogen and oxygen boil-off would be used to produce electricity and
water during the flight. It is also used to produce oxygen. Carbon
dioxide and odors re absorbed by reacting with hydrogen to produce
methane and more water. Methane and excess water is evaporated to
cool the spacecraft.

160 kg of propellant, along with another 140 kg of consumables,
largely freeze dried foods reconstituted with hot water made from the
fuel cells on board, are required for a 20 day flight for 3 people.
The flight time includes 4 days flight out from Earth, 4 days flight
back from the Moon, and 10 day stay on the moon, with 2 day margin.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40623446/Disk-Moonship-2

An unmanned version of this lunar module is loaded with only 2.52
metric tons of propellant, and 2.00 metric tons of usable load that is
left on the moon permanently. 1.93 metric tons of propellant are
burned to land the vehicle. The 2.00 metric tons are deposited. The
remaining 0.59 metric tons of propellant are burned to lift the empty
lunar lander back to Earth.

So, two of these fully reusable spaceships are launched. One to place
a lunar injection stage on orbit. One to place the lunar lander/
return stage on orbit. A crew of 3 enter the lunar lander/return
stage and separates from the orbiter. The lunar lander/return stage
docks with the lunar injection stage, and both depart for the moon,
while the two orbiters return to Earth.

After translunar injection, the two stages separate. The lunar
injection stage loops around the back side of the moon, and returns to
Earth. The Lunar Injection re-enters the Earth's atmosphere, and
glides to a landing at an airport. There it is equipped with a strap
on jet engine with jet fuel supply, and flown back to the launch
center.

The lunar lander carries out a direct descent to the lunar surface 4
days after departing Earth orbit. The crew of 3 spend 10 days on the
moon. They then depart back to Earth - returning to Earth in 4 days -
18 days after launch. The lunar lander re-enters the Earth's
atmosphere and glides to a landing at an airport. There it is
equipped with a strap on jet engine with jet fuel supply, and flown
back to the launch center.

All parts are recovered and reused.

An unmanned freighter flight carries 2.00 metric tons to the lunar
surface one-way with automatic return of the vehicle.

http://www.astronautix.com/project/horizon.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19766955/Lunar-Base-Concepts

Extending the stay of astronauts to 60 days from 20 - consumes 0.90
metric ton of this payload. Another 1.10 metric ton is used for
inflatable habitat and associated hardware.

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIU...2003-00106.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflatable_space_habitat

The long-duration space suit life support hardware plugs into the
grounded inflatable space station - to provide long term life support
using the consumables on board the station.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit

This entire system - a fleet of six launchers, and three trans-lunar
injection stages, along with two manned landers and one unmanned
freighter lander, along with a dozen payloads for the moon - provide
continuous presence for nine people with a crew change of 3 every
month for a total of $12 billion, and another $8 billion every 10
years to maintain operations there.

The fleet of six launcher ships 18 flights to the moon per year along
with 34 commercial flights per year. At $10 million per ton, each
flight charges $56 million - and earns $50 million per flight, earning
$1,700 million per year. After cost of lunar operations, an added
$900 million per year is earned - providing 7.5% return on the $12
billion investment.

84 people per year visit the moon in this scenario. 28 are
professional crew. 28 are scientists chosen from around the world.
28 are tourists who pay $20 million each. This earns an added $560
million per yer in sales, which cover the insurance and other costs
associated with maintaining a higher service standard for all.

The $900 million per year supports an additional $20 billion in debt.
This is enough to build a larger launcher and larger payloads.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Which allow the operation to earn more money creating a global
wireless hotspot along with a global wireless power network.

Which lead to more advanced systems.