A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ISS-104-Soyuz records



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 17th 06, 07:43 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default ISS-104-Soyuz records

In article ,
Danny Dot wrote:
...And the Zond tests were not nearly as
successful as they looked from outside...


The Zonds had a lot of ballistic entries that ended up in the Indian Ocean
(v.s. the planned skipped entry into Russia)...


Not really "a lot". Indeed, in a strict sense only one -- Zond 5, which
was directed to a ballistic reentry because various equipment problems had
made the chances of a successful skip remote, and was recovered from the
Indian Ocean.

Zond 4 had worse equipment problems, and likewise made a ballistic
reentry, but didn't land. It was coming down far off course, near the
coast of Africa, and its destruct charge was fired before parachute
deployment to make sure it wasn't recovered by the US.

Zonds 6 and 7 made perfect skip reentries with landings near Baikonur
Cosmodrome, although Zond 6's cabin had depressurized earlier, which
messed up its landing control systems badly enough that it crashed.

And Zond 8 did come down in the Indian Ocean, but that was planned, the
result of a new skip trajectory, going over the Northern Hemisphere rather
than the Southern-Hemisphere path that 6 and 7 had used. (That improved
tracking and control from the USSR, and had some other minor advantages.)

(Zonds 1-3 were early-60s planetary probes, unrelated to the circumlunar
Soyuz variant; for some reason, the Soviets reused the name.)

The darn thing would pull
20G;s but apparently the human body can take this much for a short time.


Yes, it's no fun but usually doesn't cause injury. A ballistic lunar
reentry is pretty nasty, because there's a lot of energy to be shed in a
short time in thick air. A lifting reentry is a lot less drastic, with
deceleration peaking briefly at about 7G for an Apollo-class capsule.

The reason for the Zond skip reentry wasn't lower deceleration -- other
things being equal, it's no better than Apollo's less-drastic lifting
reentry -- but greater distance covered during reentry, to put the landing
in a better place and give more control of its location(*). Apollo was
originally going to use a skip too, in its very early days when it had a
requirement for land touchdown in the continental US. Apollo dropped it
because relaxation of the landing requirements reduced the need, and while
the primary guidance system could fly a skip, neither of the backups could,
so planning and procedures were simplified by avoiding the skip.

(* It turns out that a ballistic or non-skip lifting reentry ends up
coming down at a point very nearly opposite where the Moon was in the sky
at the time the return trip starts. The details of the return trajectory
influence the ground track and the timing -- and timing determines landing
longitude, since it determines which point on Earth has rotated to that
point in space at landing time -- but give almost no control of landing
latitude. So in particular, if you want a landing at a high-latitude site
like Baikonur, you *must* use a skip. )
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #12  
Old September 17th 06, 06:52 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.station
Danny Dot[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 481
Default ISS-104-Soyuz records

Thanks for the post. Lots of great information.

--
Danny Dot wrote:



Look at my site and see how NASA treats a creative mind!!!
The summary is "Not Very Well" :-)
www.mobbinggonemad.org


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Danny Dot wrote:
...And the Zond tests were not nearly as
successful as they looked from outside...


The Zonds had a lot of ballistic entries that ended up in the Indian Ocean
(v.s. the planned skipped entry into Russia)...


Not really "a lot". Indeed, in a strict sense only one -- Zond 5, which
was directed to a ballistic reentry because various equipment problems had
made the chances of a successful skip remote, and was recovered from the
Indian Ocean.

Zond 4 had worse equipment problems, and likewise made a ballistic
reentry, but didn't land. It was coming down far off course, near the
coast of Africa, and its destruct charge was fired before parachute
deployment to make sure it wasn't recovered by the US.

Zonds 6 and 7 made perfect skip reentries with landings near Baikonur
Cosmodrome, although Zond 6's cabin had depressurized earlier, which
messed up its landing control systems badly enough that it crashed.

And Zond 8 did come down in the Indian Ocean, but that was planned, the
result of a new skip trajectory, going over the Northern Hemisphere rather
than the Southern-Hemisphere path that 6 and 7 had used. (That improved
tracking and control from the USSR, and had some other minor advantages.)

(Zonds 1-3 were early-60s planetary probes, unrelated to the circumlunar
Soyuz variant; for some reason, the Soviets reused the name.)

The darn thing would pull
20G;s but apparently the human body can take this much for a short time.


Yes, it's no fun but usually doesn't cause injury. A ballistic lunar
reentry is pretty nasty, because there's a lot of energy to be shed in a
short time in thick air. A lifting reentry is a lot less drastic, with
deceleration peaking briefly at about 7G for an Apollo-class capsule.

The reason for the Zond skip reentry wasn't lower deceleration -- other
things being equal, it's no better than Apollo's less-drastic lifting
reentry -- but greater distance covered during reentry, to put the landing
in a better place and give more control of its location(*). Apollo was
originally going to use a skip too, in its very early days when it had a
requirement for land touchdown in the continental US. Apollo dropped it
because relaxation of the landing requirements reduced the need, and while
the primary guidance system could fly a skip, neither of the backups
could,
so planning and procedures were simplified by avoiding the skip.

(* It turns out that a ballistic or non-skip lifting reentry ends up
coming down at a point very nearly opposite where the Moon was in the sky
at the time the return trip starts. The details of the return trajectory
influence the ground track and the timing -- and timing determines landing
longitude, since it determines which point on Earth has rotated to that
point in space at landing time -- but give almost no control of landing
latitude. So in particular, if you want a landing at a high-latitude site
like Baikonur, you *must* use a skip. )
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soyuz TMA-5 landing with ESA astronaut Roberto Vittori marks completion of European Eneide mission Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 April 25th 05 02:37 PM
Board of Chief Designers decision on Soyuz TMA-6 launch processing Brian Gaff Policy 0 March 30th 05 04:10 PM
Soyuz TMA-5 prelaunch processing Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 September 23rd 04 10:07 PM
Decision on the Soyuz TMA-4 spacecraft prelaunch processing Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 April 1st 04 01:12 PM
Soyuz TMA-2 update, 28-10-2003 Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 October 29th 03 07:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.