|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Reed Snellenberger writes: Has *any* Soyuz-class capsule been recovered from water? I can't remember ever hearing about it being tested that way, although I'm sure it has, but it looks a bit top-heavy to be a comfortable boat (as opposed to Gemini & Apollo, which seemed fairly stable). AFAIK a water landing is a part of standard crew training. A soyuz will sink within 40 seconds when the hatch starts to draw water (and this seems to happen fairly easy), so this is not exactly a safe procedure. Here is an article and a few photos of Foale on Black Sea training: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/...e-blacksea.htm Jochem Thanks for the link, Jochem... that's exactly what I was interested in -- and no, it doesn't sound like the Soyuz is as good a boat as either Gemini or Apollo. I'm specifically thinking back to this picture of the astronauts (Stafford & Cernan) casually leaning against the open hatch openings during their recovery -- of course, they probably had the horsecollar on by then... http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL...000-001416.jpg -- Reed Snellenberger GPG KeyID: 5A978843 rsnellenberger-at-houston.rr.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
This is from Arianespace:
http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...feature_3_5_04. html Russia's Soyuz vehicle - the world's most frequently used launcher - is a well-proven cargo option for servicing of the International Space Station. It currently is launched from Russia's Baikonur Cosmodrome, where commercial Soyuz flights are performed through a European/Russian joint venture that includes Arianespace. Soyuz will begin operations from the Guiana Space Center in 2006 under Arianespace responsibility, providing additional mission flexibility and performance for this proven vehicle. While the current plan for Soyuz in French Guiana does not include human space flight, this remains a possibility as the Russian launcher is man-rated and routinely launches crews to the International Space Station. Jacques :-) Launching from Kourou and rendezvousing with the Station requires making a HUGE plane change and (for manned spacecraft) reduce potential cargo to probably one person carrying a postage stamp. Currently, the Europeans plan to launch an Apollo-capsule sized unmanned vehicle from Kourou to Station but that has a much more reasonable requirement for support of cargo. The Jules Verne (first vehicle of the series) will take four days to rendezvous (last timeline I saw). The launch will be on an Ariane 5 if I recall correctly. Now, if we had left the Station at a 28 degree inclination ... "Jim Oberg" schreef in bericht ... As I recall, the primary challenges for launching a human Soyuz spacecraft aboard a Soyuz booster from the facilities at Kourou are twofold: downrange communications and launch abort and recovery. Does anyone recall any formal discussions of these, or other, issues by Russian space officials? Thanks! Charles Phillips "Drink Upstream Of The Herd, Get A Macintosh" note feeble anti-spam attempt on Reply-To address |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"triples" wrote in Launching from Kourou and rendezvousing with the Station requires making a HUGE plane change and (for manned spacecraft) reduce potential cargo to probably one person carrying a postage stamp. There is NO plane change, as long as you select the proper launch azimuth. There is some loss of performance, but it's in the 2-5% range, more than balanced by the upgraded Soyuz-2 vehicle. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
triples wrote:
Launching from Kourou and rendezvousing with the Station requires making a HUGE plane change and (for manned spacecraft) reduce potential cargo to probably one person carrying a postage stamp. Huh? That isn't true at all. You only need a plane change if your launch site doesn't lie under the orbit. For ISS, if your launch site is anywhere from +/-51 Lat, you don't need one (barring range constrants, like dropping spent stages on populated areas). A Soyuz from Kourou won't have any less payload to ISS than one from Baikonur. Nor does manned vs. unmanned matter at all in this regard. I suspect the choice of 4 (vs. the typical 2-3 for Soyuz and Progress) days for ATV rendezvous has more to do with allowing extra checkout time on the first flight. It certainly isn't because engine burns require the extra time! Even if 4 days was a requirement (which it isn't), that isn't outside the limits of Soyuz free flight. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Oberg" wrote:
"triples" wrote in Launching from Kourou and rendezvousing with the Station requires making a HUGE plane change and (for manned spacecraft) reduce potential cargo to probably one person carrying a postage stamp. There is NO plane change, as long as you select the proper launch azimuth. That assumes said azimuth is available from the launch site. In theory we could launch from the Cape into a polar orbit for example. In reality, safety considerations dictate against it. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Successful European DELTA mission concludes with Soyuz landing | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 1st 04 12:25 PM |
Decision on the Soyuz TMA-4 spacecraft prelaunch processing | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | April 1st 04 01:12 PM |
TMI Report:People problems vs. Equipment | Jim M Bowden | Space Shuttle | 0 | October 22nd 03 08:08 AM |
Press release about the decision of the Council of Chief Designers on the preparation of Soyuz TMA-3 for launch | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | September 29th 03 03:54 PM |
US Rep - End Manned Shuttle Missions Now | BlackWater | Space Shuttle | 19 | September 15th 03 08:18 AM |