Expedition Ten launch - observations

For the first time in years, I watched a launch live last night. In the
last six months or so, DirecTV added NASA TV to the CONUS transponders
at 101W so you can watch it without access to a second dish pointed at
119W or an elliptical multi-sat dish. It was also the first time I've
ever seen a Soyuz launch live and certainly longer than a 10 second new
snippet. It was an interesting thing to watch, especially as compared
to watching a Shuttle launch.

First, I have to say that it was great to see live, in-cabin video all
the way through the sequence. How cool is that? I don't know if NASA
had been doing that prior to the post-Columbia stand-down. DirecTV
didn't give me easy access to NASA TV and I haven't seen a live launch
broadcast since probably 1993. Certainly, the in-cabin video (with two
camera angles, no less) gives a much better feel for how cramped
everything is in there and a better idea of what the experience feels
like: you can see the vibrations as the crew shakes and jitters in their
restraints, you can see the lighting change in the cabin as the craft
climbs and you can see the sudden jolt at engine cutoff and staging.

Second, I was fascinated to see the typically Russian, typically
pragmatic solution to human factors issues regarding use of controls
during acceleration. Rather than cramping the crew up against the
displays and controls, or creating some Rube Goldberg-esque contraption
to move the panel forward and backwards as necessary, or requiring the
crew to lift g-heavy arms up, they furnish the crew with aluminum
pointers fitted with handles at one end and what looks like little
rubber no-slip caps at the other end and the crew use those to
manipulate switches and buttons during powered flight. Hilarious and
effective, simultaneously.

Third, I was interested to see a little plastic figure of Felix the Cat
dangling from a string off the control panel. Apparently it's the
favorite of the child of Soyuz Commander Somthingorother Whatsisnamov.
I can't imagine NASA allowing Eileen Collins to do the same, for
instance, although I have an amused mental image of one of the Original
Seven hanging a set of fuzzy dice off the dash of a Mercury or Gemini
capsule, or of Pete Conrad sticking a Hula Girl on the LM controls for
landing. :-)

Fourth, when the camera cut back to Russian Mission Control in Korolev,
I was amused to see nascent Russian capitalism at work - all along the
floor below the big wall of display screen were fairly large,
rectangular pieces of posterboard with advertising all on them. I
recognized a big HP logo on one and another for Omega watches and
timepieces. Again, I can't imagine NASA ever doing the same.

Anyway, the whole thing was very interesting and informative. I'm very
much looking forward to seeing the next STS launch (someday) and looking
for the contrasts.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.angryherb.net

In message ,
Herb Schaltegger writes

Second, I was fascinated to see the typically Russian, typically
pragmatic solution to human factors issues regarding use of controls
during acceleration. Rather than cramping the crew up against the
displays and controls, or creating some Rube Goldberg-esque contraption
to move the panel forward and backwards as necessary, or requiring the
crew to lift g-heavy arms up, they furnish the crew with aluminum
pointers fitted with handles at one end and what looks like little
rubber no-slip caps at the other end and the crew use those to
manipulate switches and buttons during powered flight. Hilarious and
effective, simultaneously.


"Typically Russian"? That sounds like the "swizzle stick" the Mercury
astronauts used
http://www2.primushost.com/~dskern/spacetrivia.txt
http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/glenn/flight/summary.htm

In the chapter "Seven Miles of Wire - and a Swizzle Stick" in "Into
Orbit" John Glenn writes
'It is about ten inches long, has a hook on the end of it for pulling at
levers and a stub for pushing at buttons. You grasp it in your glove if
you know you are not going to be able to reach something with your
fingers. We call it, naturally, a swizzle stick".

Apparently Gemini also used one so one pilot could reach all the
controls.
http://wikisource.org/wiki/NASA_Project_Gemini_Familiarization_Manual

Have any of them survived, and if not, are there any pictures?
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In article ,
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

"Typically Russian"? That sounds like the "swizzle stick" the Mercury
astronauts used
http://www2.primushost.com/~dskern/spacetrivia.txt
http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/glenn/flight/summary.htm

In the chapter "Seven Miles of Wire - and a Swizzle Stick" in "Into
Orbit" John Glenn writes
'It is about ten inches long, has a hook on the end of it for pulling at
levers and a stub for pushing at buttons. You grasp it in your glove if
you know you are not going to be able to reach something with your
fingers. We call it, naturally, a swizzle stick".

Now that you mention it, I do seem to recall reading something about
that once long ago.

Apparently Gemini also used one so one pilot could reach all the
controls.
http://wikisource.org/wiki/NASA_Project_Gemini_Familiarization_Manual

That I did not know, never having studied the tech docs on Gemini at any
length.

Have any of them survived, and if not, are there any pictures?

That would be interesting, wouldn't it?

To clarify my comment, my perspective is as a designer who's had to
design to NASA's somewhat more modern (note: I didn't say "better")
NASA-STD-3000 human factors design requirements. We'd never have gotten
away with that when I was a working engineer.

But hey, the stick works and it was interesting to see it used - several
times - during the launch. I just wonder what current NASA folks think
about it, too?

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.angryherb.net

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

To clarify my comment, my perspective is as a designer who's had to
design to NASA's somewhat more modern (note: I didn't say "better")
NASA-STD-3000 human factors design requirements. We'd never have gotten
away with that when I was a working engineer.

But hey, the stick works and it was interesting to see it used - several
times - during the launch. I just wonder what current NASA folks think
about it, too?


That wasn't the only time the Soviets/Russians used a stick to perform
an important function; on the BMP-1 Infantry Combat Vehicle, a "Sagger"
antitank missile could be slid out of a hatch on the turret roof onto a
launcher rail that was mounted over the vehicle's 73 mm gun; then the
crew would use a stick to unfold the missile's tail fins by reaching up
through the hatch....handsome is as handsome does, I guess. I think this
was done the same way on the BMD-1 Airborne Combat Vehicle also.

Pat

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ...

Third, I was interested to see a little plastic figure of Felix the Cat
dangling from a string off the control panel. Apparently it's the
favorite of the child of Soyuz Commander Somthingorother Whatsisnamov.

The toys are a longstanding tradition AFAIK, giving the crew a low
tech zero-g indicator, and a nice memento at the same time. I recall
one of the ISS taxi crews had fuzzy dice, which seemed particularly
appropriate. Surely the R7 is the ultimate early 60s hotrod...

For those who missed the live broadcast, a fairly low quality stream,
without english commentary can be found he
http://www.energia.ru:8080/ramgen/iss/14-10-04/launch.rm

In article ,
lid says...
Anyway, the whole thing was very interesting and informative. I'm very
much looking forward to seeing the next STS launch (someday) and looking
for the contrasts.

Find a theater playing the 3-D IMAX Space Station movie. The two high
points are the Shuttle launch and the Soyuz launch. Lots of interesting
contrasts, including the (by NASA standards) casual attitude about
having visitors on the launch pad shortly before liftoff.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

After that, I believe, I undertook to take apart and assemble the clocks
of my grandfather. In the former operation I was always successful, but
often failed in the latter. -- attributed to Nicola Tesla

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article ,
Kevin Willoughby wrote:

Find a theater playing the 3-D IMAX Space Station movie. The two
high points are the Shuttle launch and the Soyuz launch. Lots of
interesting contrasts, including the (by NASA standards) casual
attitude about having visitors on the launch pad shortly before
liftoff.

I saw it at the NASM about two years ago. The high point for me was
watching one of the assembly crews (can't remember which mission)
install the ECLSS ARS rack . . . It's full of stuff I helped design
and/or procure and qualify. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFBcIWZhyAAKqvGGXwRAgCNAKCOSNmWM/jpDeR9leAfW0NZZGtP7ACfa+gC
5SJ4dDfBSvSZp2L4kfoZq84=
=YF4A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.angryherb.net

In article , Kevin Willoughby
wrote:

In article ,
lid says...
Anyway, the whole thing was very interesting and informative. I'm very
much looking forward to seeing the next STS launch (someday) and looking
for the contrasts.

Find a theater playing the 3-D IMAX Space Station movie. The two high
points are the Shuttle launch and the Soyuz launch. Lots of interesting
contrasts, including the (by NASA standards) casual attitude about
having visitors on the launch pad shortly before liftoff.

Y'know what's always fascinated _me_ about the Soyuz launches is the
almost total lack of any kind of nearby free-standing gantry or service
tower at liftoff. It looks like pretty much everything related to that
job/s is lowered away from the booster, leaving it pretty much standing
alone on the steppes with just the hold-down arms and that one long arm
whose function I still can't quite figure out (emergency crew egress?).
So, at liftoff, the visual effect is almost like watching an old Redstone
launch; I kept asking, what the hell's holding the thing up?

As a comparison, here's a couple of launches of boosters which are, iirc,
_roughly_ equivalent to the Soyuz booster:

Mercury/Atlas (Friendship 7)
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/S62-00337.jpg

Gemini/Titan (Gemini VII)
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/S65-61628.jpg

--
"All over, people changing their votes,
along with their overcoats;
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash.
__________________________________________________ _________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org

(Mike Flugennock) wrote:

So, at liftoff, the visual effect is almost like watching an old Redstone
launch; I kept asking, what the hell's holding the thing up?

The same thing that has held up virtually *every* booster to date.
The sit on their tails.

All the gantries etc... You see are for access, not support.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Mike Flugennock wrote:

Y'know what's always fascinated _me_ about the Soyuz launches is the
almost total lack of any kind of nearby free-standing gantry or service
tower at liftoff. It looks like pretty much everything related to that
job/s is lowered away from the booster, leaving it pretty much standing
alone on the steppes with just the hold-down arms and that one long arm
whose function I still can't quite figure out (emergency crew egress?).


That would be a very time consuming process, the crew would have to
climb up from the reentry module into the orbital module, then out
through its side hatch and through the side access hatch in the boost
protective fairing.

So, at liftoff, the visual effect is almost like watching an old Redstone
launch; I kept asking, what the hell's holding the thing up?


There are a total of seven arms that are around a Soyuz launcher:
1.) Four "tulip" arms mounted 90 degrees that support the booster and
swing back on counterweights at liftoff; these connect to the tops of
the four conical booster rockets and cause the rocket to be suspended
over the blast pit- as the booster's thrust exceeds its weight when the
core RD-108 motor comes up to full thrust it moves upwards, and the
four tulip" arms disconnect from their attachment points and swing
outwards. An advantage to this setup is that the rocket doesn't have to
sit on its tail, and so its base doesn't have to be as strongly built;
also, if something goes wrong, the rocket and its propellants fall into
the deep fire pit under the pad as it explodes- minimizing the damage to
the pad itself: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_r7_1_2_200.jpg
2.) Two access and maintenance arms that surround the booster till
shortly before launch- allowing the pad technicians to work on it prior
to a mission. These are mounted 180 degrees apart and pivot outwards on
the hinges at their bases till they lie flat to the ground before liftoff.
3.) A fueling and support arm that sits at a 90 degree angle to the two
access and maintenance arms, and provides propellant and electronic
connections to the booster until just before liftoff, then pivots
backwards on its base hinges.
The booster and spacecraft are brought to the pad on a large rail wagon
that comes up to the side of the pad opposite the service and support
arm, and hoists the rocket up on a large pivoting cradle.
Here's a good shot of the overall arrangement:
http://vsm.host.ru/soyuzpad.jpg

Here's the whole process in pictures:
The rocket approaches the pad on its railwagon:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2003...exp8_03_72.jpg
(Yeesh...I thought North Dakota was bleak...)
The rocket getting ready to be raised into position:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2004/photo_01-27-04.jpg
(the service and support arm is visible directly over the rocket)
The rocket on the pad with the access and maintenance arms swinging into
position, as the rail cars cradle swings back onto its rail wagon:
http://sci2.esa.int/marsexpress/gall...cs/w-mex-6.jpg
The rocket cocooned by the multiple arms:
http://66.33.199.225/image_library/p...launch_web.jpg
The access and maintenance arms have swung back, and the fueled rocket
is readied for liftoff:
http://66.33.199.225/image_library/p...iftoff_web.jpg
Ignition! The fueling and support arm has swung back, and the motors are
firing- as first the four outer boosters, and then the core motor, are
brought up to full thrust:
http://66.33.199.225/image_library/p...z/web/ST07.jpg
Liftoff! The four tulip arms swing backwards as the rocket's thrust
exceeds its weight, and it rises free of their support points:
http://66.33.199.225/image_library/p...z/web/ST05.jpg



As a comparison, here's a couple of launches of boosters which are, iirc,
_roughly_ equivalent to the Soyuz booster:

Mercury/Atlas (Friendship 7)
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/S62-00337.jpg

Gemini/Titan (Gemini VII)
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/lores/S65-61628.jpg


The really slick arrangement is that used for the Proton booster- the
rocket is both fueled and connected to its pad electronics via a giant
plug arrangement under its center propellant tank:
http://www.ilslaunch.com/pictures/Si...ntitled-22.jpg
This was a by-product of its ICBM origins (in Proton, the six side tanks
house both propellant and a motor; they don't detach during first stage
burn). At liftoff, the rocket "unplugs" itself from the launch pad and
the fuel and electronics connections retract into the pad as a
protective set of clamshell doors closes over them- this results in a
very clean launch pad arrangement:
http://es.wikipedia.org/upload/5/5a/...aunch_pad.jpeg
It uses a rail mobile support tower:
http://www.ilslaunch.com/pictures/Si...ntitled-28.jpg

Pat