A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Vokshod 1



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 5th 18, 08:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 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.

  #2  
Old September 6th 18, 11:41 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Vokshod 1

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.
  #3  
Old September 6th 18, 12:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Vokshod 1

"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/

  #4  
Old September 7th 18, 11:53 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Vokshod 1

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.
 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:44 AM.


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.