One very strange graphic

Andrew Liebchen wrote:
The reason the Soyuz orbital module was basicly spherical (it's not a
true sphere BTW; it length is greater than its diameter) was to maximize
internal volume while keeping its weight low, as well as make a shape
the could withstand a mixed gas atmosphere at Earth surface
pressure...unlike the low pressure pure oxygen atmosphere Apollo and
Gemini used.


Oh, I totally forgot about the differences between the Soviet and
American capsule atmosphere. Do the Chinese use a pure oxygen
environment then? Or some cheap, oxygen-like substitute (oxie-yen?)
That's a low blow, I know.


Oxygen-nitrogen.
Everybody gave up on pure oxygen after the Soviets had a cosmonaut burn
to death in a pure oxygen atmosphere test chamber and the US lost
Grissom, White, and Chaffee in the Apollo fire.
Apollo ended up using a modified atmosphere system that started out with
a oxygen-nitrogen mixture at surface pressure on liftoff and then slowly
transitioned to a pure oxygen low-pressure atmosphere on its way to the
Moon.
The advantages of a pure oxygen atmosphere (besides simplicity; all you
have to do is scrub the CO2 out of it and add more oxygen) are that it
can be done at very low pressure, thereby lightening up the spacecraft
structure, and meaning loss of pressure from a leak will not be as fast
as one at full Earth pressure would be, and the fact that the lack of
nitrogen means the astronauts can EVA without getting the bends from
nitrogen in their blood.
Because of the Apollo fire, when the Shuttle was designed it was decide
to use a normal pressure oxygen-nitrogen mix despite the added
complexity, and now any astronaut that is getting ready to EVA has to
pre-breath pure oxygen (for a couple of hours IIRC) before going outside
in the low-pressure pure oxygen spacesuit to scrub the nitrogen out of
their blood.

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:
Now I'm confused - to date the conversation has been about reentry
strategies, and now it's not? Instead you're comparing apples to
orangutans.


Comrade! Given the shape of the two manned modules on Soyuz, lemon drops
to gumdrops would be more apt.
Why, stick a Root Beer Barrel on the back and a stick of chewing gum on
either side, and the whole Soyuz can be recreated out of candy!
I can think of no candy that resembles the shape of the Apollo CSM,
which shows the technological sweetness of the Soyuz design. ;-)

Pat

"Andrew Liebchen" wrote in message
...

If a structural engineer points out issues with your design I *do* hope
you choose not to ignore them.

We've been engaged in quite a intense and helpful conversation here
(humans are visual creatures, graphics = power), I wish you weren't so
dismissive and perhaps haughty.

This reminds me of when architects and civil engineers have differences.
The architect might call it a "creative difference", but the civil engineer
will call such a disagreement something else entirely. ;-)

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 May 2009 06:34:54 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Liebchen
wrote:

I think this makes some of you
look a little alarmist, if one were to read the comments here.

...We're space historians. We believe in accuracy. You fail to provide
that, we provide you your head on a pike. It's really that goddamn
simple, Andrew. Either correct your drawings, or we'll continue to
expose you for the fraud you are.

Artists such as Andrew are not concerned with physical or historical
reality. After all, he did post a link to a picture of "art" which was
simply a signed urinal laying on the ground. ;-)

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:29:13 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Liebchen
wrote:

As for OM, I understand why you'd want that post deleted after 6
days.

...As pointed out before, this is *not* something of my doing, but
appears to be somthing done by my USP. Personally, I don't give a ****
whether the post remains longer than 6 days or 60 years. Only idiots
like you seem to really make a big deal out of it.

Plus you can always search archives like Google Groups and find the
postings. Back when storage (hard drive space) was expensive, all servers
had some sort of limit on how long things were kept. That's what happens
when storage is finite. But today, you can buy a 1TB HD for less than $100
US, so this isn't such an issue anymore. I remember spending several
hundred dollars for a 2GB HD back in the day, now I carry a 2GB flash drive
in my pocket that cost me less than $10.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Jeff Findley wrote:
"OM" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:29:13 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Liebchen
wrote:

As for OM, I understand why you'd want that post deleted after 6
days.
...As pointed out before, this is *not* something of my doing, but
appears to be somthing done by my USP. Personally, I don't give a ****
whether the post remains longer than 6 days or 60 years. Only idiots
like you seem to really make a big deal out of it.

Plus you can always search archives like Google Groups and find the
postings.

I thought the problem with OM's USP is that they set the X-No-Archive
header, which Google honors?