|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Progress's oxidizer tank is 'suspect'?
Bjørn Ove Isaksen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:05:10 GMT, "James Oberg" wrote: Progress's oxidizer tank is 'suspect'? IIRC they had problems with the reboost of the station that they found to be related to this fuel. They found that they did not consume balanced levels of fuel and oxidizer and were not sure about what to do with the remaining part. Seems they want to transfer it to the FGB. Perhaps they can counterbalance the load on a future progress. The all singing all dancing Soviet technology comes through once again... D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Progress's oxidizer tank is 'suspect'?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Progress's oxidizer tank is 'suspect'?
jeff findley wrote:
(Derek Lyons) writes: The all singing all dancing Soviet technology comes through once again... I wouldn't poke fun at the Russians when they currently have the only operational means to put men into space and resupply ISS. Ex-Soviet technology isn't necessarily the best or the worst, it's just different. It's not poking fun, it's a serious reminder to those in this group who doggedly insist that Soviet technology is magically better than that of the US, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Flaws in Russian hardware
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
And specifically aimed at the folks who never miss a chance to point out flaws in NASA technology, but when Russian technology is also shown to have flaws, they are either silent, or (even more curious), they snip all references to the technology's origin from their reply. Hmmm ... perhaps a new thread called "flaws in Russian space hardware" is in order. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|