How Many Sputnik I copies?

Has anyone tried to definitively catalog the number of engineering mockups,
backup units, or whatever that were made of Sputnik I in 1956-7 (as opposed to
models made after October 1957, of which I've no doubt there were plenty) and
determine where they are? I understand one backup unit was turned into the
radio transmitter housing for Sputnik II, but there were certainly at least a
couple of other "genuine" units.


Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

"MattWriter"
the number of engineering mockups,
backup units, or whatever that were made of Sputnik I

Seems like they made two or three....will try to find it in Paul Dickson's
book "Sputnik: The Shock of the Century".

One thing I am curious about, expecially after seeing an original Sputnik in
the Soviet Space museum show, is whether the aerodynamic design of the
Sputnik served any purpose, and did it work? The four antennas look like
they are arrayed to create drag and stabilize the spacecraft. I have not
seen anything like it. If space is a vacuum then the thing must have been
tumbling.

I can imagine the desgners thinking "Well, we're 99% sure that this
aerodynamic shape is pointless, but since this is our first launch we may as
well try it." I seem to recall that Korolev insisted on a mirror finish. A
beautiful machine at any rate.

Kent Betts wrote:

"MattWriter"
the number of engineering mockups,
backup units, or whatever that were made of Sputnik I

Seems like they made two or three....will try to find it in Paul Dickson's
book "Sputnik: The Shock of the Century".

One thing I am curious about, expecially after seeing an original Sputnik in
the Soviet Space museum show, is whether the aerodynamic design of the
Sputnik served any purpose, and did it work? The four antennas look like
they are arrayed to create drag and stabilize the spacecraft. I have not
seen anything like it.

Some early Soviet spacecraft had similar antenna arrays: Lunas 1,
2, 9 and 13. Sputnik 3 had two sets of four antennae which
more-or-less resembled paperclips, as did the Vostol spacecraft,
as well as one set of whip antenna which had four rods
projecting from a single mount.

Some American spacecraft had four antenna rods arrayed in a
pattern reminiscent of Sputnik 1. The Tiros/ESSA metsats had them,
along with some of the IMP-type Explorers, Relay 1 and 2, and
some of the early Syncom satellites. I think Explorer 17 had
a set of four rod antenna arrayed near its base, but I'm not
certain. Other American spacecraft had four antennae arrayed in
a plane aroujnd the axis of rotation: Explorers 1,2,3,4,5,7,8;
Vanguards 2 and 3.

--Bill Thompson

In article ,
Kent Betts wrote:
One thing I am curious about, expecially after seeing an original Sputnik in
the Soviet Space museum show, is whether the aerodynamic design of the
Sputnik served any purpose, and did it work? The four antennas look like
they are arrayed to create drag and stabilize the spacecraft...

Sort of. The antenna configuration served no aerodynamic purpose in
orbit. It did serve one, indirectly, on the way up: it permitted fairly
long antennas that didn't have to be deployed, but could just lie flush
along the main nose cone.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Kent Betts wrote:


One thing I am curious about, expecially after seeing an original Sputnik in
the Soviet Space museum show, is whether the aerodynamic design of the
Sputnik served any purpose, and did it work? The four antennas look like
they are arrayed to create drag and stabilize the spacecraft. I have not
seen anything like it. If space is a vacuum then the thing must have been
tumbling.

I can imagine the desgners thinking "Well, we're 99% sure that this
aerodynamic shape is pointless, but since this is our first launch we may as
well try it." I seem to recall that Korolev insisted on a mirror finish. A
beautiful machine at any rate.


From what I've read, the antennae layout was as much for looks as
anything else; Korolev wanted it to resemble a comet, as he thought that
being the first satellite, it should have an artistic flair to it; then
there is the fact that the antennae design allowed for east ejection
from the top of the Semyorka booster- some drawings show the antennas
folded up behind the satellite and springing out when ejected; others
show them lying along the outside of the rocket's nose cone.
In either case the sweptback antennae simplified the design, as they
didn't have to be hinged to swing into position when the satellite
reached orbit.


Pat

Henry Spencer wrote:

Sort of. The antenna configuration served no aerodynamic purpose in
orbit. It did serve one, indirectly, on the way up: it permitted fairly
long antennas that didn't have to be deployed, but could just lie flush
along the main nose cone.


Probably inside the nose cone; there is the story of the guy who had to
crawl up on the thing just before launch to open an access panel and
confirm that the satellite's transmitters were working; if the antennas
were on the exterior of the rocket like some drawings show, he could
have picked up their signals at a distance, or just touched one with his
signal tester.

Pat

In either case the sweptback antennae simplified the design, as they
didn't have to be hinged to swing into position when the satellite
reached orbit. BRBR

Actually, they did spring out to a wider angle once in orbit. Tikhonravov
wrote an article about this around 1970 (for a writer, I'm not terribly
organized - I have it here somewhere.) It looks like the antennas did indeed
like on the outside, according to most accounts. I've never seen a decent
close-up photo - has anyone? Anyway, that was a weird design approach, to put
them along the outside like that. I still wonder what the reason was, and
whether any other spacecraft used it.
Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

MattWriter wrote:

In either case the sweptback antennae simplified the design, as they
didn't have to be hinged to swing into position when the satellite
reached orbit. BRBR

Actually, they did spring out to a wider angle once in orbit. Tikhonravov
wrote an article about this around 1970 (for a writer, I'm not terribly
organized - I have it here somewhere.) It looks like the antennas did indeed
like on the outside, according to most accounts. I've never seen a decent
close-up photo - has anyone? Anyway, that was a weird design approach, to put
them along the outside like that. I still wonder what the reason was, and
whether any other spacecraft used it.

The only pictures I've seen may have been of a test article; the
Soviets were always less than forthcoming with the facts (the "Vostok"
shown at the Paris Air Show in 1961 was a payload shroud for the
vehicle, and was fitted with a tail annulus). I understand that
Sputnik 1 was constructed in such a hurry that no blueprints or
circuit diagrams were made; no one may have thought to take
photographs. Or they may have tried to get security clearance to
take pictures, and not received permission until after the launch.
The Soviets were highly bureaucratic, but they were never all that
good at it.

The Jupiter-C Explorers had their antennae mounted externally during
launch, but there was no nose cone to cover the satellite. The
Australian WRESAT may have had external antennae, but the few
pictures I've seen don't make that clear--the aerials may have
popped out of the cone-shaped payload after launch. I can't
think of any satellite that needed to have its antennae poke through
the shroud during launch. Usually antennae are designed to deploy
after reaching orbit. Exposing them to the airflow during launch,
as well as to risking damage when the shroud is jettisoned, isn't
a good design approach.

--Bill Thompson

MattWriter wrote:

Actually, they did spring out to a wider angle once in orbit. Tikhonravov
wrote an article about this around 1970 (for a writer, I'm not terribly
organized - I have it here somewhere.) It looks like the antennas did indeed
like on the outside, according to most accounts. I've never seen a decent
close-up photo - has anyone?


I never have; lots of the satellite, but no detailed ones of the upper
part of the rocket with the satellite installed. The majority of the
drawings show the antennas on the outside, held against the exterior of
the nose cone by either two or three slide rings or clips along each
antennas length, to keep them from whipping around during ascent.

Anyway, that was a weird design approach, to put
them along the outside like that. I still wonder what the reason was, and
whether any other spacecraft used it.


Exposed satellite antennas....while it's on it's launch vehicle? Jeeze,
I don't know- that's a pretty wild approach:
http://www.jrotc.org/images/verner.gif
Oh Mr. Pickering, how quickly they forget.... :-P

Pat

William R. Thompson wrote:

The only pictures I've seen may have been of a test article; the
Soviets were always less than forthcoming with the facts (the "Vostok"
shown at the Paris Air Show in 1961 was a payload shroud for the
vehicle, and was fitted with a tail annulus).


The display item also had the second stage on it with the payload shroud
attached to the rear of that- the reason for the tail annulus was to
keep it pointy-end forward when it was carried by a helicopter during
parades. At least on stamps, it also boasted a set of diamond-shaped
wings at times; which scared the press into thinking that it landed like
an airplane, ala Dyna-Soar.
The Soviets did nothing whatsoever to correct this
misconception...naturally.


I understand that
Sputnik 1 was constructed in such a hurry that no blueprints or
circuit diagrams were made; no one may have thought to take
photographs. Or they may have tried to get security clearance to
take pictures, and not received permission until after the launch.
The Soviets were highly bureaucratic, but they were never all that
good at it.

The Jupiter-C Explorers had their antennae mounted externally during
launch, but there was no nose cone to cover the satellite. The
Australian WRESAT may have had external antennae, but the few
pictures I've seen don't make that clear--the aerials may have
popped out of the cone-shaped payload after launch. I can't
think of any satellite that needed to have its antennae poke through
the shroud during launch. Usually antennae are designed to deploy
after reaching orbit. Exposing them to the airflow during launch,
as well as to risking damage when the shroud is jettisoned, isn't
a good design approach.


I always was amazed that the ones on Explorer 1 stayed attached all the
way to orbit; not only were the getting buffeted by supersonic airflow,
and heated by aerodynamic effects- but spinning around at a pretty high
rotational velocity along with the upper stages for stability.


Pat