Jump to content

Russian Launch and Mission Thread


tater

Recommended Posts

I just realized that I had never watched a live docking before.  :blush:

Three questions...  maybe n00b-level, but curiosity overrides...

1.  On final approach, the [Kurs antenna?] of the station appeared to be vibrating/flickering.  Really happened or a video artifact?

2.  Just after contact, the docking camera appeared to slew around to the left (to the point where I wondered if docking had been unsuccessful).  What was that?

3.  I couldn't tell which port MS 08 docked at from the video feed... was it Pirs or Poisk?   Space.com reports that it was Poisk.

Edited by MaxwellsDemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

2.  Just after contact, the docking camera appeared to slew around to the left (to the point where I wondered if docking had been unsuccessful).  What was that?

When the Soyuz first captures with the station, the only thing connecting the two is the little arm at the end of the nose. The spacecraft wobbles around for a minute as it settles into place (this was mentioned in the broadcast) and then pulls itself in to a hard mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the sound off so my boss wouldn't think I was doing something other than work.  :D

I knew that about the docking procedure in theory, but I didn't realize the motion was so pronounced in reality...

Edited by MaxwellsDemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cubinator said:

When the Soyuz first captures with the station, the only thing connecting the two is the little arm at the end of the nose. The spacecraft wobbles around for a minute as it settles into place (this was mentioned in the broadcast) and then pulls itself in to a hard mate.

Videos here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tater said:

 

Which, as best as I can tell, says:

On March 28, the Progress-MS-07 cargo vehicle was undocked with the International Space Station. The re-entry and splashdown of uncombusted fragments in the Pacific Ocean is expected on April 26.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Russian ICBM:

Let's see here. Powder-charge-launched. Hypergolic, by exhaust plume color. Likely a two-stage, given the shock diamonds of the underexpanded engine. Single engine, too, so probably a GG or ORSC cycle. RD-275M, maybe?

Ridiculously dangerous.

Edited by sevenperforce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Ridiculously dangerous.

Well, yeah, hypergolics are toxic, but there’s just no better way to keep the rocket always ready for launch. SRBs are less efficient, and I’m not sure if they’re safer than hypergols. Maybe some kind of hybrid rocket booster could combine safety, propellant stability and efficiency, I dunno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sh1pman said:

Well, yeah, hypergolics are toxic, but there’s just no better way to keep the rocket always ready for launch. SRBs are less efficient, and I’m not sure if they’re safer than hypergols. Maybe some kind of hybrid rocket booster could combine safety, propellant stability and efficiency, I dunno.

I meant dangerous to the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Teilnehmer said:

Why does it use a tiny first stage to lift the rocket above the ground before the main engine starting?

It probably is launched by mortar, so this is just a protective cover for the engines. Atleast that is how it works on the Dnepr which is a former ICBM.

4606578_orig.jpg

Edited by Canopus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypergolics are the only options for Russian ICBM. Russia doesn't seem to have any experience with SRB's, let alone Hybrid Rockets.

8 hours ago, sh1pman said:

SRBs are less efficient, and I’m not sure if they’re safer than hypergols.

Well, SRB's don't produce toxic fumes, SRB's do risk accidental ignition on the ground but so does hypergolic. When it comes to the amount of safety hazards while fueling on the ground, Hypergolic propellant has more hazard than solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, sevenperforce said:
15 hours ago, sh1pman said:

Well, yeah, hypergolics are toxic, but there’s just no better way to keep the rocket always ready for launch. SRBs are less efficient, and I’m not sure if they’re safer than hypergols. Maybe some kind of hybrid rocket booster could combine safety, propellant stability and efficiency, I dunno.

I meant dangerous to the target.

KSP forum in a single phrase.

6 hours ago, NSEP said:

Russia doesn't seem to have any experience with SRB's

It has a lot of experience since 1960s, but hypergolics hystorically had better success.

6 hours ago, NSEP said:

SRB's don't produce toxic fumes

SRB is a fountain of hydrogen chloride and nitrogen oxides.
And most of hypergolic ICBM/SLBM get fueled and packed into a hermetic container right in the plant. Also they need no refueling for 10 years and more.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

It has a lot of experience since 1960s, but hypergolics hystorically had better success.

Yeah, you don't see many solid rockets in Russia today, expect for fireworks and maybe ullage/seperation thrusters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NSEP said:

Yeah, you don't see many solid rockets in Russia today, expect for fireworks and maybe ullage/seperation thrusters.

Several hundred RT-2PM Topol family (beginned in Korolev's bureaou as RT-2).
SLBM Bulava (not sure if is being tested or already used).
SLBM R-39 (retired several years ago)
Almost all ballistic cruise missiles since late 1970s.
Rocket trains (retired in 1990s) were equipped with solid fuel RT-23.

Btw, ~300 RSD-10 were destroyed by launching, with no failure.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...