Why are R-7 boosters inset?

[DerekL1963]

28 minutes ago, shynung said:

I'd imagine there would be balance problems. Imagine holding a wide object while walking on a fence.

An average human being would have problems with that because placing one foot in precisely front of another is an unnatural act (yet, tightrope walkers do it all the time).  In the same way, carrying a wide load is an unnatural act, made more difficult by all the joints involved and the flexibility of the human torso  (yet people do it all the time).

Seriously, apples and oranges.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, shynung said:

I'd imagine there would be balance problems. Imagine holding a wide object while walking on a fence.

The train with the ejector is way heavier than the booster. they are also driving very slow on an track who is of bullet train quality. 
However I would expect them to push it towards the pad, yes they probably switch over, weird with an switch with double tracks however, that has to be rare. 

However Soyuz is constrained by standard rail carry width. This is not uncommon Falcon 9 is also designed for rail transport, same with the shuttle boosters and all modern tanks except the Israeli Merkava, Israel don't have railway and is small. 

[Ultimate Steve]

41 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Falcon 9 is also designed for rail transport,

I have not heard of this, IIRC the plan was to always use trucks. Source?

[magnemoe]

16 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I have not heard of this, IIRC the plan was to always use trucks. Source?

Diameter is 12 feet, same is width of an M1 tank and lots of other stuff. Its also max with of rail transport. 
Not saying they transport it by rail, just that its the diameter, it might it was an option during designs but they found truck was cheaper, US railroads don't like single carriage special cargo much. 
It might also be that 13 feet wide stuff is far more expensive to move on roads than 12 feet, again its come back to the rail standard. 
 

[Phineas Freak]

8 hours ago, shynung said:

The Soyuz rocket family are transported to its launch pad in Baikonur by train, fully assembled.

No. The picture you quoted is the equivalent of the Saturn/Shuttle/SLS MLP. This train is only used to transport the assembled Soyuz rocket from the assembly hall to the launch pad, nothing more, nothing less.

The Soyuz rocket stages are also transported by train but it is done via the usual railroad network (like the Shuttle RSRMs):  http://www.amur.info/res/news/101193/7a524b49fe8c94e9290963ceb9247fd6.jpg

(In the above picture the 4 slim containers are for the boosters and the single container in the front is for the upper stage. The core stage probably lies in a container behind the upper stage).

Edit: also, by barges in the case of Kourou: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tNYoQ3QVQ7Y/TgD13ChhxQI/AAAAAAAABlM/bKmfBpOTutI/s1600/Soyuz+rockets+being+unloaded.JPG

Edited March 9, 2018 by Phineas Freak

[DerekL1963]

57 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

Edit: also, by barges in the case of Kourou: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tNYoQ3QVQ7Y/TgD13ChhxQI/AAAAAAAABlM/bKmfBpOTutI/s1600/Soyuz+rockets+being+unloaded.JPG

The barge also carries tank trailers for the various fluids that aren't LOX/Gasoline that the booster requires such as the N2O4/UDMH for the Fregat (if used).  Basically one trip hauls everything for one launch.

[Tyko]

On 3/8/2018 at 11:49 AM, NSEP said:

I think its safe to say the R-7 is the orbital rocket with the least changes through its over-a-century lifespan.

It's been around a long time, but not over 100 years...in fact, R-7 was first launched in 1957 - 61 years ago 

[NSEP]

9 minutes ago, Tyko said:

It's been around a long time, but not over 100 years...in fact, R-7 was first launched in 1957 - 61 years ago 

Forgot to say half! Shoot!

[Tyko]

Just now, NSEP said:

Forgot to say half! Shoot!

haha, I was wondering. From reading your posts before I thought you had a fairly good grasp of history and could count 

[YNM]

7 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Diameter is 12 feet, same is width of an M1 tank and lots of other stuff. Its also max with of rail transport. 
Not saying they transport it by rail, just that its the diameter, it might it was an option during designs but they found truck was cheaper, US railroads don't like single carriage special cargo much. 
It might also be that 13 feet wide stuff is far more expensive to move on roads than 12 feet, again its come back to the rail standard. 
 

What's the smallest turning radius and the smallest loading gauge ? Given it's length, they could jut out... Even Shuttle SRB was cut up, though arguably that could also be caused by the weight.

Edited March 10, 2018 by YNM

[sevenperforce]

15 hours ago, shynung said:

The Soyuz rocket family are transported to its launch pad in Baikonur by train, fully assembled. The central core was tapered to make room for the side boosters, so as to fit the train's maximum load dimensions.

Reminds me of a delightful party fact...

Did you know the size of the Space Shuttle was determined based on the size of a horse's rear end?

It's true. The wingspan of the Shuttle was constrained by aerodynamic considerations centered around the size of the Shuttle SRBs. The SRBs were the maximum diameter cylinder that could be carried by standard rail, since the STS was a big pork project that used contractors all around the country. The maximum size of standard rail is dependent on tunnel size, and rail tunnels were cut based on track width.

Standard train tracks in the US are exactly 4 feet, 8.5 inches wide (1,435 mm). Why such an strange number? Well, train tracks were designed based on the standard size of a wagon axle. Wagon axles were, as a rule, precisely 4 feet, 8.5 inches wide, because that was the size of the ruts that formed in dirt roadways; a cart or wagon with a nonstandard axle width would not fit in existing ruts and thus would not be able to navigate.

Why were ruts in American roadways exactly 4 feet, 8.5 inches wide? Well, that was the size of the wagon and cart axles imported from Great Britain. And in Great Britain, the wagon and cart axles were 4'8.5" because that was the size of the ruts in dirt roads in England.

Why were ruts in British roadways 4'8.5"? Well, because the Romans had built the roads in the British Isles, of course. All Roman roadways were designed to accommodate axles of exactly 5 pedes. One Roman pes is 287 mm. And why? Well, the Romans had determined that an axle of 5 pedes was precisely wide enough for a two-horse chariot.

So the size of the Space Shuttle was based on the width of a horse's posterior.

_{Note: I make no affirmative claim that the foregoing is actually true. Repeat at your own risk.}

[qzgy]

32 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I make no affirmative claim that the foregoing is actually true. Repeat at your own risk.

blep. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/horses-pass/

Long and detailed, but basically no. But its an interesting joke anyways.

Edited March 10, 2018 by qzgy

[DerekL1963]

57 minutes ago, YNM said:

Even Shuttle SRB was cut up, though arguably that could also be caused by the weight.

That was all about weight and handling.  (That's why they went segmented in the first place.)

[sevenperforce]

6 minutes ago, qzgy said:

blep. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/horses-pass/

Long and detailed, but basically no.

Not actually no. More like, coincidentally yes.

[qzgy]

1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

Not actually no. More like, coincidentally yes.

Ok, fair enough.

[YNM]

1 hour ago, DerekL1963 said:

That was all about weight and handling. 

Yeah, I expected that, even the transporter strong enough for Saturn V wasn't strong enough for Shuttle.

Edited March 10, 2018 by YNM