Vostok vs Merkury ?

[Pawelk198604]

I wonder with one was better design?

[1greywind]

What do you mean by "better"?

In terms of "test of time" Vostok was better due to large and modular construction. First Vostok-based space craft was launched in 1962 - it was Zenit spy satellite. Vosktok derivered crafts are still in use today: Bion (Ñøþý) and Foton (äþтþý) space crafts are direct descendants of Gagarin's Vosktok space craf.

In terms of "engineering system design" Mercury was better design in comparation with Vostok: first it had the controlled reentry, second, it had backup retro engines.

Edited December 28, 2014 by 1greywind
grammar

[xenomorph555]

Actually I would say that Vostok was better:

10 days life support

more room inside

more experiments can be carried

had a LES

IVA suit

was placed in an orbit that would re-enter after 10 days in-case re-entry rocket failed

pilot ejects from craft at end of mission with parachute, no worrys of ship parachute failing

readily modifiable to allow 2-man, 3-man or EVA's

can be used for other sat systems (bion, zenit)

had good computer systems (at the time)

Seriously it outdoes Mercury in every way.

Gemini vs Voskhod however...

[Nibb31]

I wonder with one was better design?

Again "better" is meaningless. Better in what sense? They were both designed to do a job with their own requirements and successfully did it.

had a LES

IVA suit

Mercury had a launch escape tower and the astronauts had flight suits too.

pilot ejects from craft at end of mission with parachute, no worrys of ship parachute failing

I wouldn't call that a superior design. High altitude ejection is risky business. And the risk of parachute failure still exists.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Nibb31

[Kryten]

Given a complete lack of criteria for what 'better' is in this context, I'm going to say Mercury was better because it was pointy.

[GoSlash27]

I'll go with what Kryten said.

Both would get you to space and back, but when the Mercury brought you back, you had control over where you ended up.

Given the choice between being actively guided to recovery forces in a shelter or bailing out somewhere over Siberia, I'd rather go with the first option.

Best,

-Slashy

[Camacha]

This discussion is silly. It is like asking whether banana or strawberry is better. They are both fruit, and both different.

Except that Vostok is not a fruit

[xenomorph555]

I'll go with what Kryten said.

Both would get you to space and back, but when the Mercury brought you back, you had control over where you ended up.

Given the choice between being actively guided to recovery forces in a shelter or bailing out somewhere over Siberia, I'd rather go with the first option.

Best,

-Slashy

If you de-orbit you will come over a certain area regardless, active guidance does very little. Vostok had a computer to predict where you were going to land when you de-orbit so they could calculate, it wasn't a random thing.

[TheShadow1138]

If you de-orbit you will come over a certain area regardless, active guidance does very little. Vostok had a computer to predict where you were going to land when you de-orbit so they could calculate, it wasn't a random thing.

While that is true, knowing where you're going to land, and being able to land where you want to even if initial de-orbit would undershoot or overshoot the recovery site are two different things Being able to alter course during re-entry allows you to adjust course and still land in a designated recovery area where forces are ready and waiting, as opposed to having to wait for recovery much longer if you happen to overshoot or undershoot your planned recovery and cannot correct course.

[Bill Phil]

Mercury was more purpose built. It also had a specific attitude for reentry. This made handling the high Gs much easier.