Space rocket launches and ISS docking news

171 posts in this topic

why does it matter how the rocket part destructed ?

It only important, that the life capsule, can eject from the rocket in a safe way !!, if a 'problem' is detected by ground based systems or by the capsule and rocket together - then the life capsule is eject and the people in-side get to live, unlike with space craft ie the space shuttle/Russian based rockets

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, yesterday said:

why does it matter how the rocket part destructed ?

It only important, that the life capsule, can eject from the rocket in a safe way !!, if a 'problem' is detected by ground based systems or by the capsule and rocket together - then the life capsule is eject and the people in-side get to live, unlike with space craft ie the space shuttle/Russian based rockets

 

 

Russian based rockets? If you are referring to Soyuz, it does indeed have an emergency rocket to eject the crew module away from the main rocket in the case of emergency.

 

Btw, Buran, the Soviet shuttle, had crew ejector seats.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, pmd said:

Russian based rockets? If you are referring to Soyuz, it does indeed have an emergency rocket to eject the crew module away from the main rocket in the case of emergency.

Yes, watch this to see it in action!

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pmd said:

 

Russian based rockets? If you are referring to Soyuz, it does indeed have an emergency rocket to eject the crew module away from the main rocket in the case of emergency.

 

Btw, Buran, the Soviet shuttle, had crew ejector seats.

It´s interesting to compare the Buran with the Spaceshuttle, it would seem that the Soviets built the better system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, slammer said:

It´s interesting to compare the Buran with the Spaceshuttle, it would seem that the Soviets built the better system.

They started by blatantly copying it, but then realized that the Spaceshuttle was a terrible design (but an amazing machine) so they improved it.

The whole mess with the space shuttle started with requirements from the air force (crossrange). They should have gone with a reusable Saturn V, which was a much better plan.

BTW, SpaceX Falcon 9 is basically a scaled down Saturn V reusable. SpaceX guys were smart enough to study history and learn from America´s finest moment in engineering, the Apollo Program.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

They started by blatantly copying it, but then realized that the Spaceshuttle was a terrible design (but an amazing machine) so they improved it.

The whole mess with the space shuttle started with requirements from the air force (crossrange). They should have gone with a reusable Saturn V, which was a much better plan.

BTW, SpaceX Falcon 9 is basically a scaled down Saturn V reusable. SpaceX guys were smart enough to study history and learn from America´s finest moment in engineering, the Apollo Program.

Shame, the American's studied the UK milk cart, before building the Tesla's  :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeMelga said:

They started by blatantly copying it, but then realized that the Spaceshuttle was a terrible design (but an amazing machine) so they improved it.

The whole mess with the space shuttle started with requirements from the air force (crossrange). They should have gone with a reusable Saturn V, which was a much better plan.

BTW, SpaceX Falcon 9 is basically a scaled down Saturn V reusable. SpaceX guys were smart enough to study history and learn from America´s finest moment in engineering, the Apollo Program.

There is a Buran in the Technikmuseum in Speyer, I have always wanted to go and look, maybe in spring. What I find interesting about the Buran is that it was going to accommodate jet propulsion for atmospheric flight instead of gliding like a brick with an anvil attached.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, yesterday said:

The star attraction there is the Concorde

Been in there - also the one in Seattle.

 

 

CC-Seattle.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yesterday said:

The star attraction there is the Concorde against the Russian of the Concorde worth going just for that

That's at Sinsheim, the Buran is at Speyer. The Buran is very impressive and as for the Concorde and TU144, you can really see the difference in build quality between the two, like comparing a Landrover to a Rangerover

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

The press release might be right. I read yesterday that as the engines would be shut down for sure, the rocket would just explode by itself with no need for the safety explosives.

 

Yes, it was all programmed to happen from the moment the engines were turned off. But I don't see why that would cause the Falcon 9 to explode as it did. From the video there seemed to be no disintegration, just an explosion. 

 

10 hours ago, yesterday said:

why does it matter how the rocket part destructed ?

 

It interests me. ;) 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, slammer said:

There is a Buran in the Technikmuseum in Speyer, I have always wanted to go and look, maybe in spring. What I find interesting about the Buran is that it was going to accommodate jet propulsion for atmospheric flight instead of gliding like a brick with an anvil attached.

NASA had the same original idea, but by the end of development, the stupid wings were already so big that they could just glide.

And that is the biggest criticism of the whole project: the wings became monster because the air force requested a large cross range, for a special type of launch that was never done!

 

They should have stuck with Saturn V for lifting cargo and then have a mini-shuttle for astronauts.

Alternatively, they should have gone with one of the original plans: 2 stage system, first stage flies back to base. First stage is RP1, not hydrogen. 2nd stage is either full hydrazine (simplicity) or a low thrust hydrogen (smaller engines, high performance) with multiple start capability and hydrazine's role is reduced.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, yesterday said:

The star attraction there is the Concorde against the Russian of the Concorde worth going just for that

That is in Sinsheim, Speyer is a bit further along the A6. But you are correct, seeing the Concord and the Tupolew together is amaizing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

NASA had the same original idea, but by the end of development, the stupid wings were already so big that they could just glide.

And that is the biggest criticism of the whole project: the wings became monster because the air force requested a large cross range, for a special type of launch that was never done!

 

They should have stuck with Saturn V for lifting cargo and then have a mini-shuttle for astronauts.

Alternatively, they should have gone with one of the original plans: 2 stage system, first stage flies back to base. First stage is RP1, not hydrogen. 2nd stage is either full hydrazine (simplicity) or a low thrust hydrogen (smaller engines, high performance) with multiple start capability and hydrazine's role is reduced.

I have always been interested in a "what if" scenario where Apollo would have been further developed, there where all kinds of interesting projects on the board in the Apollo Applications Program, perhaps we could have been much further on in space then we are now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

They started by blatantly copying it, but then realized that the Spaceshuttle was a terrible design (but an amazing machine) so they improved it.

The Russians didn't understand why somebody would construct such a freak of nature, as the space shuttle doesn't make sense.

 

They then assumed the Americans have a special military use for bringing a large payload into space, and also bringing back such a payload. They Russians didn't know what this military use might be, but they assumed that this is the reason to build a space shuttle.

 

So they decided to build a similar thing that is capable of bringing the same size of payload into space and back, avoiding to have lost time once it is clear what this assumed military use is.

 

After all, we're talking about the way of thinking during the height of the cold war.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don´t think the American shuttle was copied per-se. If you are presented with a certain problem like how to build a resuable orbiter-space-freight-spacshipplane then there is only one realistic way to solve it and you come up with a space shuttle like craft.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Frankln says, we say all of this with the benefit of hindsight

 

Seems that the Russians and American's came to the same thinking... The Russian space shuttle was supposed to be better than the American one ( could carry more anyway), but we will never know because it never was flown.

 

Only now we know that the Space shuttle item, was not the best ! Or maybe, the engineers could not figure a way to return the engines to earth at that time - Like SpaceX have done. Returning the engines to earth saves a lot of money.

 

Space shuttle and Concorde, were in their day wonderful - however today, they both look like the wrong solution.

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, yesterday said:

Like Frankln says, we say all of this with the benefit of hindsight

 

Seems that the Russians and American's came to the same thinking... The Russian space shuttle was supposed to be better than the American one ( could carry more anyway), but we will never know because it never was flown.

It was flown once to orbit. Fully automated. It was better for many reasons, also because it was much simpler and cheaper.

 

8 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

Only now we know that the Space shuttle item, was not the best ! Or maybe, the engineers could not figure a way to return the engines to earth at that time - Like SpaceX have done. Returning the engines to earth saves a lot of money.

They knew how to do it. It was the plan to convert the Saturn V first stage into a reusable rocket. Problem was the stupid requirements from the airforce, which created those huge wings, which made it impossible to place the shuttle on top of a Saturn V.

 

8 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

Space shuttle and Concorde, were in their day wonderful - however today, they both look like the wrong solution.

Concorde was still a good solution, it was profitable when it was decommissioned. In the next 10 years you will see it coming back.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

Concorde was still a good solution, it was profitable when it was decommissioned. In the next 10 years you will see it coming back.

 

I would doubt that, Concord is, or was, a sloution to a problem that never really existed. it was the next logical step in aviation in the post-war period so it was built and at the time they did have military tech to use as a template. You could say that concord was the offspring of the vulcan bomber.

But attitudes are changing in the avialtion world, even the A380 is now considered a lemon and production will stop in 2021. I don´t think that there is any reason why an airline would want a supersonic passenger jet.

 

By the way, Elon´s Starlink sats will be visible over Munch today at 18.16

https://me.cmdr2.org/starlink/

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now