|
The commies did some wacky stuff in space and now they don't exist anymore. Coincidence? They sent some bathtubs to the moon:  They put a gun on a space station to defend against capitalists: https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/1359529592327991297 Dropped a sea turtle hatchling on the surface of mars, which survived only 20 seconds on the harsh Martian beach they left it on.  and probably some other stuff! post about some of it here
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 09:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
I always feel pretty bad about Phobos 2 failing right before reaching it's target. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 14:03
|
|
|
They built the best rocket engines in the world and the US has only just now maybe caught up with be-4 and raptor
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
They are the only space program to successfully land on the surface of Venus and send back a picture. Admittedly the longest a probe lasted on Venus was only about 2 hours. I'll give them a pass on that since the surface pressure is 95x that of earths and at a cool 860 degrees Fahrenheit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
BURAN Stanley Tucheetos posted:They are the only space program to successfully land on the surface of Venus and send back a picture. Admittedly the longest a probe lasted on Venus was only about 2 hours. I'll give them a pass on that since the surface pressure is 95x that of earths and at a cool 860 degrees Fahrenheit. They also sampled a lens cap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
Buran was wild because they basically made a better space shuttle by accident by going "haha no way the americans actually designed it that badly".
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
Stanley Tucheetos posted:They are the only space program to successfully land on the surface of Venus and send back a picture. Admittedly the longest a probe lasted on Venus was only about 2 hours. I'll give them a pass on that since the surface pressure is 95x that of earths and at a cool 860 degrees Fahrenheit. I love Soviet Venereal Probes
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Stanley Tucheetos posted:They are the only space program to successfully land on the surface of Venus and send back a picture. Admittedly the longest a probe lasted on Venus was only about 2 hours. I'll give them a pass on that since the surface pressure is 95x that of earths and at a cool 860 degrees Fahrenheit. that’s loving rad, I had no idea
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 16:48
|
|
|
I have always felt it was extremely telling that Russia hasn't done gently caress all in space since the collapse that they didn't have parts or plans for when they were the Soviet Union, their old space missions are awesome and dramatic and don't get nearly enough attention
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
Anyone know where I can brush up on soviet spy sats? Been watching dives in to the U-2 and US early spy sat programs on The Vintage Space and am looking for something like this from the USSR side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 07:21
|
|
|
Planned but cancelled soviet space projects sounded amazing: Mars 4NM Marsokhod heavy rover Mars 4NM was going to be launched by the abandoned N1 launcher sometime between 1974 and 1975. Mars 5NM Mars sample return mission Mars 5NM was going to be launched by a single N1 launcher in 1975. Mars 5M Mars sample return mission Mars 5M or Mars 79 (ru:Марс-79) was to be double launched in parts by Proton launchers, and then joined together in orbit for flight to Mars in 1979. Vesta The Vesta mission would have consisted of two identical double-purposed interplanetary probes to be launched in 1991. It was intended to fly-by Mars (instead of an early plan to Venus) and then study four asteroids belonging to different classes. At 4 Vesta a penetrator would be released. Tsiolkovsky The Tsiolkovsky mission was planned as a double-purposed deep interplanetary probe to be launched in the 1990s to make a "sling shot" flyby of Jupiter and then pass within five or seven radii of the Sun. A derivative of this spacecraft would possibly be launched toward Saturn and beyond.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2021 11:49
|
|
|
Technically, the Soviets were the first to successfully soft-land a probe on Mars. It worked for all of 20 seconds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_3
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
Honestly you have to feel pretty bad for them, they genuinely had some awful, awful luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
Yup n-1 died and Saturn v lived by sheer coincidence on both sides. It's a miracle Apollo 8 didn't explode during boost
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
Bloody posted:Yup n-1 died and Saturn v lived by sheer coincidence on both sides. It's a miracle Apollo 8 didn't explode during boost Details on the near disaster?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
Pogo oscillation, but I got my numbers wrong - 6 was the rough one and they improved it over the course of the program. N-1 just got totally wrecked by pogo but imo that could've just as easily been early Apollo flights
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2021 05:11
|
|
|
Bloody posted:Yup n-1 died and Saturn v lived by sheer coincidence on both sides. It's a miracle Apollo 8 didn't explode during boost I wouldn't say the N1 died "by coincidence", it was a clusterfuck from the beginning until the end and operated on cartoon logic, like "hey we can't build a giant gently caress-off rocket so what if we just strap together many rockets and call it a day?". It really reads like a goon project Idea: build a powerful composite rocket that might carry cosmonauts to the moon Reality: an entirely mismanaged project with political interference results in a massive explosion that kills both the program and dozens of scientists in one dramatic swoop
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Pope Hilarius II posted:I wouldn't say the N1 died "by coincidence", it was a clusterfuck from the beginning until the end and operated on cartoon logic, like "hey we can't build a giant gently caress-off rocket so what if we just strap together many rockets and call it a day?". It really reads like a goon project Didn't it kill a bunch of party officials too?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:Didn't it kill a bunch of party officials too? Not sure but that sounds plausible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2021 00:52
|
|
|
Bloody posted:Pogo oscillation, but I got my numbers wrong - 6 was the rough one and they improved it over the course of the program. N-1 just got totally wrecked by pogo but imo that could've just as easily been early Apollo flights One of the main issues was that when Apollo began, the US Government dumped a buttload of money into NASA which they used to build -among other things- huge test stands. So while the pogo issues on the Saturn V's 2nd stage were pretty gnarly, they were able to work out almost all the combustion instability in the first stage by having their failures on the instrumented test stand. The Soviet program did not have the resources to do that kind of testing and wound up just flying them and letting them explode and using that data to do the same job. I need to find out where I read it but theres an account of Soviet engineers observing Apollo 6 and just being flabbergasted that each engineer in the firing room had their own readout and data feeds as close to real time as they could get them, letting them know enough to figure out how to salvage a minimal mission out of the rough ascent. Pogo was only one of the issues though, the N1 KORD control system had several unknown bugs and there were some fuel duct design issues. Years later, after Antares exploded in 2014, NASA's investigation indicated that the NK-33 design had an inherent flaw in that the shared- bearing of the oxygen/fuel turbopump was subject to fracture and sudden explosion. It may well be that with those numbers of clustered engines, there was a certain inevitability to N1 failures. I know the NK-33 continues to be used in modern Russian rockets, but the insight after the Cygnus OA-3 failure has pretty much ended their use in the US. Hopefully Russia managed to fix them enough to keep using that supply though they have been sitting in a warehouse for the better part of 50 years. Edit: a brave soul has visualized the N1 launches in CG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hZ5Ep06TTk Pope Hilarius II posted:Not sure but that sounds plausible. Probably thinking of the Nedelin Catastrophe which was deeply horrifying. (Don't watch the film of the aftermath) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe Okan170 fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Mar 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Bloody posted:They built the best rocket engines in the world and the US has only just now maybe caught up with be-4 and raptor You've said this in a couple of threads now. Would you mind elaborating in depth?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
They figured out ox rich staged combustion in... The 60s? It requires v advanced materials design, turbomach, and combustion devices that afaik we didn't have much to show for until the integrated powerhead demonstrator at the earliest and didn't realize in a booster class engine until be-4 and raptor. To be fair ssme was and remains an outstanding accomplishment in its own right and if I had to sit on top of a rocket I'd much rather have it on the bottom than anything from Russia
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 04:43
|
|
|
Bloody posted:They figured out ox rich staged combustion in... The 60s? It requires v advanced materials design, turbomach, and combustion devices that afaik we didn't have much to show for until the integrated powerhead demonstrator at the earliest and didn't realize in a booster class engine until be-4 and raptor. To be fair ssme was and remains an outstanding accomplishment in its own right and if I had to sit on top of a rocket I'd much rather have it on the bottom than anything from Russia So what does oxygen-rich staged combustion do for you that makes it "better?" More impulse? Lower engine weight? Easier control? Less complexity? What advantages of oxygen-rich staged combustion give you over fuel-rich, which is (as I understand it) what most of the American engines were using once they stopped dumping their gas generator exhaust straight out of the bell...
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
Pope Hilarius II posted:I wouldn't say the N1 died "by coincidence", it was a clusterfuck from the beginning until the end and operated on cartoon logic, like "hey we can't build a giant gently caress-off rocket so what if we just strap together many rockets and call it a day?". It really reads like a goon project I don't think it killed anyone though. You might be thinking of the Nedelin disaster, which was an ICBM. e: I totally missed the post pretty much saying the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:So what does oxygen-rich staged combustion do for you that makes it "better?" More impulse? Lower engine weight? Easier control? Less complexity? What advantages of oxygen-rich staged combustion give you over fuel-rich, which is (as I understand it) what most of the American engines were using once they stopped dumping their gas generator exhaust straight out of the bell... For reasons I don't understand it gives you Better Isp, second only to full flow (I think?) but I don't really remember why but this post has some links that sound promising https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/22947/what-are-the-advantages-of-ox-rich-staged-combustion#22950
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
Bloody posted:For reasons I don't understand it gives you Better Isp, second only to full flow (I think?) but I don't really remember why but this post has some links that sound promising https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/22947/what-are-the-advantages-of-ox-rich-staged-combustion#22950 The main advantage -besides isp- is running oxygen-rich usually is how you get extra thrust from a rocket engine. Without the proper metallurgy in a staged combustion engine though the pressures are so high you can easily start burning up engine components, which was why the US essentially wrote off Oxygen-Rich staged combustion. The Soviets used the engines essentially the way the US uses SRBs- big thrust for first stages either in a booster or main engine. You can also kind of see why Lockheed/Aerojet jumped on RD-180 when you watch early 90s Atlas launches and the things just crawl off the pad with a handful of weird solids attached, but sticking the RD-180 on the same tankage (Atlas III) and it just shoots up into the sky. I suppose in a way, Russia has used the technology in places where they'd otherwise use cryogenic engines as well, since they've not really brought a cryogenic stage to flight since Buran.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 06:54
|
|
|
Yeah
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
i heard you could bury a soyuz rocket in mud or sand, wash it off, and it will still launch into space successfully. confirm/deny?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 08:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 15:04 |
|
|
Only if it was properly stored in cosmonautline
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 16:25
|
|
