Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
PokeJoe
Aug 24, 2004

hail cgatan




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

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Lawman 0
Aug 17, 2010





I always feel pretty bad about Phobos 2 failing right before reaching it's target.

Bloody
Mar 3, 2013



They built the best rocket engines in the world and the US has only just now maybe caught up with be-4 and raptor

Stanley Tucheetos
May 15, 2012



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.

Vavrek
Mar 2, 2013

I like your style hombre, but this is no laughing matter. Assault on a police officer. Theft of police property. Illegal possession of a firearm. FIVE counts of attempted murder. That comes to... 29 dollars and 40 cents. Cash, cheque, or credit card?

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.

Lawman 0
Aug 17, 2010





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".

Ventral EggSac
Dec 3, 2019



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

Eat My Ghastly Ass
Jul 23, 2007



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.



thatís loving rad, I had no idea

Tighclops
Jan 23, 2008

Unable to deal with it



Grimey Drawer

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

Amechwarrior
Jan 29, 2007



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.

Tias
May 25, 2008

Deyr fe,
deyja fraendr,
deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn,
at aldrei deyr:
domr um daudan hvern.


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.

DamnCanadian
Jan 3, 2005

Perpetuating the stereotype since 1978.

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

Lawman 0
Aug 17, 2010





Honestly you have to feel pretty bad for them, they genuinely had some awful, awful luck.

Bloody
Mar 3, 2013



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

Lawman 0
Aug 17, 2010





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?

Bloody
Mar 3, 2013



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

Pope Hilarius II
Nov 9, 2008



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

Lawman 0
Aug 17, 2010





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

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

Didn't it kill a bunch of party officials too?

Pope Hilarius II
Nov 9, 2008



Lawman 0 posted:

Didn't it kill a bunch of party officials too?

Not sure but that sounds plausible.

Okan170
Nov 14, 2007

Torpedoes away!


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 19:09 on Mar 31, 2021

babyeatingpsychopath
Oct 28, 2000
Forum Veteran

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?

Bloody
Mar 3, 2013



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

babyeatingpsychopath
Oct 28, 2000
Forum Veteran

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...

Elukka
Feb 17, 2011



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

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
There's nothing inherently wrong with many small engines. Falcon Heavy has 27, and is also more literally built out of three Falcon 9 first stages, and works fine. It's all those project issues you mention that caused the problems.

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.

Bloody
Mar 3, 2013



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

Okan170
Nov 14, 2007

Torpedoes away!


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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006


Yeah

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply