Soyuz re-entry

SUBMAN1 · 04-22-08, 04:28 PM

What do you guys think of the latest re-entry? Seems they say it happens all the time (Scary):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24258975/

-S

Blacklight · 04-22-08, 07:00 PM

It's still better than the landings I've pulled off piloting those things in Orbiter.

Kaleun Volk · 04-22-08, 07:03 PM

And you all heard what there director's reson for it was? That it is bad luck to have women on board? gesh... Talk about progressive *sarcasm*

CCIP · 04-22-08, 07:15 PM

It's a harsh landing option, but I agree with the NASA guys that it's really not much of a story. As far as I recall, all early spacecraft that sent the first people (and dogs etc.) to space had no other option except these ballistic re-entries, and they did quite well. The Russians thought their Vostok capsules did so well at landing that they even deleted the original ejection seat that was used at the final stage of the landing and let cosmonauts touch down inside the capsule, which it was originally not even designed for.

bradclark1 · 04-22-08, 08:16 PM

SUBMAN1, back off bombing the forum with your trivia crap!!!!

. The odd one is okay but constant is damn irritating. If you're that bored take up stamp collecting.

Platapus · 04-22-08, 08:18 PM

Actually the decision to remove the ejection seats on the Voskhod spacecraft had more to do with the weight and design of the space craft than any confidence in the system.

As we found out on Gemini, ejection seats are not only very heavy, but not the optimum way of un-assing a spacecraft in trouble.

There was very little difference in the volume of the Vostok and the Voskhod spacecraft.

While the Voskhod was very roomy for one, it was rather cramped for two (and you don't want to know how they got three in to it!)

Voskhod 1 had three humans with no room for any ejection seats
Voskhod 2 had the faring for the expandable space walk airlock so no ejection seats there either.

Actually in both missions there was no crew abort capability (gulp!)

By the time Soyuz came around the Soviet design of using deceleration rockets was advanced enough not to need ejection seats and the Soyuz abort rocket system was well established. Since the Soyuz was always designed to hold up to three humans, the incorporation of ejection seats would have been impractical.

Monica Lewinsky · 04-22-08, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

What do you guys think of the latest re-entry?

Aside from the shuttle, maybe that 1970 era junk needs retirement, too or a second "look see" for improvement. Was not to happy seeing that women astronaut crapping in in pants hoping for a safe landing.

Aside from that, I read somewhere, the first time they take a shower on Earth it hurts like hell. The spray of the water feels like thousands of knives hurting their skin?

Could be urban legend b.s.

Maybe next time a NORTH Korean comes back and crosses his/her fingers to come back alive would be more satisfying?

TLAM Strike · 04-23-08, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaleun Volk

And you all heard what there director's reson for it was? That it is bad luck to have women on board? gesh... Talk about progressive *sarcasm*

It has something to do with Korolev the chief designer of Vostok and the Proton Rocket. When the Soviets sent up the first woman she didn't really know what she was doing (she was a political apponment to the program) and caused a lot of frustration with Russian mission control and Korolev. Nobody sent up a woman for the next 20 or so years.

EDIT: I would also like to point out that the Soyuz (BTW its pronouced Say-oose not Soy-use CNN) is one of the safest spacecraft (its a "SPACECRAFT" not a capsule... sorry I just got done watching 'The Right Stuff') ever with only 3 fatalities very early in the program.

SUBMAN1 · 04-23-08, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

SUBMAN1, back off bombing the forum with your trivia crap!!!!

. The odd one is okay but constant is damn irritating. If you're that bored take up stamp collecting.

??? Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean? Am I not supposed to ask a question on the news I read since I'm nuetral on this story? Dunno what your angle is.

-S

PS. You don't have to read it.

SUBMAN1 · 04-23-08, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monica Lewinsky

Aside from the shuttle, maybe that 1970 era junk needs retirement, too or a second "look see" for improvement. Was not to happy seeing that women astronaut crapping in in pants hoping for a safe landing.

Aside from that, I read somewhere, the first time they take a shower on Earth it hurts like hell. The spray of the water feels like thousands of knives hurting their skin?

Could be urban legend b.s.

Maybe next time a NORTH Korean comes back and crosses his/her fingers to come back alive would be more satisfying?

I think the Shuttle has seen its days too.

-S

04-22-08, 04:28 PM	#1
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Soyuz re-entry What do you guys think of the latest re-entry? Seems they say it happens all the time (Scary): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24258975/ -S __________________

04-22-08, 07:00 PM	#2
Blacklight Ocean Warrior Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,507 Downloads: 145 Uploads: 0	It's still better than the landings I've pulled off piloting those things in Orbiter. __________________ Be my friend or be a mushroom cloud. "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes !"

04-22-08, 07:15 PM	#4
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	It's a harsh landing option, but I agree with the NASA guys that it's really not much of a story. As far as I recall, all early spacecraft that sent the first people (and dogs etc.) to space had no other option except these ballistic re-entries, and they did quite well. The Russians thought their Vostok capsules did so well at landing that they even deleted the original ejection seat that was used at the final stage of the landing and let cosmonauts touch down inside the capsule, which it was originally not even designed for. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

04-22-08, 08:16 PM	#5
bradclark1 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Connecticut, USA. Posts: 2,794 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	SUBMAN1, back off bombing the forum with your trivia crap!!!!. The odd one is okay but constant is damn irritating. If you're that bored take up stamp collecting. __________________

04-22-08, 08:18 PM	#6
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,362 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Actually the decision to remove the ejection seats on the Voskhod spacecraft had more to do with the weight and design of the space craft than any confidence in the system. As we found out on Gemini, ejection seats are not only very heavy, but not the optimum way of un-assing a spacecraft in trouble. There was very little difference in the volume of the Vostok and the Voskhod spacecraft. While the Voskhod was very roomy for one, it was rather cramped for two (and you don't want to know how they got three in to it!) Voskhod 1 had three humans with no room for any ejection seats Voskhod 2 had the faring for the expandable space walk airlock so no ejection seats there either. Actually in both missions there was no crew abort capability (gulp!) By the time Soyuz came around the Soviet design of using deceleration rockets was advanced enough not to need ejection seats and the Soyuz abort rocket system was well established. Since the Soyuz was always designed to hold up to three humans, the incorporation of ejection seats would have been impractical. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

04-22-08, 07:03 PM	#3
Kaleun Volk A-ganger Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 72 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	And you all heard what there director's reson for it was? That it is bad luck to have women on board? gesh... Talk about progressive sarcasm