Slashdot Mirror

I think strictly it is considered a booster, anyway, see the link for the details.

AFAIK, this was used to lift the Russian clone of the shuttle, but I think Glasnost put an end to that program.

The US has tried to be careful about sterilizing its Mars landers. The Viking landers were very thoroughly sterilized, since their main purpose was to look for signs of life; it was important to eliminate false positive results from terrestrial "hitchhikers". The Pathfinder and MER landers were mainly geology missions and that, combined with the negative Viking results, led to a somewhat lower standard of sterility. (IIRC they went over the exterior of the rover with disinfectants, but did not have to heat sterilize all the internal components.) According to this interview:

http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/nasadirect/elv/merb/theis- ab.htm

"There is a set of international treaties and agreements that regulate the ability of us to take bacteria or organic material or spores to Mars in order to avoid contaminating Mars for future scientific investigations. The Mars Exploration Rover project is what is called a Class B. We're not involved in the search for life and so we have a level of cleanliness that we did when we put the rovers together. If you were a Class A mission looking more directly for life, the requirements would be much more stringent. You would actually have to sterilize the equipment, almost like an operating room, in order to be able to satisfy these agreements."

I'm curious about the extent to which the Soviet Mars landers were sterilized. None of them were exactly successful, but a couple made it to the surface and crashed there.

Russian Space Web, for example, has an article that details several technical weaknesses with Bush's plan. For example the rocket thrust required to orbit the planned space capsules far exceeds that currently available with Saturn-V boosters. Also, Bush's plan to mine resources from the Lunar surface to fuel the trip to Mars would require A) substanially more fuel just to lift off the lunar surface than would be necessary for spacecraft assembled in Earth orbit, and B) some sort of industrial/mining infrastructure on the moon, which itself would require massive fuel just to get off earth.

Ah yes, the I've heard this one before. The Russians have superior technology, US killed MIR, yada yada yada. Bullshit.

I'm talking economics, bub. When you have people to feed and a country to rebuild, spaceflight is not necessarily the first thing on your mind.

Ok. So first of all, Soyuz is definitely more reliable. That I'll agree with. But it is in no way shape or form more capable. It's a three-person capsule (or, robotically, a limited cargo delivery vehicle). I'm hopeful that the six person soyuz will actually be seen through, but it will likely only be through external funding. For instance, last year, Russia had to petition other countries for money to continue funding Soyuz. And another. And more.

Russia's space program is less stable than the Soyuz launch record would indicate. How long they can keep it up, well, that's anybody's guess.

As far as MIR: granted, it was -- bar none -- the most successful space station ever. But these things have a half-life. The longest running Salut -- the previous generation Russian station -- was only in orbit for nine years. Mir, on the other hand, was up for fifteen years, and near the end there were some major problems. Fifteen years is a damn good run, but it was time for it to be retired. Law of diminishing returns and such. Especially considering there was a better option. And yes, I'm referring to the ISS.

There's definitely manpower in Russia. What I'm not so sure about is the money. And furthermore, why should we just give up on our own manned programs and rely on another nation for access to space? It is politically a very real possibility that the friends of today will be the enemies of tomorrow, whether through changes to the political structure in another country or the arrogant stance the US has been taking lately.

Ah yes, the I've heard this one before. The Russians have superior technology, US killed MIR, yada yada yada. Bullshit.

I'm talking economics, bub. When you have people to feed and a country to rebuild, spaceflight is not necessarily the first thing on your mind.

Ok. So first of all, Soyuz is definitely more reliable. That I'll agree with. But it is in no way shape or form more capable. It's a three-person capsule (or, robotically, a limited cargo delivery vehicle). I'm hopeful that the six person soyuz will actually be seen through, but it will likely only be through external funding. For instance, last year, Russia had to petition other countries for money to continue funding Soyuz. And another. And more.

Russia's space program is less stable than the Soyuz launch record would indicate. How long they can keep it up, well, that's anybody's guess.

As far as MIR: granted, it was -- bar none -- the most successful space station ever. But these things have a half-life. The longest running Salut -- the previous generation Russian station -- was only in orbit for nine years. Mir, on the other hand, was up for fifteen years, and near the end there were some major problems. Fifteen years is a damn good run, but it was time for it to be retired. Law of diminishing returns and such. Especially considering there was a better option. And yes, I'm referring to the ISS.

There's definitely manpower in Russia. What I'm not so sure about is the money. And furthermore, why should we just give up on our own manned programs and rely on another nation for access to space? It is politically a very real possibility that the friends of today will be the enemies of tomorrow, whether through changes to the political structure in another country or the arrogant stance the US has been taking lately.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetar y_mars.html

One careful owner mannequin, now in space. Previously used only in car pool lanes around KSC.

I guess you mean Baikonur in Kazakhstan. Do they have car pool lanes there?

It could have been worse. Whenever you work with highly flammable materials, this is the risk that you take. It can be mitigated by proper safety procedures, but never fully eliminated. These workers paid the ultimate price for a lapse somewhere in the chain of safety.

Let's not kid ourselves. Russian Space Web has a nice piece on the thoroughly demonstrated anti-satellite weapon systems of the former USSR. I don't know much about our (USA's) own anit-satellite system, but I do know that Russia has done much of this testing, and I would guess a lot more than the USA. I say that because Russia would know if we had tested the weapons, just as we knew that they did. And that information that they knew would be leaked, of course. So I think that Russia had a lot more antisatellite weaponry than the U.S., at least when it comes to kinetic energy weapons (i.e. a shrapnel bomb) in space.

With this in mind, I believe that the USA military has a legitimate interest in developing at least a similar system for weapons parity. I mean, the US military depends heavily on space for communications, and if that were knocked down by China (say, if China wants to invade Taiwan) or maybe a future threat, we would need to be able to knock down either their weapons before they reached our satellites or to knock down their own satellites to make it a level playing field.

And who knows. Russia seems of late to have forgotten what it means to be a democracy, so if some dictator arose in the future, it would have been nice to have at least thought of what to do beforehand. The future can't be predicted too accurately. 250 years ago, the most powerful nation on the earth today was a disjointed band of colonies under the rule of the British Empire. You never know. Hopefully the next great empire won't be like Hitler or Stalin or Mao Tse Tung and murder millions. Being a citizen of the USA, I believe that the USA should try to prevent such a murderous empire from taking control of the high ground and rain down their own fire from the skies.

P.S. I realize that this is a huge piece of flamebait, but as this is a democracy, there needs to be contrasting opinions (diversity of opinion) for us to really function fairly here at slashdot, so please respect my opinion, as I respect yours.

Let's not kid ourselves. Russian Space Web has a nice piece on the thoroughly demonstrated anti-satellite weapon systems of the former USSR. I don't know much about our (USA's) own anit-satellite system, but I do know that Russia has done much of this testing, and I would guess a lot more than the USA. I say that because Russia would know if we had tested the weapons, just as we knew that they did. And that information that they knew would be leaked, of course. So I think that Russia had a lot more antisatellite weaponry than the U.S., at least when it comes to kinetic energy weapons (i.e. a shrapnel bomb) in space.

With this in mind, I believe that the USA military has a legitimate interest in developing at least a similar system for weapons parity. I mean, the US military depends heavily on space for communications, and if that were knocked down by China (say, if China wants to invade Taiwan) or maybe a future threat, we would need to be able to knock down either their weapons before they reached our satellites or to knock down their own satellites to make it a level playing field.

And who knows. Russia seems of late to have forgotten what it means to be a democracy, so if some dictator arose in the future, it would have been nice to have at least thought of what to do beforehand. The future can't be predicted too accurately. 250 years ago, the most powerful nation on the earth today was a disjointed band of colonies under the rule of the British Empire. You never know. Hopefully the next great empire won't be like Hitler or Stalin or Mao Tse Tung and murder millions. Being a citizen of the USA, I believe that the USA should try to prevent such a murderous empire from taking control of the high ground and rain down their own fire from the skies.

P.S. I realize that this is a huge piece of flamebait, but as this is a democracy, there needs to be contrasting opinions (diversity of opinion) for us to really function fairly here at slashdot, so please respect my opinion, as I respect yours.

It was a R-16 (aka SS-7) balistic missile that blew up, and it had nothing to do with a mission to Mars (read the postscript).

Not entirely correct. There is black and white video footage of dozens of technicians running away from the fireball, all entirely aflame, before dropping to the ground.

It was only "instantly" for those right next to the rocket. Who knows how many burned alive over the course of a half minute or two.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/r16_disaster.html

...which just means that their ex-Nazi rocket scientists were faster than our ex-Nazi rocket scientists. Check this out for enhanced cluefulness...

Chronology of the Russian Space Program

...and notice the part about the USSR capturing the German's A4 rocket as well as swiping a goodly number of Peenemunde scientists. The U.S. got the rest of 'em.

Just take a look at key military technology in the '60s and '70s:

• First space mission training/preparation casulaty: Valentine Bondarenko, 1961.
• First space mission casualty: Vladimir Komarov, Soyuz 1, 1967.
• Worst ever rocket disaster: the Nedelin disaster at Baikonur, October 24, 1960. Over 100 people died.
• Failed to replicate the US's manned moon program.

First working long-term space stations: Russia (also used for spying)

World's most powerfull rocket: Russia (Energija), implies that they could launch a BIG amount of plutonium for a BIG shot.

Most reliable rocket technology: Russia

There was also a big fuss about that the USSR stole the space shuttle technology for their Buran shuttle. Actually, the Buran uses a more modern design, has a much higher capacity, better aerodynamics and even can fly completly on automatic (whereas the US shuttle must be landed per joystick).

You said key military technology of the 60's and 70's and then listed a bunch of later achievements. In the 60's and 70's the USSR were clearly behind. At the time it was not obvious but it certainly is now.

Not really. In the USSR, large fiasco's like that weren't unheard of... see Chernobyl, the Nedelin Disaster, etc... None of those were blamed on the US, although hundreds of Soviet citizens died.

"Because of its ability to keep electronics on both the 1997 Mars Pathfinder and the current rover, Spirit, at room temperature in the face of minus-100-degree cold, aerogel will probably remain the insulator of choice on Mars missions for some time, Dr. Tsuyuki said."

Doesn't that mean aerogel could also insulate a Venus lander from the heat on its surface?

Well, the Energiacould probably do the job lifting it into orbit around earth. However it would still be difficult to get that thing to Mars, and then safely drop it onto the surface.

How about a soyuz? They are tried, true, and tough as nails.

I'm not sure I'd be asking the Russians for advice on Mars landings. They've not had the best luck with their Mars landers. NASA's airbags may look dicey, but they do appear to work in practice.

The problem is a tough one. You've got to launch a fragile probe at thousands of kilometers per hour, then manage to slow them down for a soft landing on a virtually unknown surface without operator intervention (due to the horrible communication delay).

Of course they did make several unmanned landings. What I hadn't realised was that in 1976 they also had a probe return samples to Earth.

No? No what? You appear to have repeated what I stated, but that's ok. For further information regarding the Soviet-bound East Germany, visit here and here.

For further information about captured German scientists working to build Soviet rocket technology, read this.

= 9J =

The ISS is cooled down by emmitting infrared radiation through gigantic heat sinks that use two closed loops: one with water - to take the heat out of the stations interior and to the heat sinks and the oher with ammonia - to take the heat out of the water and into the heat sink tubing (ammonia freezes at a much lower temperature than water. Water would just become ice and would clog the tubes.) Now THIS is some heat sink that could solve heating problems of a huge super-computer.
I wonder what did MIR use for cooling down?

I like this chronology - a very exciting reading.

The ISS is cooled down by emmitting infrared radiation through gigantic heat sinks that use two closed loops: one with water - to take the heat out of the stations interior and to the heat sinks and the oher with ammonia - to take the heat out of the water and into the heat sink tubing (ammonia freezes at a much lower temperature than water. Water would just become ice and would clog the tubes.) Now THIS is some heat sink that could solve heating problems of a huge super-computer.
I wonder what did MIR use for cooling down?

I like this chronology - a very exciting reading.

Mod parent up, good point, however...

I have a Fischer space pen, it's a really neat toy--it's a "story", as I noted, but fair enough on the urban legend plonk. Nonetheless, my point holds.

The vacuum-tube radar is a good example--I've had a look at these. The conception at the time was that USAF electronic jamming techniques (MX-1420 was one of the originators, I believe, but I can't find subsequent designations) were invulnerable to common transistor-based AA intercept radars. Vacuum tubes _were_ easier to manufacture, hence cheaper, with the added side effect that the Sapfir-25 fire control radar could simply burn through most US jamming at the time.

And while we're at it, if you're going to nitpick, the two B-70s were built of a titanium-stainless steel honeycomb.

Whatever the reason, Soviet tech, especially military-related, _did_ follow a 'robust-rather-than-sophisticated' design philosophy. T-34, AK-47, MiG-25 all are good examples of this--there's a common thread to be found there. I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I believe the UDMH used to fuel Proton rockets is a simpler, less elegant, but equally effecive method, compared to the LH2 used in US space shuttles (I think earlier Titans used UDMH too.) What the Soviets had was yes, less money, but also different goals, and hence definitely different ways of approaching a solution.

Regarding the 'low risk' thing, have a look at the N1 program, or do a search for 'tsar bomba'. No, they didn't want to simple engineering, but yes, you're right, they were constrained by cost.

As for your point comparing MIR to Spacelab, which one stayed up longer? And this after several modules had failed, the oxygen scrubbers broke repeatedly, with multiple unmanned/unheated periods in between, etc etc etc.

You don't understand. Yes it must be launched ahead of time, but that is part of the the strategic threat; in a cold-war situation, one would have to monitor the shuttles constantly.

Russian space web:

During 1970s and 1980s, the USSR developed a winged spacecraft known as Buran (Snowstorm) designed to serve as a "parallel" response to the perceived military threat from the US Space Shuttle.

Exactly what is the body count on both sides?

Good question, and one that's hard to answer.

Short answer: the US has lost more astronauts during space missions than the USSR/Russia. According to an airsafe.com article the Soviets lost 4 cosmonauts during space missions. The U.S. lost 7 on Challenger in 1986 and 7 on Columbia (although not all Columbia crewmembers were American).

If you expand the scope of the question to include ground-based deaths in the space and rocketry programs of the U.S. and the USSR then the numbers change dramatically.

The U.S. lost 3 astronauts early in the Apollo program due to a fire in their cabin. The Soviets had a string of ground-based disasters. In 1980 a Vostok rocket exploded on launch, killing 48 people. An even more dramatic failure (cloaked in secrecy for many years) was the October 1960 Nedelin Disaster as part of the Soviet Union's ICBM development program. At least 92 personnel died in the explosion of the R-16 on the launchpad.

Oh sure, of course its not *exactly* the same, particlarly things like electronics & control systems have evolved a lot, but the basic technology is much the same - big rocket, Soyuz capsule on top, with a big fat heat shield for re-entry. (Check this site about the russian space program)

Its just amazing that despite decades of new designs (either on paper, or for real like the Shuttle) we might be coming back to that original design concept as the safest way to take humans into space.

Perhaps that should be some sort of benchmark for a new system to beat - ie any new space plane design should be cheaper and more reliable than that system.. So, should NASA be spending billions on the "space plane"? As I have said before I think "X-Prize" style competitions are the way to go, get independant entreprenuers to evolve cheap, robust designs, then NASA can buy up the best that arise..

In Soviet Russia the rocket blows you up! Ever hear of the Nedelin disaster when in excess of 90 people lost their lives during a launchpad failure.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/r16_disaster.html

Now thats what I call a launch pad failure. No disrespct for the loss of life is tragic in both cases, but it is a price worth paying for future space exploration.

The leadership we're talking about here is production only. I don't see how having more low wage workers to exploit equates to development leadership (...) The more low-paid jobs available, the more competition for labour, and as a result, better working conditions and pay.

The problem is that China uses prisoners of concentration camps as the main source of "cheap labour". Which is not really their own invention, Hitler and Stalin tried it years before the Chinese. However, the example of the Third Reich or the Soviet Union hardly proves your thesis. Those workers, who still are lucky to be "free" (think "free as much as you can be in the USSR, not free as in beer") gain actually nothing from competing with "cheap labour" of prisoners in shackles. And don't think that hi-tech industry cannot use this sort of labour - the entire Soviet rocket and jet propulsion programme was created in Gulag by prisoners like Korolev or Tupolev.

They use the Russian Progress M1 to ferry supplies and fuel, and to provide for reboosts when it's there. It's also used as a trash container, and is jetisoned to burn up in the atmosphere when it's full.

That said, the Progress carries something on the order of 2-3 tons tons of cargo, fuel, and water. Total Payload limit is 2230-3200 KG, which includes the fuel necessary to rendevous with the ISS; 1700 - 1950 KG, 185-250 of which are available as surplus fuel for the station. It has a maximum pressurized (dry) cargo capacity of 1800 KG, and up to 300 KG of water.

The Italian built (US owned) Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules, that fly on the space shuttle, and can be docked to any ISS port for an extended stay can carry up to 10 tons of cargo in 16 standard space station equipment racks. They can carry self-contained experiments or equipment upgrades in these racks and just float them into the ISS and plug them in. They are also capable of carrying refrigerated storage compartments to carry fresh food to the ISS.

Info on Progress M1

Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules Information

Perhaps it's time for NASA to take a look at how the Russians handle things -- their track record for the last 25 years is much better. At least no fatalities

Their moon program had far less success than NASAs, take a look at this side by side chronology. The most damning failure for the Russian moon program was that of the N1 super-heavy booster.

There have been numerous other disasters and near misses, as evidenced by this chronology. Including the 1968 explosion of an L-1 (Zond) rocket on the launchpad, killing one person, and the 1983 explosion of a manned Soyuz rocket on the launchpad (fortunately the two man crew survived due to the emergency escape system).

Perhaps it's time for NASA to take a look at how the Russians handle things -- their track record for the last 25 years is much better. At least no fatalities

Their moon program had far less success than NASAs, take a look at this side by side chronology. The most damning failure for the Russian moon program was that of the N1 super-heavy booster.

There have been numerous other disasters and near misses, as evidenced by this chronology. Including the 1968 explosion of an L-1 (Zond) rocket on the launchpad, killing one person, and the 1983 explosion of a manned Soyuz rocket on the launchpad (fortunately the two man crew survived due to the emergency escape system).

Perhaps it's time for NASA to take a look at how the Russians handle things -- their track record for the last 25 years is much better. At least no fatalities

Their moon program had far less success than NASAs, take a look at this side by side chronology. The most damning failure for the Russian moon program was that of the N1 super-heavy booster.

There have been numerous other disasters and near misses, as evidenced by this chronology. Including the 1968 explosion of an L-1 (Zond) rocket on the launchpad, killing one person, and the 1983 explosion of a manned Soyuz rocket on the launchpad (fortunately the two man crew survived due to the emergency escape system).

Perhaps it's time for NASA to take a look at how the Russians handle things -- their track record for the last 25 years is much better. At least no fatalities

Their moon program had far less success than NASAs, take a look at this side by side chronology. The most damning failure for the Russian moon program was that of the N1 super-heavy booster.

There have been numerous other disasters and near misses, as evidenced by this chronology. Including the 1968 explosion of an L-1 (Zond) rocket on the launchpad, killing one person, and the 1983 explosion of a manned Soyuz rocket on the launchpad (fortunately the two man crew survived due to the emergency escape system).

The Russian Energia Booster (in current production) can lift 100 ton modules into LEO - this against the shuttles 30 ton payload.

Russia has already launched the major modules Zarya and Zvesda using the Proton launch system.

ESA is also in the future slated to launch a private module using the Arianne 5 launcher

It is feasable (but undesirable) that the ISS could be completed without further use of the Shuttle (Although this would require a gigant re-think) Perhaps US modules could be sent to Baikonur with HeavyLift

Yes, the Nedelin disasterin 1960. Nobody in the West knew until the fall of Communism; chances are even the CIA were in the dark, because I'm sure if America knew of such a disaster they would have published it to the world with great glee. And I admit to my deep shame that I had forgotten entirely about the whole event.

In short, no :)

The Pirs module has two docking ports which can accomodate either a Soyuz (3-person emergency lifeboat) or the Progress (unmanned resupply ship), so if there were 2 Soyuz docked to the ISS, then it would be impossible to resupply the ISS (except with the shuttle and that would be bloody expensive).

Here is some good information

If NASA needs a big rocket, why not go to the people who have most experience? They're already willing to use Soviet engines on the Atlas V, so it can't be pride.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Nobody seems to ever talk about this... but the Soviet Union sent over two dozen probes to Venus from the 60's and early 80's, many of which included surface photographs beamed back to Earth. This "forgotten history" is well documented and also well forgotten due to the cold war.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetar y_venus.html

Here are photos, including VENUTIAN SURFACE PHOTOS, from the Venera missions, including lots of photos of the Russian probes. Sorted by mission number.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/venera.html

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/:

The lost Foton had been the 13th in a series launched since 1985

ah! a logical solution: it was the unlucky 13th craft, of course.

As usual, the Slashdot blurb over-does it. While this puppy is quite strong, it is still far from russian-built Energia rocket - the one that lifted Buran, the shuttle copy, into orbit. While Atlas 5 can lift 8.7 metric tons into geostationary orbit, Energia did 18 tons!

The technology for this was originally developed by the Russian Mars program: "Inflatable Rentry and Descent Technology" is a nifty replacement for parachutes, IMHO.

The russians have done this before, though not from a submarine succesfully until now :)

The Russian Energia vehicle flew exactly TWICE and the last time it flew was almost FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. The Shuttle has flown well over A HUNDRED times and the last time it flew was a couple of weeks ago. The Shuttle is expensive and the Shuttle isn't a mass-payload booster but it unfortunately is ALL WE'VE GOT (humanity, not America) to do a serious space mission at present with real equipment, not fantasy sand castles. Wanna use nuclear or a heavy lift vehicle? Hey, back to the drawing board for a ten-year development project...and it ain't gonna be as cheap as you think. Even if the Russians do it.

I actually HAVE done quite a bit of reading on the subject of Russian boosters and let me tell you, they ain't got much. Which of these Russian boosters are so much better than the Shuttle and are ***actually flying today***?

Quote: The United States has also been the only nation to successfully navigate a manned spacecraft beyond the orbit of the Earth.

Baikonur looks like an enormous complex. Which of the dozens of buildings was it?

You could also handle this with an AN-124 (you wouldn't need a 224 or 225). The AN-124 is probably better suited for the project because it has an integrated cargo ramp and cargo handling equipment, so you would require less logistics support, and you might be able to get away with less disassembly. But if you had a cargo-trim 747 available, you could definitely get the job done.

-Graham

Well, not in 1969. I note from your links that the successful ones were 1 in 1966, 2 in 1970, 1 in 1973, 1 in 1976.

I just didn't feel like posting the complete list, which you can see in the original link I provided.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetar y_lunar.html
has a comprehensive list.

out of 59 launches from 1958 to 1976, there were apparently 18 successful missions.

1969 was a really bad year.

over all, looks like about half (?) exploded or never left earth orbit, etc. or otherwise had other problems. Since the original post nattered about a mission about the time of the first American Moon landing (1969) quoting the stats from 1969 seemed relevant.

When things go BOOM, this is technically not a good thing.

Here is a summary of the Russian lunar launches. Here is the data from 1969

Jan. 20, 1969 7K-L1/ 13L - Circumlunar UR-500 Launch failure
Feb. 19, 1969 E-8 - Lunar rover 8K82K (UR-500) Failed to reach orbit
Feb. 21, 1969 7K-L1S - Circumlunar N-1 / L3 Exploded during launch
June 14, 1969 E-8-5 #402 - Sample return UR-500 Failed to reach orbit
July 3, 1969 7K-L1S - Circumlunar N-1 / 5L Exploded at launch
July 13, 1969 E-8-5 Luna-15 Sample return UR-500 Crashed on lunar surface
Aug. 8, 1969 7K-L1 Zond-7 Circumlunar UR-500 Flew around the Moon
Sept. 23, 1969 E-8-5 Cosmos-300 Sample return UR-500 Failed to leave Earth orbit
Oct. 22, 1969 E-8-5 Cosmos-305 Sample return UR-500 Failed to leave Earth orbit

Give them points for effort.

Well 200 isn't a very far out figure to come to when for example the Nedelin Disastor alone killed 74 personnel. Though it wasn't really part of the space program, though it was definantly involving Russian rocktetry development.