Slashdot Mirror
Zvezda ISS Service Module Launches
fence writes: "The Russian Aviation and Space agency successfully launched the International Space Station's Zvezda service module. The Zvezda module was launched from the Baikonur launch facility in Kazakhstan aboard a Proton rocket. Check out NASA Spaceflight web for live updates on Zvezda's progress."
Interestingly, despite the perception that Russian space tech is backwards (it's more advanced then the US, cheaper, and actually happens), the Zvezda is an example of how this isn't true.
In some ways . . . but the biggest problem with Zvezda is the acoustical environment. You're supposed to build hardware to fit the NC40 curve (in other words, about what you'd hear if you had a normal office and not a cube =) for sustained noise patterns . . . and they haven't. It wouldn't seem loud to us, maybe, but we won't be up there 24/7 like the 'stronauts will.
Zvezda has a Sparc station running it, much more advanced then the 80386s that the US modules use.
NASA's computer policy is a bit weird (insert your own Mac bash here), but I don't know that they're totally off-base; you want something that's stable and is not prone to bit-flipping because of the various radiation environments seen by the ISS.
It also has multiple advanced environmental systems that the US doesn't have, including the infamous oxygen candles (redesigned) that started the fire on Mir.
I will happily admit that long-term environmental stuff is something the Russians are good at. It's not the best living environment, but it won't kill you, either. They understand "good enough".
It is much more air-tight then any US spacecraft ever built, too. The shuttle leaks air like a sieve compared to Mir, a station with the same basic design for it's main module.
That's simply a cost-benefit analysis. It's easier to carry on-board oxygen than it is to design hardware that has a certain leak rate. STS is designed for an on-orbit time of 28 days at maximum . . . Mir had a five-year life plan IIRC to begin with. STS carries its own atmosphere up with them; Mir/ISS/Salyut/Skylab had to be built more tightly to ensure that they weren't leaking atmosphere like crazed men.
What, you want STS to be more expensive?
The Russians were first in space, have spent more time in space then the US, and have cheaper manned access to space by a couple orders of magnitude (less then $10 to launch a Soyuz versus $500 million to launch the shuttle), but the US press has indoctrinated us into thinking they are less safe and backwards.
Much of that is due to the various roles of the spacecraft, though. It's not a great comparison; Soyuz is primarily a crew ingress/egress vehicle that has limited cargo capacity; the Russians use a Progress module, a modified Soyuz, to launch cargo. That lowers the launch costs, because the Progress launches can be done with more risk, etc.
The Russians do have superior heavy-lift capability. However, that heavy-lift isn't used for launching manned spacecraft. NASA, in its infinite wisdom, hasn't entered the unmanned cargo-ferrying realm . . . but then, we haven't had a space station since Skylab.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but as long as the cold-war press machine is remembered, with its fabricated stories of Soviet space hoaxes (all disproven) and implied safety problems, most people will improperly assume the US is number one in this regard.
The US is still the premier space power; more great scientific research has happened because of NASA efforts than of Russians. We've been to the moon; they haven't. The Russians are better in doing some things; overall, I'd rather fly up on American hardware than Russian hardware, although I'd rather use their rockets.
Side note: there is talk about hiring Russian rocket scientists and bringing them to the U.S. Many of the guys and gals at RSC Energiya work second jobs so that they can stay in their chosen field; some of the upper engineers drive taxis. Yeesh, but man, they can build 'em some rockets.
--
<><
-- Geof F. Morris
Wow, this is a great example of how we've been brainwashed about this.
During the last 5 years, Russia has had an almost constant presence in space. NASA has occasional Shuttle missions, but the Russians had ROUTINE space freighter launches that re-supplied Mir. This invalidates your 'trying to get something, ANYTHING into earth orbit' statement.
And in regards to the costs of NASA being higher because they were 'making sure astronauts come back in one piece', consider the numbers. 4 Cosmonauts have died (3 on Salyut 1 and 1 on Soyuz 1) but 7 american astronauts have died. Yet the Russians launch more often then we do.
Funny how your argument crumbles in the face of facts...
Interestingly, despite the perception that Russian space tech is backwards (it's more advanced then the US, cheaper, and actually happens), the Zvezda is an example of how this isn't true.
Zvezda has a Sparc station running it, much more advanced then the 80386s that the US modules use. It also has multiple advanced environmental systems that the US doesn't have, including the infamous oxygen candles (redesigned) that started the fire on Mir. It is much more air-tight then any US spacecraft ever built, too. The shuttle leaks air like a sieve compared to Mir, a station with the same basic design for it's main module.
The Russians were first in space, have spent more time in space then the US, and have cheaper manned access to space by a couple orders of magnitude (less then $10 to launch a Soyuz versus $500 million to launch the shuttle), but the US press has indoctrinated us into thinking they are less safe and backwards.
Nothing could be further from the truth, but as long as the cold-war press machine is remembered, with its fabricated stories of Soviet space hoaxes (all disproven) and implied safety problems, most people will improperly assume the US is number one in this regard.
*ducks to stop moderators from knocking his teeth out*
Free music from Jack Merlot.
Russia pays a lease for the launching facility. The location of the facility can sometimes cause problems. In recent months, two protons were lost during launch because of manufacturing irregularities in the engine (nozzles I believe). The proton doesn't use a very environmentally safe fuel, so Kazakhstan threatened to cut Russia off from Baikanur unless they assessed the environmental damage and performed cleanup of their lost rockets.
I was happy to see that the launch went smoothly this time.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Now that all 3 modules are up there, we can relax and oppress the other countries. We have plenty of time before 2020 to finish the rest of the ship and launch for Alpha Centauri...
We must respect evil, and we must make evil respect us.
I thought everybody knows this. The closer to equator is the launch place - the less fuel you need. Kazakhstan is to the south from Russia. Russia has its own launchpad at Plesetck
When they they can't feed their population, do you think that the same people are going to be putting all their attention into their work?
A lot of the money is coming from the west. They know paid work is hard to find, so they will probably put quite a lot into it.
They purposely made their rockets big and fast,
Rather than slow with a low payload. Gosh what idiots. But um...... you may not realise this, but Russia was sending rockets up before the US. It is possible that the US went for a different design from the Russians to be contrary, or maybe even they had different design aims because they don't need to be compatible.
They chose SECAM to our NTSC so we would be incompatible
SECAM makes more sense when you have 50Hz supply. Don't know why they didn't use PAL though.
Comrade, am not using Capitalist pig-dog Unix system
Why should they? That would involve buying computers that can run UNIX or porting UNIX to their machines. They might as well write their own OS.
"I hesitate to point it out, but no Russian space engineers have yet to completely fsck up a simple metric conversion function"
If anything, the chances are that this will happen as the United States is the only country in the world (besides a couple in S. America) which still uses the archaic Imperal system.. the Russians must thunk down to the US level of measurement to make their components interoperable, thus opening the possibility of a metric conversion problem.
If the US had converted to Metric with Canada in the 1950s and 1960s, NASA would've directly saved a few hundred million on their probes, not to mention other benefits (mainly in the sciences).
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The ISS will not fail. We've got 85% of the hardware sitting around the assembly building waiting to be stuck on the shuttle. Our politicians wouldn't allow it.
NASA even had their own version of the living quarters already built and ready to launch in case the Russians failed to launch Zvezda.
And I disagree that the Russians should not have been allowed to participate. How else were we going to get the experience necessary to operate the station effectively and efficiently. Sure, we could have figured it out for ourselves, but that's stupid. It's the NIH syndrome. Even though the Russians were two years late, I can bet you it would have taken us a hellava lot longer to figure out what they already know. We are stronger with the Russians than without them. NASA knows this, and that's why they have been so patient.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I've seen some documentaries about the Zvezda module and the technology that went into it. The module itself is the main service module for the International Space Station. this means that it handles all the life support and waste-recycling responsibilities for the entire station--among other responsibilities.
:)
The most interesting thing though is that despite the fact that the Russian space program is apparently years behind the US in terms of technology, Zvezda actually represents a level of accomplishment that NASA engineers have yet to acchieve.
The Russians have been perfecting life support and environmental systems for decades; meanwhile NASA has been busy pushing the envelope in computers and flight systems.
Most of the reports I've seen detailing technical specs for Zvezda report it as if the Russian tech is backwards. I disagree. Zvezda isn't low tech, but simply an area NASA and the US hasn't developed as well as the Russians. I don't agree with the belief that the world threw Russia a bone with the comissioning of Zvezda--we simply used the know-how that their scientists have.
For all its flaws, what I really like about ISS is the international teamwork that's at work here.
Wish I was up there
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
LOL!
The Russian economy has never been stronger, owing greatly to the recovery of lost natural resources in areas experiencing seditious activities (most notably Chechnya, which you seem to know a little about). It was the Russians who opened the door to space, as you might recall. Both Sputnik and Yuri Gargalin beat the US by years, proving how embarassingly bad the US space system was (and in many ways, still is). I hesitate to point it out, but no Russian space engineers have yet to completely fsck up a simple metric conversion function.
This being said, inclusion of the Russians is seen as a must by all reasonable men, and I applaud those in charge who managed to overcome their fears of "Sovietism" -- and the supposed violence it entails -- and chose rather to develop a truly International space station. It was a lesson learned by the UN and it's predeccesor, the League of Nations: you cannot spurn Russia in any attempt at internationalism. Though it is coldly regarded by the Westerners who know Russians only as villians in cheap spy movies, Russia has shown time and again that it has more than ample strength, intelligence, and most of all Freedom, to compete with any nation, on this planet or beyond.
-- Floyd
-- Floyd
The first craft to orbit the Sun.
Not true! Ogg make craft from log, float in lake. Ogg catch many fish. Ogg craft orbit sun six years. (Take 365.2475 days orbit sun.)