Russia and the ISS
Discussion
Bisonhead said:
I have a feeling that Russia will get away with this scot free. I cant see this getting in the way of the space program, I can imagine the Russians are receiving a pretty penny from the Americans by letting them use their Boran's.
Will be interesting to see how this pans out though. There isnt the instant knee-jerk reaction to send troops in, obviously difficult given its the Ruskies but I really cant see any other country being militarily involved.
What's a Boran?Will be interesting to see how this pans out though. There isnt the instant knee-jerk reaction to send troops in, obviously difficult given its the Ruskies but I really cant see any other country being militarily involved.
At the moment, the only way any humans can get to the ISS is on board a Russian Soyuz. It is the only existing man carrying spacecraft currently available.
Buran never entered service and only ever made one test flight - 26 years ago.
At the moment there is only one way of getting a human into space - and that is the Soyuz/R7 system which is 100% owned and operated by the Russians.
It will be at least 4 years before any alternative non-Russian system is available.
America is at the mercy of the Russians regarding access to a space station which it mostly paid for.
At the moment there is only one way of getting a human into space - and that is the Soyuz/R7 system which is 100% owned and operated by the Russians.
It will be at least 4 years before any alternative non-Russian system is available.
America is at the mercy of the Russians regarding access to a space station which it mostly paid for.
That is me being optimistic. It could be closer to ten years.
NASA are ploughing on (slowly) with their Orion spacecraft.
Falcon have already test flown their Dragon capsule which eventually will be man rated - so MAY be flown manned by 2017.
The Dream Chaser mini shuttle is undergoing glide tests although these did not get off to a great start when the undercarriage collapsed on landing after its first glide test back in October.
NASA are ploughing on (slowly) with their Orion spacecraft.
Falcon have already test flown their Dragon capsule which eventually will be man rated - so MAY be flown manned by 2017.
The Dream Chaser mini shuttle is undergoing glide tests although these did not get off to a great start when the undercarriage collapsed on landing after its first glide test back in October.
Not at the moment.
As far as we know, they have no plan to build a manned version.
The X-37 that is currently being tested is too small to carry a human cargo. It is a proof of concept demonstrator. Any operational derivative will be bigger and is possibly at least ten years from flight - if ever.
As far as we know, they have no plan to build a manned version.
The X-37 that is currently being tested is too small to carry a human cargo. It is a proof of concept demonstrator. Any operational derivative will be bigger and is possibly at least ten years from flight - if ever.
Not at the moment.
You must realise how long it takes for a manned spacecraft to be -
specified by the entity who intend to use it
a contract awarded - usually through competitive tender
have it built in boilerplate and test versions
have it tested on the ground and in various aspects of its flight profile, including pad aborts
have it flown in unmanned mode on suborbital and/or orbital test flights
and, eventually, flown on a manned orbital mission
At the minimum it takes ten years.
Even during the heady days of Apollo, when money was no object, it took 9 years from the original concept of the Apollo Command/Service Module (1959) to be specified and for the first one to actually fly a manned mission (Apollo 7).
So far, the Indian space agency has not yet set out what type of manned spacecraft it wants - assuming it does want to proceed in that direction.
You must realise how long it takes for a manned spacecraft to be -
specified by the entity who intend to use it
a contract awarded - usually through competitive tender
have it built in boilerplate and test versions
have it tested on the ground and in various aspects of its flight profile, including pad aborts
have it flown in unmanned mode on suborbital and/or orbital test flights
and, eventually, flown on a manned orbital mission
At the minimum it takes ten years.
Even during the heady days of Apollo, when money was no object, it took 9 years from the original concept of the Apollo Command/Service Module (1959) to be specified and for the first one to actually fly a manned mission (Apollo 7).
So far, the Indian space agency has not yet set out what type of manned spacecraft it wants - assuming it does want to proceed in that direction.
That previous comment requires a Spoiler Alert 
Coming back from orbit means entering the upper atmosphere at 17,500 mph. Virgin Galactic does not have adequate heat protection to withstand the temperatures generated by those types of velocities.
On its suborbital flights it will not exceed 4,000 mph so the heating it is designed to cope with is a lot less than what is experienced on re-entry from orbit.
Coming back from orbit means entering the upper atmosphere at 17,500 mph. Virgin Galactic does not have adequate heat protection to withstand the temperatures generated by those types of velocities.
On its suborbital flights it will not exceed 4,000 mph so the heating it is designed to cope with is a lot less than what is experienced on re-entry from orbit.
Simpo Two said:
If you climbed out of the ISS and pushed off towards Earth - how big a parachute would you need to avoid burning up on re-entry? There has to be a way...
Not that way You are still going to enter the atmosphere (eventually) at a speed close on 17,500 mph. So things are still going to get a bit toasty.
At a Farnborough Air Show a few years ago I chatted to a rep from an Italian company which had designed a personal re-entry "bag". The astronaut can encase himself/herself in the bag and the bag will survive the heat of re-entry and, when the speed has decayed, the astronaut unzips the bag, falls out and pops a chute.
I wouldn't want to be the first to give it a try.
I wouldn't want to be the first to give it a try.
You can't deploy a parachute in the earth's atmosphere whilst travelling at anything over about 400 mph. The shock of deployment will just tear it to shreds.
So, all the way from 17,500 mph down to around 500 mph you are depending on atmospheric drag on the structure itself to do the slowing - and of course, at speeds over 4,000 mph, that is going to generate high skin temperatures on the outer surface of the vehicle.
So, all the way from 17,500 mph down to around 500 mph you are depending on atmospheric drag on the structure itself to do the slowing - and of course, at speeds over 4,000 mph, that is going to generate high skin temperatures on the outer surface of the vehicle.
Simpo Two said:
Eric Mc said:
You can't deploy a parachute in the earth's atmosphere whilst travelling at anything over about 400 mph. The shock of deployment will just tear it to shreds.
Yebbut - you're not in Earth's atmosphere, you've just pushed off from the capsule. No wind. Even if you get to 400mph, you could start with a drogue.Anyway, this thread is about more important stuff so we'll leave it there.
(Deploying a parachute in the vacuum space is not a good idea - I've seen "Gravity"
)Interestingly, it IS possible to deploy a parachute at supersonic speeds on Mars - because the atmosphere is so much thinner. I think the Mars landers tend to deploy their chutes at around 600 to 700 mph.
Simpo Two said:
there must be SOME mid-point at which there is enough atmosphere to grab/open something and so limit acceleration and the resultant crisping tendencies.
If there was such a point then I am sure those who design re-entry systems would have exploited it years ago. As they haven't, I reckon there isn't.CrutyRammers said:
I don't think it can slow you down enough though, before the air gets dense enough that crisping occurs.
Or ripping to shreds.The slowing down is provided by the vehicle itself - and they are designed and shaped in such a way that the correct rate of deceleration occurs.
Apart from ensuring that the heat loads are kept within the region where the spacecraft doesn't melt or the occupants are fried, the deceleration has to be kept low enough to ensure the occupants aren't squashed either.
It's all about maintaining a safe balance of forces as the craft slows from 17,500 mph down to around 400 mph in the space of around 15 minutes.
Once below 400 mph, aerodynamic devices such as parachutes can then be used to carry out a gentle landing.
BonzoG said:
You're not jumping from a stationary platform and gaining speed as you fall. Rather, you're already doing 17,000mph relative to the Earth when you push off from the space station and you need to decelerate in order to reduce your altitude so you can head-butt the atmosphere and slow down enough to safely open a parachute.
http://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
That was the question i forgot to ask the representative at Farnborough. How does the astronaut slow their own personal velocity down AFTER they abandon the crippled spacecraft to allow them to change their orbit so they intersect the upper reaches of the atmosphere and begin re-entry?http://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff