50 years ago today - First man in space
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
rudecherub said:
One thing I did find interesting was that the USSR was better a rockets because they were so bad at building atomic weapons.
Not entirely - the rocket designed for the Russian moonshot repeatedly failed. The name escapes me but I think it was the reason the Russians never got to the moon (that and the fact that once the Americans had done it there was little point in coming second). And so the Russians concentrated on manned space stations instead, and did very well at it. And if you can keep a man alive and sane in a tin can for 9 months, you can give it a shove and get him to Mars as well...The USA of course caught up and won the 'race' to the moon, but when it started the Russians had the bigger rockets.
Yes. The Russians had built a fairly powerful initial ICBM - the R7.
In the 1950s, the US had a number of ICBM projects, none of which were as powerful as the R7 due to the smaller size of US warheads. The US also had different programmes depending on which service was planning on using the missile. The Navy had their Polaris programme whilst the Air Force had the Thor, Atlas, Delta and Titan and the Army (who were restricted to IRBMs) had the Redstone.
It was the non ICBM Saturn programme (which emerged from the original US Army team under Von Braun) that finally provided the US with a rocket that could outlift the R7.
Later developments of the Titan family (the Titan III ) were also pretty powerful.
The Soviet N1 emerged later in the 1960s and they failed each time they tried to launch one.
In the 1950s, the US had a number of ICBM projects, none of which were as powerful as the R7 due to the smaller size of US warheads. The US also had different programmes depending on which service was planning on using the missile. The Navy had their Polaris programme whilst the Air Force had the Thor, Atlas, Delta and Titan and the Army (who were restricted to IRBMs) had the Redstone.
It was the non ICBM Saturn programme (which emerged from the original US Army team under Von Braun) that finally provided the US with a rocket that could outlift the R7.
Later developments of the Titan family (the Titan III ) were also pretty powerful.
The Soviet N1 emerged later in the 1960s and they failed each time they tried to launch one.
Eric Mc said:
If you want to research a secretive space programme (one with a bigger budget than NASA), try looking up details on the US Department of Defense programmes.
didn't that kind of digging get Gary Mckinnon into trouble. It's interesting of course, as is the 'lost' cosmonauts but it's easy to fall into that fun part of the net which is some the best story telling there is.
We do know there is a DOD 'shuttle' X-37B
Whether black stuff like the Aurora exists beyond the Gibson sighting, I dunno.
rudecherub said:
Eric Mc said:
If you want to research a secretive space programme (one with a bigger budget than NASA), try looking up details on the US Department of Defense programmes.
didn't that kind of digging get Gary Mckinnon into trouble. It's interesting of course, as is the 'lost' cosmonauts but it's easy to fall into that fun part of the net which is some the best story telling there is.
We do know there is a DOD 'shuttle' X-37B
Whether black stuff like the Aurora exists beyond the Gibson sighting, I dunno.
The X-37 is a test vehicle and will be used to prove a concept. If the concept works, the USAF may end up with a larger version for practical purposes. Ironically, the X-37 began life as a NASA project but was shelved by the Bush administration.
The USAF dream of 1958 is finally coming to pass i.e. they will be the only ones putting US payloads, and possibly US humans, into space.
Eric Mc said:
rudecherub said:
Eric Mc said:
If you want to research a secretive space programme (one with a bigger budget than NASA), try looking up details on the US Department of Defense programmes.
didn't that kind of digging get Gary Mckinnon into trouble. It's interesting of course, as is the 'lost' cosmonauts but it's easy to fall into that fun part of the net which is some the best story telling there is.
We do know there is a DOD 'shuttle' X-37B
Whether black stuff like the Aurora exists beyond the Gibson sighting, I dunno.
The X-37 is a test vehicle and will be used to prove a concept. If the concept works, the USAF may end up with a larger version for practical purposes. Ironically, the X-37 began life as a NASA project but was shelved by the Bush administration.
The USAF dream of 1958 is finally coming to pass i.e. they will be the only ones putting US payloads, and possibly US humans, into space.
Although the x-37 is rocket launched, rather than the white knight style of the x-15
rudecherub said:
Eric Mc said:
rudecherub said:
Eric Mc said:
If you want to research a secretive space programme (one with a bigger budget than NASA), try looking up details on the US Department of Defense programmes.
didn't that kind of digging get Gary Mckinnon into trouble. It's interesting of course, as is the 'lost' cosmonauts but it's easy to fall into that fun part of the net which is some the best story telling there is.
We do know there is a DOD 'shuttle' X-37B
Whether black stuff like the Aurora exists beyond the Gibson sighting, I dunno.
The X-37 is a test vehicle and will be used to prove a concept. If the concept works, the USAF may end up with a larger version for practical purposes. Ironically, the X-37 began life as a NASA project but was shelved by the Bush administration.
The USAF dream of 1958 is finally coming to pass i.e. they will be the only ones putting US payloads, and possibly US humans, into space.
Although the x-37 is rocket launched, rather than the white knight style of the x-15
Neither the X-15 no Spaceship 1/Virgin Galactic can accelerate to anything above 4,500 mph - way too slow for orbital flight.
Eric Mc said:
It would be very difficult to achieve orbit for a manned craft as large or larger than an X-15 if it was launched from an aircraft. The problem is the fuel required to enable the rocket engine to fire long enough to accelerate the spacecraft to 17,500 mph. You need a booster big enough to contain all that fuel and there are no aircraft large enough to lift all that weight. The one exception is the solid fueled Pegasus booster which can launch small payloads into orbit from a mother aircraft - originally a B-52 but now a converted Tristar.
Neither the X-15 no Spaceship 1/Virgin Galactic can accelerate to anything above 4,500 mph - way too slow for orbital flight.
Then what of Hotol and other air breathing rocket engines, doesn't that tech answer the problem of carrying the fuel?Neither the X-15 no Spaceship 1/Virgin Galactic can accelerate to anything above 4,500 mph - way too slow for orbital flight.
Up to a point. HOTOL or its later development, Skylon, would use atmospheric oxygen for the first phase of the flight so doesn't kneed to carry as much liquid oxygen as a conventional rocket. This should result in a great weight saving.
It's still fairly new technology and I suspect that we won't see a hybrid craft like this fly for at least another 20 years, if ever.
I've spoken to Alan Bond and his team at the Farnborough Airshow and what they are doing is seriously interesting - but operating on a comparative shoestring.
It's still fairly new technology and I suspect that we won't see a hybrid craft like this fly for at least another 20 years, if ever.
I've spoken to Alan Bond and his team at the Farnborough Airshow and what they are doing is seriously interesting - but operating on a comparative shoestring.
Eric Mc said:
Up to a point. HOTOL or its later development, Skylon, would use atmospheric oxygen for the first phase of the flight so doesn't kneed to carry as much liquid oxygen as a conventional rocket. This should result in a great weight saving.
It's still fairly new technology and I suspect that we won't see a hybrid craft like this fly for at least another 20 years, if ever.
I've spoken to Alan Bond and his team at the Farnborough Airshow and what they are doing is seriously interesting - but operating on a comparative shoestring.
In a previous life I was involved at looking at designing titanium spaceframe nodes for the Skylon project. Based upon where that exercise ended up, it's just another Quicksilver WSR project, but on a bigger scale IMO.It's still fairly new technology and I suspect that we won't see a hybrid craft like this fly for at least another 20 years, if ever.
I've spoken to Alan Bond and his team at the Farnborough Airshow and what they are doing is seriously interesting - but operating on a comparative shoestring.
Eric Mc said:
Yes. The Russians had built a fairly powerful initial ICBM - the R7.
In the 1950s, the US had a number of ICBM projects, none of which were as powerful as the R7 due to the smaller size of US warheads. The US also had different programmes depending on which service was planning on using the missile. The Navy had their Polaris programme whilst the Air Force had the Thor, Atlas, Delta and Titan and the Army (who were restricted to IRBMs) had the Redstone.
It was the non ICBM Saturn programme (which emerged from the original US Army team under Von Braun) that finally provided the US with a rocket that could outlift the R7.
Later developments of the Titan family (the Titan III ) were also pretty powerful.
The Soviet N1 emerged later in the 1960s and they failed each time they tried to launch one.
There was another programme to create a powerful launch vehicle, Project Orion:In the 1950s, the US had a number of ICBM projects, none of which were as powerful as the R7 due to the smaller size of US warheads. The US also had different programmes depending on which service was planning on using the missile. The Navy had their Polaris programme whilst the Air Force had the Thor, Atlas, Delta and Titan and the Army (who were restricted to IRBMs) had the Redstone.
It was the non ICBM Saturn programme (which emerged from the original US Army team under Von Braun) that finally provided the US with a rocket that could outlift the R7.
Later developments of the Titan family (the Titan III ) were also pretty powerful.
The Soviet N1 emerged later in the 1960s and they failed each time they tried to launch one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclea...
Had the US had decided that it was OK to use (and stuff the danger of exploding a series of mini-nukes in the Earth's atmosphere) you would have seen much heavier payloads going into orbit and beyond.
Tango13 said:
People forget the fact that Gagarin ejected from his capsule before touchdown so you could be pedantic, argue that it was a crash landing and that any records set for altitude shouldn't stand.
Partly because it wasn't until the 1980s that the Soviets would admit that he had ejected - even though they aknowledged from the very behinning that all the other Vostok cosmonauts did.I was reading a book from 1981 only yesterday which categorically states that Gagarin satyed in his capsule but that the others didn't. That was the official line until around 1983/84.
Eric Mc said:
Tango13 said:
People forget the fact that Gagarin ejected from his capsule before touchdown so you could be pedantic, argue that it was a crash landing and that any records set for altitude shouldn't stand.
Partly because it wasn't until the 1980s that the Soviets would admit that he had ejected - even though they aknowledged from the very behinning that all the other Vostok cosmonauts did.I was reading a book from 1981 only yesterday which categorically states that Gagarin satyed in his capsule but that the others didn't. That was the official line until around 1983/84.
dr_gn said:
Eric Mc said:
Tango13 said:
People forget the fact that Gagarin ejected from his capsule before touchdown so you could be pedantic, argue that it was a crash landing and that any records set for altitude shouldn't stand.
Partly because it wasn't until the 1980s that the Soviets would admit that he had ejected - even though they aknowledged from the very behinning that all the other Vostok cosmonauts did.I was reading a book from 1981 only yesterday which categorically states that Gagarin satyed in his capsule but that the others didn't. That was the official line until around 1983/84.
People like Alexei Leonov are very open chaps and take part in all sorts of international conventions and meetings. He is friends with many US astronauts (especially David Scott) and I just find it incomprehensible that he wouldn't have chatted about the loss of colleagues. In fact he has, and it is partly through contacts like him that we first learned about the pressure chamber death I mentioned eralier.
Also, with the close co-operation between the US and Russia that we have had for over almost two decades it is highly unlikely that any remaining serious incidents remain to be uncovered.
Eric Mc said:
dr_gn said:
Eric Mc said:
Tango13 said:
People forget the fact that Gagarin ejected from his capsule before touchdown so you could be pedantic, argue that it was a crash landing and that any records set for altitude shouldn't stand.
Partly because it wasn't until the 1980s that the Soviets would admit that he had ejected - even though they aknowledged from the very behinning that all the other Vostok cosmonauts did.I was reading a book from 1981 only yesterday which categorically states that Gagarin satyed in his capsule but that the others didn't. That was the official line until around 1983/84.
People like Alexei Leonov are very open chaps and take part in all sorts of international conventions and meetings. He is friends with many US astronauts (especially David Scott) and I just find it incomprehensible that he wouldn't have chatted about the loss of colleagues. In fact he has, and it is partly through contacts like him that we first learned about the pressure chamber death I mentioned eralier.
Also, with the close co-operation between the US and Russia that we have had for over almost two decades it is highly unlikely that any remaining serious incidents remain to be uncovered.
I think the world has moved on over the past 30 odd years and I don't think that the Russians would have anything to gain by continuing to hide evidence of failures from over 50 years ago. Indeed, revealing more cosmonaut deaths would make Gagarin's achievement and bravery even more worthy.
Eric Mc said:
If you said that in 1982/83 I would probably go along with you. The difference is that since 1991 so much has emerged from the old Soviet Union that I don't think we would now remain ignorant of any major accidents or disasters that have been revealed over the past 20 years.
People like Alexei Leonov are very open chaps and take part in all sorts of international conventions and meetings. He is friends with many US astronauts (especially David Scott) and I just find it incomprehensible that he wouldn't have chatted about the loss of colleagues. In fact he has, and it is partly through contacts like him that we first learned about the pressure chamber death I mentioned eralier.
Also, with the close co-operation between the US and Russia that we have had for over almost two decades it is highly unlikely that any remaining serious incidents remain to be uncovered.
I'm with Eric on this one. People like Alexei Leonov are very open chaps and take part in all sorts of international conventions and meetings. He is friends with many US astronauts (especially David Scott) and I just find it incomprehensible that he wouldn't have chatted about the loss of colleagues. In fact he has, and it is partly through contacts like him that we first learned about the pressure chamber death I mentioned eralier.
Also, with the close co-operation between the US and Russia that we have had for over almost two decades it is highly unlikely that any remaining serious incidents remain to be uncovered.
The Americans listened in on the entire flight and after the parachute deployed Gargarins capsule started to spin at quite a rate causing communications to became garbled and broken before ending suddenly due to his ejection. This could be where the rumours of an earlier cosmonaughts death started.
I've got a copy of "Starman" Gargarins biography which is well worth a read, I'll post the authors and ISBN later when I get home.
Tango13 said:
Eric Mc said:
If you said that in 1982/83 I would probably go along with you. The difference is that since 1991 so much has emerged from the old Soviet Union that I don't think we would now remain ignorant of any major accidents or disasters that have been revealed over the past 20 years.
People like Alexei Leonov are very open chaps and take part in all sorts of international conventions and meetings. He is friends with many US astronauts (especially David Scott) and I just find it incomprehensible that he wouldn't have chatted about the loss of colleagues. In fact he has, and it is partly through contacts like him that we first learned about the pressure chamber death I mentioned eralier.
Also, with the close co-operation between the US and Russia that we have had for over almost two decades it is highly unlikely that any remaining serious incidents remain to be uncovered.
I'm with Eric on this one. People like Alexei Leonov are very open chaps and take part in all sorts of international conventions and meetings. He is friends with many US astronauts (especially David Scott) and I just find it incomprehensible that he wouldn't have chatted about the loss of colleagues. In fact he has, and it is partly through contacts like him that we first learned about the pressure chamber death I mentioned eralier.
Also, with the close co-operation between the US and Russia that we have had for over almost two decades it is highly unlikely that any remaining serious incidents remain to be uncovered.
The Americans listened in on the entire flight and after the parachute deployed Gargarins capsule started to spin at quite a rate causing communications to became garbled and broken before ending suddenly due to his ejection. This could be where the rumours of an earlier cosmonaughts death started.
I've got a copy of "Starman" Gargarins biography which is well worth a read, I'll post the authors and ISBN later when I get home.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Starman-Truth-Behind-Legen...
New edition now available I think.
It was a tie-in with a BBC Documentary of the same name, back in about 1999 IIRC.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff