This forum is in read-only mode for archive purposes, please use our new forum at https://community.justflight.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Just Chat > Just Chat - General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - A first for the Russians!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

A first for the Russians!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 May 2009 at 2:55pm
Did I just read the word "compromise" in that last statement you quoted Martin?

Compromise = Disaster.

They are just about to enter a new era of catastrophic failures.

This stuff is great when it works. It is when it doesn't that it creates the real problems.

Why don't they aim for a sea landing?? I know they like their pin-point precision ground landings, but this proposed system just "WT...????" written all over it.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
johnsmithfsx View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 29 May 2008
Location: United States
Points: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote johnsmithfsx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 May 2009 at 9:59pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

It would be easier be easier to land it like we do the shuttle on a runway, rather than this. Not only would it be easier, but it would be cheaper.
 
Somehow I don't think a reusable or semi reusable space plane would be cheaper. It most certainly wouldn't be easier either.


I'm afraid I do not see how it wouldn't. I am not claiming to be an expert on the subject as I clearly am not. If you could glide the craft down rather than using rockets and more fuel, wouldn't it be cheaper (in terms of fuel). Also, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to maintain a reusable craft rather than build an entirely new one?
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2009 at 9:57am

Did I just read the word "compromise" in that last statement you quoted Martin?

Compromise = Disaster.

 

The parachute is in addition to the thrusters Vulcan. It’s a compromise not in terms of the technology but in terms of the debate amongst the Russians as to whether the technology is safe or not. It’s an added safety measure.

 

I don’t think they have the option of a sea landing, they chose the region intended for a reason. The US are also moving away from sea landings, sea landings have their own dangers.

Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 May 2009 at 10:16am

I'm afraid I do not see how it wouldn't. I am not claiming to be an expert on the subject as I clearly am not. If you could glide the craft down rather than using rockets and more fuel, wouldn't it be cheaper (in terms of fuel). Also, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to maintain a reusable craft rather than build an entirely new one?

 

It depends on what you meant by 'like the shuttle.' A full scale reusable space plane like the shuttle with propulsion for launch integral, would obviously be incredibly expensive, don't forget that the issue here is landing a small capsule.

 

If you meant in terms of the capsule itself, as in some kind of guidable reentry vehicle attached to the Soyuz, then that too would be far more expensive. It wouldn’t be just a case of slapping some wings on a capsule; an entire reentry vehicle would have to be designed. A capsule is an ideal shape for reentry and in addition a proven technology thats very wellunderstood, with a relatively simple ablative heat shield at the base, nothing complex there. Basic thruster technology is simple enough, and the electronics required easy these days. The negative is in the event of failure and the difficulty in recovering a deadly situation.

 

Compare that with building a brand new design space plane, with wings, modifying or redesigning the Soyuz itself to take the new reentry vehicle that is now entirely different to a basic capsule. Redesigning the launch rocket to accommodate the new shape and mass, and building a purpose built runway for landing. And don't forget, that like the shuttle a glidable controllable space plane would require heat proof tiles or similar technology and in addition something like carbon-carbon panels for the leading edge of the wings. Training facilities would have to be set up to teach the astronauts to operate the new systms, and computer technology would have to be designed and installed to enable an automated glide to the landing site, plus a myriad of backups etc.

 

Easier to drop a capsule with a parachute or if you need guidance stick some rockets on the bottom. A capsule is simple and relatively cheap even with thrusters. Safety is the issue not cost.

 

Also, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to maintain a reusable craft rather than build an entirely new one?

The new capsule is intended to be reusable.

And of course the Russians would have considered a space plane rentry vehicle design and chose that if it were better for their needs.

Back to Top
johnsmithfsx View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 29 May 2008
Location: United States
Points: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote johnsmithfsx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 May 2009 at 5:36pm
Ah, I see Smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down