Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: DEChengst May 13 2006, 07:17 PM

Guess the rocket is name of the game. Post a picture or a videoclip of a rocket. The others will guess what the rocket is. The first one to come up with the right answer will post the next challenge.

I'll start out with a video and a picture:

http://paranoid.dechengst.nl/forumimages/raket2.avi

Posted by: Bob Shaw May 13 2006, 08:25 PM

Too easy!

'Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!'

We's talkin' Orion, chaps!

Never seen the movie before, though - what a bunch of Dr Strangeloves!

I'll post my question shortly...

Bob Shaw

Posted by: Bob Shaw May 13 2006, 08:37 PM

Here we are - not too difficult!

Bob Shaw

Posted by: djellison May 13 2006, 09:10 PM

Ah haaa - Upper stage of a Delta 2 by XSS-10
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/46/1
http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/reshor/rh-ss03/sp-xss.html

Posted by: lyford May 13 2006, 09:11 PM

doh! too late - and it's my sig rocket too!

Posted by: djellison May 13 2006, 09:19 PM

Name the LV

Posted by: DEChengst May 13 2006, 09:31 PM

An Europa rocket being launched at either Woomera or Kourou.



There's a quite interesting BBC documentary about Project Orion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/mars-a-bomb.shtml

Next:

Posted by: Bob Shaw May 13 2006, 10:18 PM

Doug:

Leaving the filename 'as is' is perhaps making things just a tad too easy!

Could I suggest that future players all rename the image file to something that won't be of any assistance!

Bob Shaw

Posted by: lyford May 13 2006, 11:44 PM

Would that be a Minuteman 3?

Posted by: Bob Shaw May 14 2006, 12:49 AM

It has a sort of silo-ish, solid fuel look to it - perhaps an above-ground test? MX, Peacekeeper?

Bob Shaw

Posted by: mchan May 14 2006, 02:19 AM

Lyford appears to be right. Next, please.

Posted by: lyford May 14 2006, 03:51 AM

This should be easy - a fave since I was a kid, made in plastic toy kits and featured in too many 50's B movies to count -

Stock footage of the World, Unite!

Posted by: DEChengst May 14 2006, 08:28 AM

Nope.



Nope. It's a ballistic missile, but it's not an American one.

Posted by: mchan May 14 2006, 09:38 AM

Re: lyford. Nike-Ajax. Though I had jumped the gun with DEChengst's challenge.

There is a well preserved Nike site about 50 miles north of me.

To keep with being in unmanned spaceflight, future submissions should be rocket / LV related to same.

Posted by: lyford May 14 2006, 05:18 PM

sorry, DEChengst, launched early so to speak. I'll sit the next few rounds in the penalty box. ;-)

Posted by: Bob Shaw May 14 2006, 05:27 PM

Force de Frappe? I see no Red Stars...

Bob Shaw

Posted by: DEChengst May 14 2006, 05:55 PM

They ran out of red paint.

Posted by: Rakhir May 14 2006, 10:46 PM

DEChengst,

it's a TOPOL-M.

So, this is the next one.
Sorry but I didn't found a better quality shot of this launcher.

-- Rakhir

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com May 15 2006, 01:02 AM

Do launch vehicles or space related and not current weapon systems

Posted by: Rakhir May 15 2006, 07:09 AM

I confirm my choice is for commercial satellites.

Posted by: DEChengst May 15 2006, 03:23 PM

Yes it's a Topol-M

The rocket Rakhir posted sure looks like an ICBM so I guess it would be something like a Volna or Rokot.

Posted by: Rakhir May 15 2006, 08:23 PM

Yes, it's a converted ICBM and you are right with the country of origin but it's not a Volna or a Rokot.
Here is another indication : the first demonstration launch took place less than 5 years ago.

Posted by: Rakhir May 16 2006, 07:45 AM

No other suggestion ?

OK, let's add some new indications.
The first and unique flight was performed from Baikonour but the main launch site of this rocket is supposed to be Svobodny.
At the time of the first launch, the company was expecting to start the commercial launches in 2006.

Posted by: ugordan May 16 2006, 07:49 AM

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/strela.html (or Arrow in English)?

Posted by: Rakhir May 16 2006, 11:10 AM

Correct !

Official web site : http://www.npomash.ru/rockets/en/krk.htm
DEChengst, you were very close with the Rockot.

Next please...

Posted by: ugordan May 16 2006, 11:21 AM

This will probably be a piece of cake after your great enigma...

Something easier for a change:

Posted by: djellison May 16 2006, 11:30 AM

Is that an Athena 2?

Posted by: ugordan May 16 2006, 11:36 AM

Ahh, you're no fun at all
Yes, it's an http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/athena2.htm, all solid (if you don't count the 4th stage) rocket, notable for launching Lunar Prospector in 1998.
Three flights, one failure -- payload fairing failed to jettison.

Posted by: lyford May 25 2006, 11:05 PM

Doug? Your turn....

Posted by: DEChengst May 27 2006, 07:22 PM

Yeah. How about: "If no new challenge is posted 48 hours after confirmation of correct answer, anyone can post a new challenge" ?

Posted by: remcook Jun 7 2006, 01:52 PM

OK then, just because I think it's pretty:

Posted by: DEChengst Jun 7 2006, 05:10 PM

A Starchaser Nova.

Posted by: remcook Jun 7 2006, 06:42 PM

I didn't say it was hard

Posted by: DEChengst Jun 7 2006, 07:14 PM

This one shouldn't be too hard either:

Posted by: remcook Jun 7 2006, 07:46 PM

J-1?

something Japanese anyway. They have such a pretty launch complex

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 8 2006, 01:04 AM

That's a Japenese H-2A.

The H rockets started out as licensed copies of the Boeing Delta. I think they are officially all Japanese now, but it sure looks just like a Delta-2 to me. :-)

Posted by: DEChengst Jun 8 2006, 05:08 PM

Correct. Your turn to post a challenge

Posted by: ljk4-1 Jun 8 2006, 06:22 PM

How about this - don't read the URL, just click on it!

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2006/Student-Orion-June-8.m.jpg

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 8 2006, 09:42 PM

OK, name this launch vehicle:


[attachment=6150:attachment] [attachment=6151:attachment] [attachment=6152:attachment]

Posted by: Rakhir Jun 8 2006, 09:51 PM

I guess it's a Tsiklon-2

-- Rakhir

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 8 2006, 10:22 PM

I'm glad I'm not downwind of it... ...is that UDMH being vented? Nice stuff!

Bob Shaw

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 8 2006, 10:51 PM

You got it right, Rakhir. The Tsiklon-2 (Cyclone-2).

Bob, yes it is powered by UDMH (Nye-Simmetrichny Dimetil Gidrazin) and nitrogen tetroxide. The orange color is actually nitrogen dioxide, formed from the N2O4 (which is colorless). UDMH is a powerful reducing agent and ignites spontaneously when mixed with an oxydizing agent. Glushko and Yangel promoted this fuel mixture for ICBMs with rapid fueling and long readiness holding.

Chemical starting is very smooth, compared to electric ignition of other fuels, which sometimes blows the engine apart. A "hard start" as they say. The Russians still like to start a rocket with UDMH/N2O4, even when LOX/Kerosine is the main fuel.

Rakhir, your turn!

Posted by: Rakhir Jun 9 2006, 08:21 PM

This one should be easier than my previous one.

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 9 2006, 08:52 PM

Black Arrow

Bob Shaw

Posted by: Rakhir Jun 9 2006, 09:32 PM

Yes it's a Black Arrow, developped by the Royal Aircraft Establishment.

Four flights :
- 2 failures
- 2 success (only the last one was orbital). The UK became the sixth nation to place a satellite into orbit (after the USSR, USA, France, Japan and China).

The last flight took place in 71, two weeks before my birth

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 10 2006, 12:06 AM

Interesting. And the 7th and 8th space powers were India and Israel. The Ukraine is a space power, inheriting a chunk of the Soviet program. Is that it, are there only 9 nations that can launch a rocket into orbit?

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 10 2006, 12:42 AM

Don:

Them, and the Tripoli Rocket guys, if anyone lets them...

...oh, and ESA, Arianespace, SeaLaunch...

...and a bunch of other guys. Nations, though, are old hat...

Bob Shaw

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 10 2006, 04:40 AM

Good points. Multi-national corporations like SeaLaunch certainly blur the line. I'd count "ESA" and "Arianespace" (and SEP) as the same thing -- an outgrowth of the French space program, but lots of nations contributing now.

Who are the "bunch of other guys" who can put things into orbit?

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 10 2006, 04:43 PM

Don:

Apart from Mr Musk, there are a number of rocketry wannabees out there - granted, most are strictly suborbital so far. But give them time...

Bob Shaw

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 10 2006, 05:37 PM

True, but suborbital is trivial, even the V-2 went into space in that sense. Going into orbit means you need a rocket that can execute a pitch-control program, which is generally very precisely designed to get you out of the atmosphere and still impart the necessary horizontal velocity. Doesn't have to be a flight computer, Sputnik's pitch control was defined by a shaped cog. But it still is not a trivial task.

Hey, give us a rocket to guess at! :-)

Posted by: David Jun 10 2006, 06:36 PM

Which brings a question to mind, sort of a minor variation on the mythical "lost cosmonaut" theme -- were there any failed Soviet attempts to launch a satellite into orbit prior to Sputnik 1, or did they happen to get it right on the first try? Given the overall trial-and-error approach of the Soviet program, one would sort of expect there to have been Sputniks -3, -2, -1 and 0 all of which never left the launch pad or exploded in flight -- but even the Soviets get to be lucky once in a while, I suppose.

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 10 2006, 08:31 PM

This should be easy for you lot!

Bob Shaw

Posted by: ugordan Jun 10 2006, 08:34 PM

I don't believe actual soviet rocket engineers and scientists would like hearing this statement very much. You can hardly downplay the accomplishment by calling it luck instead of know-how.
The soviet trial-and-error approach you mention was probably no worse than the american one, anyway.


Bob: the image's kinda blurry, isn't it!

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 10 2006, 08:34 PM

Don:

I bet there's some space-wannabees out there with enough cash to build that cog!

Bob Shaw

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 10 2006, 08:37 PM

The first launch attempts for the R-7 were in 1957-58, as follows:

May 15 - ICBM launch failure

June 11 - ICBM scrubbed launch

July 12 - ICBM launch failure

August 21 - ICBM successful flight

September 7 - ICBM successful flight

October 4 - Sputnik-1 orbited

November 3 - Sptunik-2 orbited

January 29 - ICBM launch failure

March 29 - ICBM successful test

April 4 - ICBM successful test (from Plesetsk)

April 27 - Sputnik-3 launch failure

May 15 - Sputnik-3 orbited

Overall, not bad performance for a new rocket of unprecidented size. Keep in mind, the R-7 was vastly more powerful and complex than the Atlas and Juno rockets in America.

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 10 2006, 08:39 PM

Ugordan:

Put *your* glasses on, and give your wife *her* glasses back, you fule!

Bob Shaw

Posted by: Rakhir Jun 10 2006, 08:46 PM

It's a PSLV.

Edit : here is the image without blur.



-- Rakhir

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 10 2006, 09:16 PM

India's rocket. I hadn't looked into that one. All solid fuel first stages. Yeow. So I guess that will not be man rated, the maximum acceleration must be crazy.

The upper stages are Viking engines, from the early Ariane -- gas generator cycle, UDMH/N2O4 -- Russian technology shared with the French, but not their most sophisticated staged-combustion know-how.

That reminds me, I was surprised to discover that the Vulcain (Ariane V) engine is just a gas-generator-cycle engine. I thought it was derived from SSME, but it is much older technology. I guess I was thinking that Boelkow built the Ariane V engines, and I thought they knew how to build staged combustion.

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 10 2006, 09:39 PM

Rakhir:

100% correct. The poor quality was because it was actually an enlargement - I cropped it to make the scale slightly confusing, and didn't want the lightning protection towers to be visible.

We await your probably-equally-devious response!

Bob Shaw

Posted by: David Jun 10 2006, 09:42 PM

I don't mean to downplay the singular accomplishment of Sputnik at all; I was merely alluding to the bad luck which plagued some elements of the later Soviet space program, and which can in part be attributed to bureaucratic pressure to hurry up with launches despite inadequate testing.



For the period in question, you are certainly right. Most new rockets had a distressing tendency to explode, or fail in other, less spectacular fashions. The nascent U.S. space program had some signal failures in this line, notably with Project Vanguard. But these were public failures (and probably contributed to NASA's later caution) whereas a good deal of the Soviet program was secret and is sometimes still difficult to find information on, though not as much as in the past. One wouldn't expect to hear too much about a failed orbital launch, if there had been one. It's nice to know that the first shot went as planned.

Posted by: Rakhir Jun 10 2006, 10:02 PM

So this is the next one.

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 10 2006, 11:45 PM

Yes, it is hard to develop such complex new technology without failures. There are no unknown R-7 launches, that history is very detailed today. America had a lot of failures then too, almost all of the Pioneer/Able probes failed, the Vanguard rocket failed 8 times out of 12 launches, etc, etc.

It is also hard to compare, because before the mid 1960s, the Russians were also attempting more ambitious missions. Trying to soft land on the Moon and failing is not the same as trying to just hit the Moon and failing.

Eventually, America's superior industrial economy just wiped the Russians out. Kennedy knew that would happen, when he proposed a manned landing on the Moon. That was judged to be the first major milestone that they knew the Russians could not do first.

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 11 2006, 12:00 AM

Don:

I think there's a cultural thing in there, too. The Vostok Cosmonauts were passengers, big time. That situation reflected the Soviet fighter pilot ethos, which was essentially about ground control commanding an event - very effective under specific circumstances, but no good when Skylab's solar panel hangs up!

The NASA ethos has bounced around, but has gone from the Gemini 3 ham sandwich to the Skylab 4 strike and back again. Aboard the ISS, it's clear that the Russians now just tell their guys to get on with it, while NASA agonises, aware of all the big, minor and small issues.

Bob Shaw

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 11 2006, 01:39 AM

[attachment=6188:attachment] [attachment=6189:attachment]

Spam in a can, is what they called in in NASA. Vostok-1 did have a manual controls for orienting the capsule and firing the retro rocket. There was a cool looking world globe run by the gyro platform. I assume Mercury was similar.

Posted by: PhilCo126 Jun 11 2006, 04:57 PM

Rakhir,
It looks like an Indian PSLV without strap-ons ... maybe an early prototype of the PSLV ?

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 11 2006, 05:19 PM

I think its an Israeli Jericho missile.

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 11 2006, 06:33 PM

Or a Shavit satellite launcher.

Bob Shaw

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 11 2006, 06:43 PM

Shavit, Jericho II and RSA-3 (in South Africa) are all the same rocket. Developed by Israel and South Africa in a joint venture. I just looked it up on Astronautix. Most of the technical info is under RSA-3.

Posted by: Rakhir Jun 11 2006, 08:49 PM

Yes, Bob.
This picture is supposed to be the launch of Ofeq 5 in 2002 on a Shavit-1, the last successful launch of this launcher.

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 11 2006, 09:54 PM

Rakhir:

I think this one is Don's!

Bob Shaw

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 12 2006, 06:21 AM

Here's an interesting launch vehicle:

[attachment=6198:attachment]

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 12 2006, 09:43 AM

Don:

I think that it's safe to assume a Soviet origin, somehow - looks like a FOBS delivery vehicle.

Bob Shaw

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 12 2006, 11:18 AM

GR-1

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 12 2006, 05:09 PM

Yes, Korolev's "Global Rocket", GR-1. A weapon class so scary that America and the Soviet Union immediately signed a treaty banning them.

The third stage of GR-1 was essentially the Block-L orbiting escape stage used for planetary missions, but carrying an orbiting thermonuclear warhead instead. Block-L could orbit for a couple hours before its inertial guidance system drifted too much. In practice, it would probably just do a fractional orbit as Bob said.

Hmmm... I'm not sure which of you should go next. Bob gets partial credit, but Jim named the rocket. I think Jim goes next.

Posted by: dvandorn Jun 13 2006, 07:07 AM

In Vostok, the manual controls were locked at launch. The cosmonaut had to enter a six-digit code to unlock the controls. The first three digits of the code were placed in an envelope inside the sphere, within easy reach of the cosmonaut. The second set of three digits was to be radioed to the cosmonaut in the event he (or she) would be required, by judgment of the ground controllers, to activate the manual system.

As Korolev accompanied Gagarin to the hatch of Vostok 1, however, he handed the cosmonaut a slip of paper that contained the second set of three numbers. Just in case.

As it turned out, Gagarin never activated the manual controls. His automatic attitude and retrofire sequencers worked fine. He had a heck of a problem when the Vostok's service module didn't detach cleanly, and there was the very real risk of burnthrough around the porthole at his feet. But at that point, the only attitude control system the Vostok had was on the mostly-separated service module, so the manual controls wouldn't have done him any good.

As for Mercury, yes, there were similar sets of instrumentation. Mercury had more redundant controls for critical functions, including replaceable fuses for some items. Most importantly, the American test pilots selected to be astronauts absolutely insisted that their spacecraft have not one but two different manual control modes available (Manual Proportional, and Fly-By-Wire). And that manual control was to be used for a significant portion of each flight.

I'm pretty sure the early Mercury orbiters had something like a mechanical globe display that showed the pilot his orbital track, similar to the device in the Vostok. However, both it and the periscope were removed from the long-duration spacecraft modified for MA-9 and (the unflown) MA-10. Later, on Gemini, such a display was dropped, due in large part to the fact that mechanically driven displays couldn't keep accurate to the rather fluid orbital changes made during rendezvous maneuvers. Gemini crews simply took maps with orbit tracks drawn in. If they wanted to know what piece of real estate they were over, they just looked it up on the map -- or asked Houston.

-the other Doug

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 13 2006, 07:52 AM

Yep. Only one correction, it was Oleg Ivanovsky (the designer of the Vostok spacecraft) who told Yuri the codes, and Yuri told him that one of the Generals had already told them to him. It was not a well-kept secret apparently.

Posted by: ljk4-1 Jun 13 2006, 11:30 AM

Is this what you are referring to:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/mercury2.gif

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/mercury5.gif

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 13 2006, 11:44 AM

Try this one

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 13 2006, 05:43 PM

Europa-I?

Bob Shaw

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 13 2006, 09:10 PM

nope

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 13 2006, 09:33 PM

It looks like an Atlas-Centaur to me.

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 13 2006, 09:40 PM

Don:

That was my first thought, but it seemed too easy... ...it seems a bit squat, as well...

Bob Shaw

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 13 2006, 10:16 PM

Not an AC

Posted by: GregM Jun 14 2006, 12:49 AM

.

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 14 2006, 01:21 AM

Atlas H had a 7' dia fairing.

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 14 2006, 03:07 AM

Yeah, I know it was too easy. Hmmm. It also looks like a Titan-3A.

Posted by: mchan Jun 14 2006, 03:13 AM

Ok, I cheated and found the photo on Gunter Krebs website where he identifies it as an Atlas-SLV3B Agena-D.

(It sure looks like an Atlas-Centaur.)

Posted by: DonPMitchell Jun 14 2006, 03:35 AM

Good one Jim! I never knew there was a fat agena stage:

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 14 2006, 02:07 PM

The Agenda wasn't fat (although that's what the C model was going to be). It is enclosed in the fairing, much like it was on the Titan 34B. This was the only SLV-3B version of the Atlas that flew

Posted by: BPCooper Jun 14 2006, 04:15 PM

The pyramidal launch pad also gives away that it was an Atlas, as they designed their pads that way.

Posted by: BPCooper Jun 15 2006, 07:55 PM

Try this one. Except Jim :-)

Posted by: djellison Jun 15 2006, 08:07 PM

Hmm - looks a bit minataur with pegasus-upper-stage-ish, but I don't think it is.

Doug

Posted by: Bob Shaw Jun 15 2006, 10:04 PM

Conestoga?

Bob Shaw

Posted by: BPCooper Jun 16 2006, 04:02 PM

Nope but Doug is on the right track :-)