[X] My Assistant

[Rakhir]

Rakhir:

100% correct.

Bob Shaw

So this is the next one.

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

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.

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.

[Bob Shaw]

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

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

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

[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.

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

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

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

So this is the next one.

I think its an Israeli Jericho missile.

[Bob Shaw]

I think its an Israeli Jericho missile.

Or a Shavit satellite launcher.

Bob Shaw

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Or a Shavit satellite launcher.

Bob Shaw

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.

[Rakhir]

Or a Shavit satellite launcher.

Bob Shaw

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.

[Bob Shaw]

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.

Rakhir:

I think this one is Don's!

Bob Shaw

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Here's an interesting launch vehicle:

[attachment=6198:attachment]

[Bob Shaw]

Here's an interesting launch vehicle:

Don:

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

Bob Shaw

[Jim from NSF.com]

Here's an interesting launch vehicle:

[attachment=6198:attachment]

GR-1

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

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.

[dvandorn]

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.

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