|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 14, 2011 13:13:27 GMT -4
The US and Soviet Union were in a war without bullets. Well, apart from the bullets they gave to armies to fight in their stead, they competed on many levels. The Space race was one of them.
Your problem. You cannot cut and paste history, well, you can try. The fiddly bit is the info is still out there saying you have made a slightly little ever so small error. That is they competed.
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 14, 2011 13:14:27 GMT -4
I know much about Soviet/Russian views - where to start? Start with facts not views. |
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 14, 2011 13:25:15 GMT -4
Americans really want to tell that there was a competition to the moon between USA and SU - and USA won.
There was, and it did. Your personal dislike for the fact does not negate history. Besides, the USSR acknowledged and congratulated the US on its sucessful manned lunar landing on A11.
US media has done everything to find smallest pieces of Soviet moon interests. Unfortunately this is not true. N-1 was a natural continuation to develop bigger and bigger rockets mostly for construction of space stations - it was not a moon rocket.
It became one, but too late and with too few resources.
And Soviet engineers met the same probles as the US ... there is a physical limit with rocket size.
The Soviets had a problem making larger engines because their material technology wasn't as advanced. The U.S. was able to use a design which was more efficient and much more reliable overall.
N-1 failed and so did F-1, which was only little better than S-1B
Gibberish. The N-1 was a heavy-lift launch vehicle, the F-1 was an engine, and the S-1B was a first stage, unless you mean the Saturn 1B, which was a launch vehicle with a completely different purpose than the N-1 ever had.
and definitely not capable of sending 47 tons with Saturn V to the trans lunar orbit (probably not even to LEO).
Conclusively disproven, with only a flawed and debunked video "analysis" to support this fantasy.
Soviet engineers...
like Vasili Mishin, acknowledged that Apollo succeeded. You may not like it, and they did not enjoy it at the time, but the engineers knew and accepted it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 14, 2011 15:43:16 GMT -4
N-1 was a natural continuation to develop bigger and bigger rockets mostly for construction of space stations - it was not a moon rocket. Then please do explain the documents that show it with a Soyuz/LOK payload, the very definite existence of the Soyuz and LOK spacecraft, and the fact that the same engineers who designed and built these things have gone on record as saying that the intention was to launch a two-man crew on the N-1 rocket to land on the Moon. Oh, and the ones who describe the UR-700 as another attempt at a manned moon rocket. Absolute rubbish. The N-1 generated 10 million pounds of lift and definitely worked, since it left the ground. All four stages failed because of the problems of controlling 30 engines simultaneously, not because the rocket was physically too big to fly. And you cannot compare an engine to a complete launch vehicle. OK, so you pulled the empty S-IVB stage weight from Wikipedia (though notably it fails to specify which version of the S-IVB this refers to, and does not mention if this was complete with the J-2 engine or not). So you can't quite fathom how all the extra stuff bolted onto this stage inside and out would have increased its mass substantially? It had two solar panels and a stand-away heatshield added just to the main body of the S-IVB. It had a docking adapter. it had a massive solar telescope with its own solar panels. It had a whole host of equipment inside it, as well as a couple of floors added to the interior space. It had to carry enough consumables to supply a three man crew for some time, and fuel cells, and all sorts of other things. |
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 14, 2011 17:43:01 GMT -4
it had a massive solar telescope with its own solar panels.
The Apollo Telescope Mount launch weight was approximately 25,000 lbs, or a little over 11,300 kg. See NASA TM-X-64811, Skylab Apollo Telescope Mount.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tsialkovsky on Dec 14, 2011 18:40:27 GMT -4
There were two different realities in USSR - the political one and the military/scientific one. And during the Breshnev times the country was modest and polite to any direction. Not like during Khrutshev's times (he proposed to USA that they can transport US spy satellites to orbit as all the US rockets exploded). As I said, there were many many kinds of experiments in USSR but the one with emphasis was Luna and automatic moon and planetary landers. Americans also say that N-1 failed because of the lack of funding ... this is a crazy opinion - in USSR nobody was talking about money that time because it was a governmentally run country. But manned moon program had lack of human resources (engineers) bacause that was not a priority direction like Luna/Lunakhod. Saturn V and F-1 engines were a dead end in rocket design - therefore both W von Braun and F-1 was thrown to bin at the same time. Even the drawings of S-V / F-1 have been destroyed. For a long time, USA did not have a rocket engine to transport payloads of 25 tons to LEO. Then later USA had to buy Russian rocket engines RD-180 and probably later they need RD-170 (because most of US plans have been rejected). Everybody should understand that F-1 was a complete failure. But F-1 was not the only problem in Apollo - also LM lander was not yet ready ... and it never was. The concept of having fixed main engine and like small docking boosters was not a functioning solution for a heavy LM. All the real tests failed. Secondly the rendezvous radar was not working in 1969 and was proposed to be left out (meaning that docking will not be made - only in Apollo-14 that was working). Also LM has been abandoned and today the whole design approach is very different. www.astronautix.com/craft/apollolm.htmLM was extremely unstable - one fixed engine and small manually driven "docking boosters" which did not allow the control of the powerful main engine. Today they use computer controlled dynamic main engine which is capable of automatically maintaining the balance in any circumstances. I wrote that today there are "desperate" attempts. Here you can see what has been the development in these 40 yrs after Apollo (from a recent competition organized by NASA for creating the best lunar module): www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=IWUyRiiG4-Iwww.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Jew90I1koXgwww.youtube.com/watch?v=JziqAno_rcw&feature=player_embeddedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=fwV8zX_o1tU&feature=relatedwww.spaceelevatorgames.org/category/technical-tuesday/www.design-laorosa.com/2010/07/nasas-autonomous-lunar-lander-genie.htmlpktechnologies.blogspot.com/2009/09/private-companies-compete-for-best.htmlwww.youtube.com/watch?v=AG0uIxoL3JA&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=JXwsRJzI8vE&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=oaXW5TaFwAE&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=mHuhtS3658o&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnA4ZUKf2Ck&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=1D4GIM2bEbg&feature=relatedIn 1960s USA took its first steps in docking technology. In Moon docking is very difficult because the lack of positioning technology there and docking may take several days if possible at all. But I am very confident that if countries are ready to invest money to the crazy idea of sending a man to Moon, that can be possible before 2030. There are promising developments in rocket technology, landers, docking systems, radiation protection, etc. Let's see from what country the first man on Moon will come - maybe from Japan, India or China. Maybe USA, but at first they must construct a rocket able to carry 50 tons to LEO ... and then 60 tons to the TLO moon orbit - this may take long time. Skylab weights have dramatically been exaggerated because NASA wanted people to believe in Apollo. Those modules were not at all so heavy - if they were, they had to be 30-50 % solid metal which is not at all the case. Skylab was not heavier than c. 30 tons (77 tons announced). |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 14, 2011 19:17:21 GMT -4
Do you have real arguments, not YouTube videos? Maybe something with numbers and something to back up your claims?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 14, 2011 19:26:44 GMT -4
Americans also say that N-1 failed because of the lack of funding ... this is a crazy opinion - in USSR nobody was talking about money that time because it was a governmentally run country. But manned moon program had lack of human resources (engineers) bacause that was not a priority direction like Luna/Lunakhod. Well if it wasn't a priority for human resources, it wouldn't be a priority for funding either, would it? Really? All of them? That's funny. How is it I have several such drawings in published works on the subject, and have acquired copies of drawings made at the time? Some of the construction blueprints might have been destroyed, since this would include information on such a level of detail as to be impractical to retain, but many drawings of both the rocket and the engine have been retained in national archives, and copies of several have been published. [/i] Provide evidence of this claim or withdraw it. Apollo 5, 9 and 10 were the 'real' tests of the Lm, and they were domuented successes. Rendezvous radar was used successfully on Gemini, years before Apollo 11. Since no future plans for a lunar landing are intended to duplicate the short excursions of Apollo, this is hardly surprising. You really have no idea of the actual LM design, do you? Provide evidence of this claim or retract it. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 14, 2011 20:27:39 GMT -4
Those modules were not at all so heavy - if they were, they had to be 30-50 % solid metal which is not at all the case. Utter nonsense. Skylab's overall length was about 36 m and it's maximum diameter was 6.6 m. To make it simple, let's just figure it as a cylinder with those dimensions. That gives us a total surface area of 815 m 2. At 77 tonnes total mass, that's only 94.5 kg per square meter. That's the mass of an equivalent thickness of aluminum of only 3.5 cm. EDIT... Hold up a minute. I think that 36 m length includes the docked CSM, which is 11 m long itself. Subtracting that off, we have a length of about 25 m and a surface area of 587 m 2. We therefore have 131.2 kg/m 2, which is the equivalent of 4.86 cm of aluminum. Still nowhere near tsialkovsky's 30-50% solid metal claim. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 14, 2011 20:39:55 GMT -4
The main body was really S-IVB module - its empty weight was 9,559 kg but the J-2 engine with its controls were removed - here comes the weight of 8,000 kg for the Skylab body. What is your source for that? Every source I have seen says the S-IVB had an empty mass of just over 13,000 kg. The J-2 engine was removed, but a docking/airlock module was added, as was entire solar telescope, several solar panels, and all the interior equipment and consumables. Maybe hoaxers are good for something after all; it looks like he may have found an error in Wikipedia. Citing chapter 6 of NASA SP-4206 Stages to Saturn, the S-IVB article does give the empty weight as 9,559 kg (20,000 lb), but I haven't found that actual figure in the citation yet. The mass properties section of the Saturn V Launch Vehicle Flight Evaluation Report - AS-506 Apollo 11 Mission gives the dry mass of the S-IVB stage at liftoff as 11,273 kg. That's minus all propellants, consumables and accumulated frost and ice. When you add 1,939 kg for the instrument unit, which was needed for Skylab, we come close to Jason's figure of just over 13,000 kg. Another source, the Apollo Saturn V Rocket General Information, which was sourced from the preflight document Saturn V Flight Manual SA-506 (Apollo 11), gives the S-IVB dry mass as 33,200 lb (15,059 kg) exclusive of IU. Most of that discrepancy appears to be the S-II/S-IVB interstage. It was considered part of the S-IVB when built, but it was left behind on the S-II at staging. The Flight Report gives the mass of the S-II/S-IVB interstage as 3,663 kg. Add that to the 11,273 kg it gives for the post-staging S-IVB dry mass you get 14,936 kg, close enough to the 15,059 kg figure from the General Information document. The remaining differences are probably due to miscellaneous items like batteries, ullage motor casings, destruct ordnance, etc. Indeed the "dry mass" for the S-IVB in the Flight Report actually decreases from 11,273 kg at liftoff to 11,250 kg at S-IVB ignition, probably due to the loss of parts of the separation interface not included in the interstage, and then drops further to 11,189 kg at first cutoff, probably due to ullage motor jettison, where it remains through spacecraft separation. Propellants, helium, APS propellant and frost are accounted separately. So anyway, the bottom line is that the dry mass for the S-IVB is definitely in the range of 11,200 kg, not 9,559 kg as given in Wikipedia. I will track this down and fix the Wikipedia article. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 14, 2011 21:31:05 GMT -4
Skylab weights have dramatically been exaggerated because NASA wanted people to believe in Apollo. Those modules were not at all so heavy - if they were, they had to be 30-50 % solid metal which is not at all the case. Skylab was not heavier than c. 30 tons (77 tons announced). Merely repeating a false claim does not make it any more true. Do you have any response to Bob's posts? The ones that provide some actual calculations that prove your contention to be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 14, 2011 21:36:27 GMT -4
Everybody should understand that F-1 was a complete failure. Really? Then what did all those millions of people who attended Saturn V launches in person witness? Whatever was stuck on the bottom of those Saturn Vs certainly seemed more than a complete failure. I understand that English is probably not your native language, but it would help to at least try to use the proper terminology. By "small docking boosters" I assume you mean the sixteen 100-lb (445N) reaction control system (RCS) thrusters? This sounds like yet another restatement of the bogus "unstable LM ascent stage" argument. Where do people get this stuff? If anything the LM ascent stage was far more stable and controllable than most rockets because its short height placed the ascent engine very close to the center of mass. This minimized any unwanted torques created by not thrusting through the center of mass. And don't forget that these torques were scaled down by the whole thing operating in lunar gravity. Liftoff was at only 1/3g; it wouldn't have budged in earth gravity. An ungimballed, fixed-thrust engine was chosen for the LM ascent stage for reliability. Any off-axis thrust from the ascent engine was easily countered by the RCS thrusters. Indeed, the films and TV of ascent do show a characteristic "wallowing" motion of the LM as the guidance system fired the RCS thrusters to keep the LM attitude within a specified deadband. Not only did its compact height limit the off-axis ascent engine torques, the lack of any aerodynamic considerations allowed the RCS to be placed well out from the X axis (vertical centerline) to maximize their torques. So not only were any residual torques well within the ability of the RCS, but the moments of inertia of the ascent stage were considerably less than those of the complete LM with fully loaded descent stage. Please show calculations proving that the RCS thrusters were not up to the job. Please provide proof of this. The rendezvous radar, like every Apollo system, is publicly documented. I've studied those plans, along with many other Apollo systems. I see no reason it couldn't have worked as advertised in 1969 when it was first tested during Apollo 9 in earth orbit and again during Apollo 10 in lunar orbit. Note that there was also a simple backup to the rendezvous radar: a VHF ranging system that shared the same radios the astronauts used to talk to each other. The rendezvous radar had the LM as the active vehicle (with a transponder on the CSM) and the VHF ranging system had the CSM as the active vehicle (with a transponder on the LM). Both systems worked; only one would have been necessary to effect rendezvous and docking. Say what? The LM has been abandoned only because the entire Apollo program was abandoned when the country got bored with traveling to the moon and Congress no longer provided the funds. Sure, if I were to design a LM today it would be quite different, especially in the avionics. But what do you expect given the unprecedented technological development in the past 40 years, much of it originally spurred by the Apollo program itself? |
|
|
|
Post by Tsialkovsky on Dec 14, 2011 21:53:45 GMT -4
Bob - so how much was the weight of your Skylab main body with the c. 5 cm wall thickness?
For example, NASA tells that the weight of air lock was 22 tons. The volume of this module is 17 m3. If that would be completely full solid aluminium, that would weight 47 tons. This means that it should have been half filled with aluminium - which is a big lie. I measured the cross sections and only 15-20 % was some material which means that the real weight is 7-9 tons.
The weight of Skylab body was even less than 8 tons because removal of J-2 engine with all the accessories should be considered. And airlock replaced it as told and measured above.
You can have the total mass of 30 tons - not more. And engines had extensive pogo problems even then breaking the vehicle's shielding and solar panels.
Only Russians have lifted extensive loads to LEO - more than 20 tons to space stationa and of course Energya was the top record but not useful enough to continue.
I trust very much Russian investigations 1969 at the Florida coast. With that fleet of electronic spying ships they can tel the Saturn V figures with 3 decimals. It is pity that Pokrovsky and others are not allowed to use spy data in publications (Russian foreign policy).
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 14, 2011 22:28:08 GMT -4
For example, NASA tells that the weight of air lock was 22 tons. The volume of this module is 17 m3. If that would be completely full solid aluminium, that would weight 47 tons. This means that it should have been half filled with aluminium - which is a big lie. I measured the cross sections and only 15-20 % was some material which means that the real weight is 7-9 tons. You are making a huge assumption here, that it's all made out of Aluminium. What if parts of it were steel? How much did the Oxygen and Nitrogen tanks wiegh for instance? Anything made of steel would instantly be up to four times the weight of something made of Aluminium. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 14, 2011 22:33:25 GMT -4
For example, NASA tells that the weight of air lock was 22 tons. The volume of this module is 17 m3. 17 m 3 might be it's habitable volume, but the module was 3.05 m in diameter and 5.4 m in length. That's a total volume of nearly 40 m 3. 22 tonnes is the equivalent of 20% of this volume as aluminum, or only 7% as steel. Not nearly as appalling as you make it out to be. Edit: changed diameter from 3.1 m to 3.05 m. |
|
