Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Share

    Ogannisyan8887
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 62
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2011-01-07
    Age : 24

    US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Ogannisyan8887 on Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:10 am

    Official: Russian military undecided about whether to match latest US spaceplane

    By Vladimir Isachenkov


    MOSCOW — The Russian military closely monitored last year's flight of a new U.S. spaceplane but hasn't decided whether it needs a similar craft, a top general said Thursday.
    Russia's Space Forces chief, Lt. Gen. Oleg Ostapenko, was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying that the military knows all about the orbital manoeuvrs of the U.S. X-37B unmanned spaceplane during its maiden flight of more than seven months.
    The U.S. Air Force said the primary purpose of the flight, which ended in December, was to test the craft itself, but classified its actual activities in orbit, leading to speculation about whether it carried some type of spying system.
    Ostapenko said Russia has conducted preliminary work on a similar design but that no decision has been made on whether it needs such a craft. "Time will show whether we shall imitate that project, but everyone must remember that there always is a counteraction to any action," he said.
    Military analysts have been skeptical about Russia's ability to mount a response to the new U.S. robotic spacecraft.
    Russia's ability to match the latest Western weapons designs has been weakened because its defence industries were hurt by the post-Soviet industrial meltdown and lack of modern technologies. But Ostapenko said efforts are under way to develop a missile defence system.
    "Works are in progress to build prototypes and test some parts, systems and components," Ostapenko said, adding that the military has been testing prospective missile defence weapons at a Soviet-era testing range that Russia leases from Kazakhstan. He gave no specifics.
    Ostapenko's comment followed Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov as saying Wednesday that Russia is working to develop its own missile defence system.
    Russia has a Soviet-designed system of interceptor missiles to protect Moscow from ballistic missiles, but analysts say that the shield is outdated and has limited efficiency.
    The Kremlin has criticized U.S. plans for space-based weapons, saying they could trigger a new arms race. Moscow also has voiced concern about the prospective U.S. missile shield, fearing it could erode its nuclear deterrent.
    NATO has approved a plan for a U.S.-led missile defence in Europe last fall and invited Russia to join. Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev was receptive of NATO's proposal but didn't make a definitive commitment.
    Medvedev has warned that the failure to reach agreement on a joint European missile shield with Russia may force it to deploy new offensive weapons and trigger a new arms race.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:01 am

    They really need to think long and hard about this before they blow large amounts of money on it.
    This sort of technology could have many useful commercial spinoffs, but it could just as easily be a huge money pit too.

    The Buran shuttle is a case in point of enormous irony.

    When it was built they had the benefit of experience from the US Space shuttles advantages and faults so they made a much better craft. The problem was that they didn't really need it because they had the Mir space station.

    At the time the US only had rockets so the Space Shuttle was their only option for manned use for a week or so experiments.

    The Soviets on the other hand had a string of space stations that ended in Mir (though technically the ISS is Mir 2) and therefore didn't need a space shuttle.

    The huge irony is the name... space shuttle.

    Makes it sound ideal for supporting a space station but in actual fact it is enormously expensive and really only useful for very precise orbital release of satellites or the recovery of satellites and of course to repair hubble.

    It is 20 times more expensive than the small cargo rockets the Soviets used to support their space station.

    The irony is that the Soviet Buran corrected most of the Space Shuttles problems and would have been ideal to use to build the ISS but only a couple were made and one lost in an accident (the hangar collapsed on it), so after one flight in automatic mode the Buran was not used again.

    The difference between SS and Buran is that SS are large heavy aircraft that need an enormous external fuel tank and two solid rocket boosters to get airborne. Solid rocket fuel is quite toxic and very expensive and once it is going you can't shut it down.
    The main engines are in the SS and weigh about 10 tons which after launch are dead weight for the entire trip.
    The main fuel tank is recovered and goes and gets checked and put back into shape and reused... which is expensive.
    The Buran on the other hand is a glider that sits on an Energyia rocket. The difference is that when building the 300 ton ISS in space actually fitting pieces together in zero gravity is fiddly and slow, so the larger the pieces you can take up already assembled the better. With the Buran you can take the 110 ton Buran off the Energyia and put a large part of the space station on it in a fairing and launch it in one piece.

    You could put it together much quicker and easier.

    But of course the main reason they built the Buran was that they suspected the SS was actually a military aircraft and might be used to attack Moscow with a nuclear bomb so they wanted the same capability.

    They spent an enormous fortune designing and building something they ended up not using... and because they didn't use it it became neglected and by the time they could have used it it was not in a fit state to be used even if they could afford to.

    They are currently working on a nuclear propulsion unit for use in a space tug to help clear the rubbish in orbit and also for future long flight missions... I would think once that is ready then building more spacecraft will become much more interesting.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Pervius on Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:18 am

    Did Russia ever match US PRoject Rover for space tugs to move satellites around?

    Somebody built crazy space tug able to do 90* directional changes at high speed. I've seen them watching the stars at night. Likely using explosions to alter direction. No oxygen in space for explosions to be seen.

    Russia needs to do something about lack of Space awareness/capability. Chinese launched entire GPS Constellation around Earth in 12 months.

    Battle now looks like US-China for Space Control with Russia still looking at 2 dimensional plots on computer screens, no 3 dimensional situational awareness.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:37 am

    Did Russia ever match US PRoject Rover for space tugs to move satellites around?

    The Russians are working on a nuclear engine for operating in space, though it does not use nuclear explosions for propulsion... more likely it uses a nuclear reactor to generate lots of heat and electricity and use that to accelerate small particles like an ion engine of very long operational duration.
    One proposed use is to clear debris in orbit, and the main use of as a tug to take spacecraft on long journeys like to the moon or mars or further.

    Somebody built crazy space tug able to do 90* directional changes at
    high speed. I've seen them watching the stars at night. Likely using
    explosions to alter direction. No oxygen in space for explosions to be
    seen.

    90 degree changes would be near impossible... the g forces alone would tear the craft apart... orbital speed is above 7km/s... to stop travelling forward at 7km/s and then accelerate in a tangent 90 degrees to 7km/s would require two enormous forces... there is no air to push against so wings or control surfaces wouldn't cut it... it would have to be rockets and there aren't any with that sort of performance.
    An explosion is perfectly feasible in space... an explosion requires oxygen to combust a fuel... plastic explosive contains its own oxygen supply and therefore works where there is no oxygen like underwater and in space... and you would certainly see the flash. The explosion needed to stop an object in orbit and redirect its flight path 90 degrees would need to be nuclear and would destroy the thing it is redirecting.

    The shoemaker levy comet that hit Jupiter a few years back created a series of huge flashes... no oxygen there, but when material is heated to tens of thousands of degrees it gives off its own light. Earths main source of light... the sun does not burn with oxygen either and it is clearly in space.

    Russia needs to do something about lack of Space awareness/capability.
    Chinese launched entire GPS Constellation around Earth in 12 months.

    Russian space tracking radars are the best available anywhere. The US compared and were found to be less capable. A GPS constellation is for navigation and offers no space awareness at all.

    Battle now looks like US-China for Space Control with Russia still
    looking at 2 dimensional plots on computer screens, no 3 dimensional
    situational awareness.

    I rather think you are overestimating China and significantly underestimating Russia here.

    When the next two US shuttles make their flights the ISS will be totally reliant on the Russians for support and transport.

    Last year despite the failures the Russians still had twice as many launches as the US.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Pervius on Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:55 pm

    ""90 degree changes would be near impossible... the g forces alone would tear the craft apart...""

    They thought the G-forces from this propulsion method would be too much for anything to survive:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQCrPNEsQaY

    In the 1950's it was proven to be wrong, things can survive using explosives as propulsion. Unmanned objects in space could have course altered using explosives. If it did a maneuver turning the blast plate behind where it wanted to go, shoot out explosives with a timed fuse....boom! Explosion sends object in a new direction if that charge was sufficient. That's using 1950's technology proven to work here on Earth with our strong gravity down here. Gravity in space is a bit weaker.


    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Pervius on Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:45 pm

    The Polyus really was the predecessor of the X-37b. A military space tool. Russian President forbid it's laser from being used in space to prevent a Military Space Build Up. After it's guidance malfunctioned and burnt up in reentry the project was abandoned. Russia didn't want to militarize space.

    Then America goes and launches the X-37b. Looks like Russia should have fixed Polyus's guidance software and put in space long ago eh?

    The militarization of space has begun.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:53 am

    That's using 1950's technology proven to work here on Earth with our strong gravity down here. Gravity in space is a bit weaker.

    In the vacuum of space the effect of a blast is almost non-existent.
    In the earths atmosphere an explosion is basically the sudden release or creation of a large volume of gas rapidly in a confined space.
    Inside the shell case of a rifle bullet there is a small amount of powder propellent that is sensitive to heat. Pulling the trigger to release the hammer to hit the firing pin crushes a small amount of very sensitive material... either lead fulminate or mercury fulminate inside the primer. When crushed it converts a solid material directly into a gas generating heat and light in the process. This shower of hot sparks enters the cartridge case and ignites the propellent which then burns. It contains all the three requirements for fire... fuel, oxygen, and heat. The propellent contains stored oxygen and fuel and the primer being hit provides the initial heat to get the reaction going.
    In the confines of the cartridge case the conversion from solid to gas generates a lot of heat and light and a huge increase in pressure. In such cases the forces will take the line of least resistance... so the walls of the chamber are too strong and the bolt blocks rearward movement so the point of failure will be for the gas to push the bullet down the barrel for the pressure to release and escape and normalise with the outside pressure.
    If the barrel was wielded shut the next point of weakness would likely be for the bolt to blow open... if it was completely sealed then as long as the whole structure was strong enough it would simply contain the pressure.

    The point is that the volume of gas created is limited by the size of the powder charge. If you were to launch that small propellent charge out of a space ship and detonate it (it contains chemicals that release oxygen during the burning process so it works in the vacuum of space) there would be no pressure build up as it is not contained. Any fast moving gases would have little effect as they spread in a sphere so their expansion force would rapidly diminish with distance.

    What I am trying to say is that the act of firing the propellent charge out of the spaceship probably had more effect on the spaceship than the explosion would.

    You need to look at nuclear explosions in space to get impulses on the craft that would be meaningful... and how could you do that with no one on Earth noticing all the extra suns in the sky?

    The weight of shielding of a nuclear blast would make the spaceship dreadfully inefficient... just as nuclear propelled bombers were tried in the 50s and 60s and it was found that with the weight of shielding the payload was pathetic and not worth the effort.

    They thought the G-forces from this propulsion method would be too much for anything to survive:

    And before the invention of the internal combustion engine it was thought that no one could survive driving a steam powered car at more than 50km/h because the air would go past so fast you wouldn't be able to breathe.

    The invention of a death ray as a weapon was also considered impossible because anything powerful enough to kill an enemy would kill the user first because they are closer to the death ray.

    Then America goes and launches the X-37b. Looks like Russia should have
    fixed Polyus's guidance software and put in space long ago eh?

    The militarization of space has begun.

    In their rush to dominate space, they forget how much they rely on space based assets and how vulnerable they will be when their rivals develop weapons similar to those they are developing themselves.... talk about Pandoras box.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  nightcrawler on Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:40 am

    @Garry; Pervius
    What I am trying to say is that the act of firing the propellent charge out of the spaceship probably had more effect on the spaceship than the explosion would.
    I think Pervius is only talking about course change using explosions albeit small one & not the actual acceleration of the space body...
    For the acceleration purposes propellent charge out of the spaceship is effective however for the latter small explosions can be effective provided for every manoeuvre you aren't starting/shutting engines burning & rather wasting fuel.
    If you see the video small balls are ejected from the vehicle & at very close proximity the explosion occurs completely outside the framework of the space vehicle [this can be ineffective as reasoned by Garry]. Explosions however must be channelled to a duct where there shockwave can be effective a lot more to spacecraft..

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Pervius on Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:54 pm

    ""In the vacuum of space the effect of a blast is almost non-existent.""

    In 2007 Comet Holmes blew up in the asteroid belt. In the vacuum of space that explosion disturbed the asteroid belt....notice all the asteroids flying around now in the solar system hitting the sun? Explosions in space can give objects motion. Pray we survive the asteroid belt being disturbed.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:05 am

    In 2007 Comet Holmes blew up in the asteroid belt. In the vacuum of
    space that explosion disturbed the asteroid belt....notice all the
    asteroids flying around now in the solar system hitting the sun?

    Was it the blast from the impact, or the physical kinetic energy of a large body hitting another and effecting both their courses.

    Also don't believe what you see on star wars or even science based documentaries that always depict the asteroid belt as densely packed with rocks slamming into each other and moving all over the place.

    If the real asteroid belt looked like that it would have an enormous amount of matter and would have formed into an enormous solid planet by now.

    The reality is that all the material in the entire asteroid belt would make up our moon and if you broke our moon into lots of different sized chunks and took them out to an orbit between Earth and Mars the ring is enormous and the bits and pieces that make up the asteroid belt are so far apart if you were standing on a significant piece the nearest other piece would be millions of miles away and not visible to you.

    Asteroids hitting asteroids do happen and when they do the kinetic force is enormous because of the weights and speeds involved. Two very large objects passing very closely by but not actually touching each other will effect each other by each objects gravity field but if they impact each other there is very little effect from the "blast".

    In fact during tests with very high velocity guns firing into targets for research into asteroids found that if the target is a rubble pile... basically a collection of gravel and larger rocks held together by gravity rather than being a single rock that firing a high velocity projectile into it will temporarily disperse some of the material but the majority of the material will fall back under gravity and the rubble pile will continue largely the way it was before. Normally colliding two objects will result in new trajectories for both objects, but in this case the impact is absorbed by internal changes in the rubble pile.

    Only a small amount of material will be vapourised and released as a kind of gas and this gas would disperse and not blow nearby objects off course.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:51 pm

    @Pervius
    ""In the vacuum of space the effect of a blast is almost non-existent.""

    What about CONTAINED explosions, within special various ducts protruding out of framework.
    Each explosion in each particular duct can really economical in coarse changing..

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:33 am

    Each explosion in each particular duct can really economical in coarse changing..

    You are talking about a rocket thruster... the problem is velocity.

    To be able to use the rocket thruster a lot it is very important that the material ejected is very light so you can carry lots of it. Because you want it to be light for it to be effective you need to eject it very fast.

    Think of it in terms of a bullet from a gun.

    Using a simple bolt action rifle with no muzzle brake to deflect the gas to reduce recoil and no reloading mechanism to soften the recoil when you fire a gun you are accelerating a small metal weight (the projectile) with a large volume of gas (which is the burnt propellent) and you are also accelerating that gas as well.

    The energy calculation on the ground is effected by the atmosphere and gravity but in orbit those effects are eliminated. There is gravity in orbit of course but because everything in orbit is "falling" at the same rate is can be ignored.

    The energy calculation in orbit... say during an EVA, is the mass and velocity of the bullet plus the mass and velocity of the gas is generating energy in one direction. As it is a balanced system... for every action there is a reaction, using the mass of the rifle you can determine how fast in the opposite direction to the bullet and the gas that the gun will travel under recoil.

    Lets say you throw the gun muzzle forward perfectly so that it doesn't spin in any direction and you have fitted the trigger with a small mechanism that after a period of time will pull the trigger and fire the round in the chamber. So you throw the rifle at... say 10m/s... when the rifle fires the equation starts as the weight of rifle times its speed is its forward momentum, but the new force of the bullet and gas mass plus velocity combined which also has a momentum which opposes the momentum of the rifle when it fired. These forces are directed in exactly opposite directions and so counter each other.

    What I am trying to say is that the momentum of the bullet and gas is high because its velocity is much higher than the momentum of the rifle even though the rifle is much heavier.

    Rockets use separate stages to minimise weight because when you are accelerating an object weight is the enemy to a limit. On earth you can throw a cricket ball further than you can throw a helium filled ballon because a large very light object doesn't push its way through the air very efficiently. You can however throw a cricket ball further than a shot put because the cricket ball has the balance of being heavy enough to move through the air efficiently but not being so heavy it is hard for you to accelerate it to high enough speed to go somewhere.
    With more power the result changes... instead of your arm accelerating the object if you use powder propellent like in a cannon that heavy shot put will be better than a cricket ball because the cannon will be able to accelerate the shot put without destroying it and with the high speed the heavy shot put will be much less effected than the cricket ball and so will retain its speed better and travel further.
    Reshaping the shot put into a bullet shape and spinning it will further increase its range.

    Based on all of this what I am saying is that to stop an object in orbit and make it turn 90 degrees is impossible.
    In orbit there is no air to push against so wings or control surfaces don't work... the only way to slow down is to point a rocket engine or gas engine in the direction you are travelling and fire material forward so that the equal and opposite reaction is to slow you down.
    Travelling at 7km/s in orbit will take a lot of very high speed material to slow you down.
    Remember it took a three stage rocket with up to 60 tons of fuel or more to get 2-5 tons up to orbital speed.
    Obviously once in orbit it is easier to slow down but this normally involves slowing down enough to re enter the earths atmosphere which does the rest. A 5 ton object might need 60 tons of fuel to get into space and up to orbital speed, but when it is launched it weighs 60-70 tons so it needs powerful rockets and lots of fuel to get this airborne and moving. Once it is moving as it drops stages it needs less power and less fuel to keep on accelerating. Once it is in orbit it doesn't need a huge powerful engine to slow down or speed up because it is much lighter... however because it is much lighter there is less energy available to speed up or slow down too.

    To manouver in space while in orbit you can turn a rocket motor sideways to change your orbital path, but to gain height you need to go faster and to descend you need to go slower.
    If you were in a stable orbit and you wanted to climb if you directed your rocket engines downwards and fired them for 10 seconds you would go up... till you ran out of momentum and then you would fall back down and eventually you would end up at the same height you were before you fired your engines.
    To climb to a higher orbit and stay there you need to be going faster so to climb you turn your rocket engines backwards and fire them for 10 seconds to accelerate and that will make you climb to a higher orbit.

    To turn 90 degrees... well the thing about acceleration force is that it is just like gravity... it is actually measured in units of gravity, so a high speed turn might be 6gs or 9gs.
    The g of a turn is determined by its angle and the speed you are travelling at.
    Try it with your car... somewhere safe.
    Drive at 10km/h and turn rapidly 20 degrees and then straighten up. No big deal really at such a low speed.
    Accelerate to 50km/h and turn rapidly 20 degrees and then straighten up... you felt the difference?
    The faster you are travelling the more you want to keep going in the same direction.
    In the first test you probably felt nothing but at 50km/h you will have felt your body wanting to continue straight with the car seat and steering wheel pulling you 20 degrees off course.
    Modern fighter jets can turn at about 16 degrees per second at high subsonic speed which probably equates to about 9 g.
    The effect of gs is proportional so doubling the speed more than doubles the g force.
    At 7km/s the g forces would rip anything man made to pieces in a 90 degree turn.
    To do it with a rocket you pretty much have to swap the gun for the ammo... in other words the bullet and gas is the satellite and the gun is the rocket used to stop the projectile... the problem is that there is not enough matter left to then accelerate what is left to orbital speed.

    To turn 90 degrees in orbit would take hours at least and would burn an enormous amount of fuel with a side thruster burning for a very long time... in the 3-5 minutes it is visible overhead the turn would be very difficult to see as the rotation of the earth makes the flight path appear curved anyway.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Pervius on Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:50 am

    """Based on all of this what I am saying is that to stop an object in orbit and make it turn 90 degrees is impossible."""

    Not for the last 50 years.

    Mass of object (A) X's speed energy (B) = needed force to stop object (C).

    C times Mass of Object plus intended speed energy in intended direction for course correction (D).


    If you can release sufficient energy course correction can be attained. Of course true calculation is a little more complex needing microgravity factored in with a few other variables to fire at precise time to maintain orbit in intended distance from planet. It's not rocket science, it's explosive propulsion.

    You could do the experiment by putting a tennis ball on a string and spin it around you with your arm. Have a timed small explosive charge on the bottom of the tennis ball so as you spin it around you...tiny explosive charge drops below tennis ball as it's flung away by a spring and explodes 7 inches below ball...tennis ball makes course correction and goes over your head. If you built simple experiment correctly, even course correction on Earth can be done with explosive.

    Very simple experiment. Tennis ball always survives course correction. Miniscule explosive needed for course correction.




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:32 am

    If you can release sufficient energy course correction can be attained.

    The energy required to redirect even a small satellite 90 degrees while travelling 7km/s would be enormous and destroy the satellite in the process.

    Lets assume it is a 10kg satellite... what 10 kg rocket exists on the earth that can accelerate itself to 7km/s even with no payload even if all 10kgs was fuel and the rocket components took up no mass.

    That is not fair you say... who would use such a light satellite... actually I am not being fair in your favour because the heavier you make the satellite the more momentum it has and the more energy exponentially it will need to both stop and change direction.

    The g forces involved in turning 90 degrees at 7km/s would kill most life forms and destroy most man made structures.

    BTW tennis balls and explosives is not a good mixture....

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Pervius on Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:20 pm

    Many people thought this would never be possible either:

    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp35.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp38.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp56.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp57.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp100.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp133.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp163.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp174.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp177.jpg
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/hrp202.jpg

    Can you identify that spaceplane and describe it's propulsion system?

    American's always love building "Hotrods"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQCrPNEsQaY


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:50 am

    That method of propulsion is incredibly inefficient.

    For all the explosive charges that were used to get a few metres into the air they could have used a proper rocket to attain much higher velocity and get much higher.

    The effect of the explosions on any person on board such a space craft or the electronics would make such propulsion ideas reveal themselves to be nonsense.

    Looking at the problem of a 90 degree turn at 7km/s even if we ignore the turn and say a sudden stop from 7km/s such a thing is not possible either... the g forces alone would destroy it.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Viktor on Sun Nov 02, 2014 11:51 am

    Russian Federation is testing something big in space ....  thumbsup  thumbsup

    I would go for the ASAT.

    Kosmos-2499: Is it a spy or an assassin... or both?

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2521
    Points : 2654
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  kvs on Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:04 pm

    Viktor wrote:Russian Federation is testing something big in space ....  thumbsup  thumbsup

    I would go for the ASAT.

    Kosmos-2499: Is it a spy or an assassin... or both?

    They just have to demonstrate to the chauvinist moron leadership of NATO that they have the ability for ASAT.
    I recall all of the awe at the fact that China took out a satellite with a missile (leaving yet more debris hazard in
    LEO) and I got the impression that people actually thought Russia could not do the same.   The Bulava, RS-24 and
    other launches are not just for testing, they are to remind Russia's foaming at the mouth enemies that Russia has
    the capacity to inflict serious harm to them and their ambitions.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Viktor on Sun Nov 02, 2014 2:32 pm

    kvs wrote:
    Viktor wrote:Russian Federation is testing something big in space ....  thumbsup  thumbsup

    I would go for the ASAT.

    Kosmos-2499: Is it a spy or an assassin... or both?

    They just have to demonstrate to the chauvinist moron leadership of NATO that they have the ability for ASAT.
    I recall all of the awe at the fact that China took out a satellite with a missile (leaving yet more debris hazard in
    LEO) and I got the impression that people actually thought Russia could not do the same.   The Bulava, RS-24 and
    other launches are not just for testing, they are to remind Russia's foaming at the mouth enemies that Russia has
    the capacity to inflict serious harm to them and their ambitions.

    I remember actually reading somewhere that Russia was the primarily reason why China has that capability in the first place.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Mike E on Sun Nov 02, 2014 7:27 pm

    Viktor wrote:Russian Federation is testing something big in space ....  thumbsup  thumbsup

    I would go for the ASAT.

    Kosmos-2499: Is it a spy or an assassin... or both?
    I have no clue to be honest... Space-based ASAT systems have never really been attempted before, and one now would be quite the shocker (more so to the West).

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:01 pm

    Russia, more specifically USSR had asat capabilities. But where missiles attached to MiG-31's. What China did is nothing amazing as it was a shotgun effect from a large missile.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Viktor on Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:04 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    Viktor wrote:Russian Federation is testing something big in space ....  thumbsup  thumbsup

    I would go for the ASAT.

    Kosmos-2499: Is it a spy or an assassin... or both?
    I have no clue to be honest... Space-based ASAT systems have never really been attempted before, and one now would be quite the shocker (more so to the West).


    Take another guess Very Happy

    LINK

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Mike E on Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:36 pm

    Viktor wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    Viktor wrote:Russian Federation is testing something big in space ....  thumbsup  thumbsup

    I would go for the ASAT.

    Kosmos-2499: Is it a spy or an assassin... or both?
    I have no clue to be honest... Space-based ASAT systems have never really been attempted before, and one now would be quite the shocker (more so to the West).
    Take another guess  Very Happy

    LINK
    Completely forgot about that one...  Embarassed But it was never actually used in space, was it?

    Seph, that is like how the US used to do it before the SM-3 (via plane which launches an ASAT missile).

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3228
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 4:59 pm


    Major problem with the China way of intercepting satellites is that US have Thousands of them in Orbit.. So China will go bankrupt after the 20-30 rocket launched to intercept one satellite each. The real practical way to shut down enemy satellites in case of a major war.. is militarization of space.. to have battle stations in space with satellites armed with hundreds of mini missiles each that can intercept satellites.. the advantage in space for such system is the no gravity ,significantly help the design of any interceptor ,because they dont require powerful boosters to defeat stationary targets in orbit..Any cheap rocket grenade with fragmentation explosives will be enough to neutralize any satellite .

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5629
    Points : 6282
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Viktor on Thu Nov 06, 2014 6:17 pm

    Vann7 wrote:
    Major problem with the China way of intercepting satellites is that US have Thousands of them in Orbit.. So China will go bankrupt after the 20-30 rocket launched to intercept one satellite each. The real practical way to shut down enemy satellites in case of a major war.. is militarization of space.. to have battle stations in space with satellites armed with hundreds of mini missiles each that can intercept satellites.. the advantage in space for such system is the no gravity ,significantly help the design of any interceptor ,because they dont require powerful boosters to defeat stationary targets in orbit..Any cheap rocket grenade with fragmentation explosives will be enough to neutralize any satellite .


    US has about 250 satellites and thats it and there is no need to shoot down all of them to criple US abilities to wage war.

    Sponsored content

    Re: US and Russian Military Spacecrafts

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 1:09 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:09 pm