Air Travel

Question:

HA!  it’s better than that – the shuttle program is STILL the largest user of 8 inch disks (the thngs that went  er… obsolete some 8 years ago – their programs are not writen in a "convenient" language)  What at the time was "state of the art" soon becomes obsolete.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > >AND that the Russians are investigating a possible human error in data > entry > > >(that made the re-entry so steep) > > Also apparently this Soyuz was the first to be fitted with a more modern > > flight computer intended to save space and weight. > You mean they finally got rid of the vacuum tubes!? > Don’t gloat Greg – I believe one of the upgrades to the space shuttle was > to replace the 386 – based computers > Scotty > — > Academic Services, CCS (519) 824-4120 x2556 > University of Guelph > "If it’s not Scottish it’s CRRRRAAAAAAAPPPPPP!"

Response:

>I read on one of the audio groups that Russia is about the only place that >vacuum tubes are still made.  US and Japanese high – end audio equipment >manufacturers are among their best customers…these tubes are virtually >hand – crafted and are of superb quality (and *very* expensive).

Various friends and relatives who are audio designers and/or musicians have varying opinions and quite intense discussions about all this. Some of them argue that modern amplifiers which can emulate a "valve sound" using DSP are cheaper, more reliable, and sound just as good as your old fashioned valve amp. Others say that that these new amps just don’t sound right. Nothing sounds like an original valve amp just a bit overloaded so that the output is clipped. At least one of them won’t use Russian valves because (he claims) the quality is just too good, and makes his amp sound wrong! — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

[snip] Thanks for the info – where did you obtain this from? — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

> James Robinson writes > [snip] > Thanks for the info – where did you obtain this from?

Various news articles.  Here’s an example of one, somewhat over-dramatized: http://www.msnbc.com/news/909677.asp

Response:

> > >AND that the Russians are investigating a possible human error in data > entry > >(that made the re-entry so steep) > Also apparently this Soyuz was the first to be fitted with a more modern > flight computer intended to save space and weight. > You mean they finally got rid of the vacuum tubes!?

Don’t gloat Greg – I believe one of the upgrades to the space shuttle was to replace the 386 – based computers Scotty — Academic Services, CCS                          (519) 824-4120 x2556 University of Guelph                     "If it’s not Scottish it’s CRRRRAAAAAAAPPPPPP!"

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > >AND that the Russians are investigating a possible human error in data > entry > > >(that made the re-entry so steep) > > Also apparently this Soyuz was the first to be fitted with a more modern > > flight computer intended to save space and weight. > You mean they finally got rid of the vacuum tubes!? > Don’t gloat Greg – I believe one of the upgrades to the space shuttle was > to replace the 386 – based computers

Wow, I didn’t know the Space Shuttles even had 386’s yet.  ISTR reading somewhere that their on – board computers were still state of the art c.1979…. I read on one of the audio groups that Russia is about the only place that vacuum tubes are still made.  US and Japanese high – end audio equipment manufacturers are among their best customers…these tubes are virtually hand – crafted and are of superb quality (and *very* expensive). — Best Greg

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> At http://www.russianspaceweb.com >> there’s a mention of "the new weight-saving computerized flight-control >> system" and "The Soyuz TMA-1 carried a number of upgrades, including a >> new version of the onboard computer, which were tested in flight for the >> first time." >So, since it was way off course, did the Russians determine this to be a >   success or failure of the new flight-control system? > Since the Soyuz followed a ballistic trajectory, it could be that the > new system was not used at all. If we want to speculate, it’s possible > that it failed completely, or that Nikolai Budarin had no experience > with it and decided not to use it.

According to the news reports, the self-diagnostics in the new system decided that the control system could no longer determine the spacecraft orientation, i.e.which way was up.  Knowing the orientation is necessary to properly control the craft, as the intent is to skim into the denser air in the atmosphere in a way that extends the amount of time aloft, and reduces the deceleration experienced by the occupants.  Without knowing the orientation, the control system wouldn’t know what part of the craft to point toward the atmosphere, so the control system reverted to a backup program.   The backup program contains a simpler routine that causes the spacecraft to go into a constant slow rotation, and adopt a ballistic path. With this control program, the craft enters the atmosphere more quickly, and the occupants of the craft experience about double the reentry deceleration.  Since the craft is slowing more quickly, it will fall short of its intended touchdown point. The control is still automatic, so the pilots do not manually fly the craft, and allow the computer to control everything. The preliminary view is that there had been a software error in the new program, although there had been a suggestion that one of the astronauts might have accidentally pressed a button that forced the control system into the backup mode.

Response:

>>You mean they finally got rid of the vacuum tubes!? > At http://www.russianspaceweb.com > there’s a mention of "the new weight-saving computerized flight-control > system" and "The Soyuz TMA-1 carried a number of upgrades, including a > new version of the onboard computer, which were tested in flight for the > first time."

So, since it was way off course, did the Russians determine this to be a    success or failure of the new flight-control system?

Response:

any landing you can walk away from…

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>You mean they finally got rid of the vacuum tubes!? > At http://www.russianspaceweb.com > there’s a mention of "the new weight-saving computerized flight-control > system" and "The Soyuz TMA-1 carried a number of upgrades, including a > new version of the onboard computer, which were tested in flight for the > first time." > So, since it was way off course, did the Russians determine this to be a >    success or failure of the new flight-control system?

Response:

>> At http://www.russianspaceweb.com > there’s a mention of "the new weight-saving computerized flight-control > system" and "The Soyuz TMA-1 carried a number of upgrades, including a > new version of the onboard computer, which were tested in flight for the > first time." >So, since it was way off course, did the Russians determine this to be a >   success or failure of the new flight-control system?

Since the Soyuz followed a ballistic trajectory, it could be that the new system was not used at all. If we want to speculate, it’s possible that it failed completely, or that Nikolai Budarin had no experience with it and decided not to use it. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Thanks, Russia, for getting our guy and your two guys safely down from >the Space Station. > U.S. astronauts Kenneth Bowersox and Donald Pettit and Russian cosmonaut > Nikolai Budarin. >(And, sorry if anyone thinks this is OT.  It ought to be said somewhere >– and at least the last 40 minutes or so of the descent were in fact >"air travel".) > The "air travel" part of the descent seems to have been quite > entertaining: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2999059.stm > — > Simon Elliott > http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

I’m waiting to see the interviews – how harrowing was that trip??   And then to be trapped in the capsule for 90 minutes without radio contact ?  Geez! Chris

Response:

>I’m waiting to see the interviews – how harrowing was that trip??   And then >to be trapped in the capsule for 90 minutes without radio contact ?  Geez!

For those who haven’t followed the link, Mr. Bowersox is reported as saying: "It’s a lot scarier than landing on an aircraft carrier. It was great. Everything worked. Soyuz is very reliable." I’ve only seen the interior of a Soyuz capsule once. It would be very cramped with three passengers. The Soyuz was full of clunky levers and switches, real mechanical dials, boxes filled with valves. But it’s an interesting piece of 1960’s Soviet-era engineering: rock solid with nothing complex to go wrong.   In contrast, the Apollo interior seemed quite spacious with well laid out panels and compact electronics. Due to the geography of the FSU, Soyuz is designed to land on solid ground rather than the sea. This probably looks more dangerous than it really is. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

I guess if you call 11g re-entry and 250 miles off course OK…

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Thanks, Russia, for getting our guy and your two guys safely down from > the Space Station. > (Now if we can just our politicans and NASA to get out of our > unbelievable dysfunctional Shuttle program.) > (And, sorry if anyone thinks this is OT.  It ought to be said somewhere > — and at least the last 40 minutes or so of the descent were in fact > "air travel".) > — > "Power tends to corrupt.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely." > Lord Acton (1834-1902) > "Dependence on advertising tends to corrupt.  Total dependence on > advertising  corrupts totally." (today’s equivalent)

Response:

>I guess if you call 11g re-entry and 250 miles off course OK…

The reports I’ve seen say it was 9g, and the normal level would be 7g. Russian mission control officials said that the acceleration remained well within acceptable limits even for untrained personnel. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

AND that the Russians are investigating a possible human error in data entry (that made the re-entry so steep)  News reports had it 10.5 to 11 max. sustained was 9 (a couple of minutes or so)according to that same report

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I guess if you call 11g re-entry and 250 miles off course OK… > The reports I’ve seen say it was 9g, and the normal level would be 7g. > Russian mission control officials said that the acceleration remained > well within acceptable limits even for untrained personnel. > — > Simon Elliott > http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

>AND that the Russians are investigating a possible human error in data entry >(that made the re-entry so steep)  

Also apparently this Soyuz was the first to be fitted with a more modern flight computer intended to save space and weight.   >News reports had it 10.5 to 11 max. >sustained was 9 (a couple of minutes or so)according to that same report

9G for two minutes wouldn’t be much fun after five months of zero G! — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

> >AND that the Russians are investigating a possible human error in data entry >(that made the re-entry so steep) > Also apparently this Soyuz was the first to be fitted with a more modern > flight computer intended to save space and weight.

You mean they finally got rid of the vacuum tubes!? — Best Greg

Response:

>You mean they finally got rid of the vacuum tubes!?

At http://www.russianspaceweb.com there’s a mention of "the new weight-saving computerized flight-control system" and "The Soyuz TMA-1 carried a number of upgrades, including a new version of the onboard computer, which were tested in flight for the first time." I don’t know for sure whether these new systems have moved away from valves. — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response:

Thanks, Russia, for getting our guy and your two guys safely down from the Space Station. (Now if we can just our politicans and NASA to get out of our unbelievable dysfunctional Shuttle program.) (And, sorry if anyone thinks this is OT.  It ought to be said somewhere — and at least the last 40 minutes or so of the descent were in fact "air travel".) — "Power tends to corrupt.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely."   Lord Acton (1834-1902) "Dependence on advertising tends to corrupt.  Total dependence on advertising  corrupts totally." (today’s equivalent)  

Response:

>Thanks, Russia, for getting our guy and your two guys safely down from >the Space Station.

U.S. astronauts Kenneth Bowersox and Donald Pettit and Russian cosmonaut Nikolai Budarin. >(And, sorry if anyone thinks this is OT.  It ought to be said somewhere >– and at least the last 40 minutes or so of the descent were in fact >"air travel".)

The "air travel" part of the descent seems to have been quite entertaining: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2999059.stm — Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

Response: