News from Vostochny spaceport

[ivan.akapulko]

Folks,
As you may know, I'm really a fan of spaceflight, and all associated with it. And just recently, a significant event occurred that I want to share.



21 March 2016 at the Vostochny space launch centre started an integrated test of the launch complex. Launch vehicle "Soyuz-2.1 a" was moved from the technical to the launch site and installed into the starting system.

On the first day were also held hitting MBT (mobile service tower), Assembly diagrams of the test systems of the launch complex and launch vehicle electrical test systems booster and the block of removal "Volga". All systems functioned nominally.

— Take out the rocket on the launch pad installed in the fire ring, give her gas, check the way she moves, comes to life. This will check all involved components of the spaceport. After that, the rocket will once again return to the Assembly and testing complex and will start preparing immediately for the launch.

How did building the rocket and preparing to export









General Director of state Corporation "Roscosmos" Igor Komarov: "Today is a very important moment for us. Began integrated testing of the launch complex, "dry removal" of a space rocket "Soyuz-2". The first day passed normally. Employees of all enterprises worked perfectly. Congratulations!"
22 March 2016 will continue Autonomous tests of systems of the launch vehicle will be carried out comprehensive testing, the mobile service tower will be set aside from the start of the table.

Are the test systems of the carrier rocket, and while all telemetric information will be taken East command-measuring point of the spaceport.




There will also be checks on the electromagnetic compatibility of on-Board systems of the carrier rocket and the launch complex systems, garbage tests on the umbilical mast, the upper cable-mast — for mining operations at the start of the carrier rocket.
March 23, 2016 on the East will be the testing of refueling systems of the launch complex with simulated refueling tanks booster with propellant components. The fourth starting day, March 24, employees of the enterprises of rocket-space industry of Russia and fighting crew will be practicing the mode of technological pre-launch processing and operations of launch cancellation.

In case of positive results of training on 25 March, the booster will be removed from the starting system and returned to the Assembly-test case for further work, including the Assembly of space head part with the spacecraft "Lomonosov" and "Aist-2D" and "Contact-nanosatellite".





And few photo and video (no eng sub, unfortunately) as a bonus:

[LePaul]

Like you, I am a big fan of the space programs too.

My classmate growing up when to work for a company that makes the navigation software for these long duration flights. He was part of the Stardust probe that flew in orbit behind a comet, opened its panels and captured fragments/dust in the aerogel compartments. The vehicle then flew back into Earth orbit and ejected the capsule safely for the materials to be examined. I see him every few years and he's always asking about my R2 builds. And my response is, forget my stuff, how do you compute such complicated trajectories, gravity, orbits, etc. !!

I am also amazed at the progress SpaceX has made. Such as the ability to recover their boosters and land them, instead of plunging into the ocean and be written off. So far they have landed one!



It's really a shame Obama has done so much harm to our space program here. We are all looking forward to his departure and get someone whose serious about the job...and not just golfing

[ivan.akapulko]

From modern American projects, I really like a "Dream Chaser", the civil version of the old Soviet Lozino-Lozinsky's project "Spiral". It looks very promising. About SpaceX space program I'm not sure of their effectiveness. I can translate the article with an analysis of recent runs where it is rather thoroughly discussed the program SpaceX, if it's interesting.

[LePaul]

I'm surprised they haven't put the Buran in a museum, I see pictures of it sitting abandoned in a hangar

[ivan.akapulko]

What to say to that... the 90s will forever remain one of the most terrible periods in the history of the country . The roof of the hangar fell on flew Buran at Baikonur in 2002, the damage was huge. The second Buran in Gorky Park in Moscow, the third at site 2 in Baikonur, but have not public access now.

[LePaul]

We should chip in and buy one. We could sit in the cockpit and make rocket noises

[ivan.akapulko]

We should chip in and buy one. We could sit in the cockpit and make rocket noises

W00t! That would be cool.

[nilrog]

Living in a country where these things aren't possible to see close up...I remember the growing up and watching the Space Shuttles on TV in the 80's and onwards. Those were the days...

[Chip Luck]

Thanks for sharing, awesome. We have only just begun... As far as O'bummer, he has nothing to do with US space progarams, we shall prevail privately if we need to.

Keep the dream alive, no matter where you are.

[Dim3nsioneer]

Hmmm... agreed, Obama was not really good for crewed spaceflight but hey, Trump would maybe build a fence around Earth to prevent aliens from intruding and sending a bill to the aliens, wouldn't he?
I count on Space-X & Co.

[LePaul]

Ugh....Trump is a dolt...no polite way to say anything else. Maybe we can send him to the moon....he likes open real estate.

[ivan.akapulko]

It seems to me that at some point the speculative margin on projects in the field of space programmes have become so high that it doesn't really matter who wins the election. The problem is not the man in the presidential chair, but in the current system in terms of pricing. The same thing happens in the military-industrial complex. I remember when the US produced really stunning models of fighter planes and bombers. A-10 is very good, for example. But now the accountants have taken real power from designers and engineers, and because of this, we have a lame on both feet F-35. At least that is the impression I got looking at what is happening.

[Anders Olsson]

I would love to live near a space rocket facility like that!
Not going to happen when living in Sweden though, there is simply way to few people in this country to fund such projects.

I find it interesting how the different approaches of the US and the Russian space programs sometimes are beneficial and sometimes not.
Like the development of more efficient rocket engines, where the Soviet Union ended up decades ahead of the US because they kept trying techniques so extreme that the Americans discarded them already on the drawing board.
There is an interesting documentary about those engines here:

The SpaceX-program is an interesting development too. I am still not sure about the cost savings in practice, considering the low success rate so far. But just the fact that someone actually attempts to land a rocket that way and succeeds is amazing!

[LePaul]

It seems to me that at some point the speculative margin on projects in the field of space programmes have become so high that it doesn't really matter who wins the election. The problem is not the man in the presidential chair, but in the current system in terms of pricing. The same thing happens in the military-industrial complex. I remember when the US produced really stunning models of fighter planes and bombers. A-10 is very good, for example. But now the accountants have taken real power from designers and engineers, and because of this, we have a lame on both feet F-35. At least that is the impression I got looking at what is happening.

Your comment on something that i have argued (even when in the military) about...the notion an F-16...or F-35....can do the job of an A-10 is crazy. Look at some of the A-10's that made it back to base (Persian Gulf War 1991) after taking anti aircraft fire and Surface to Air missile hits. The pilot sits in an armored cockpit and the controls are manual, triple redundant. A $40 million F-16 would be lost, a $100 million F-35 even bigger loss. Different planes for different missions. The A-10 can stay in the area longer (loiter time) while the other two fighters could not. The F-16 is a workhorse, but for down and dirty air to ground support, the A-10 is still a winner.

[ivan.akapulko]

Totally agree about A-10 and F-16.
The comment was not directly about a specific aircraft model, but the approach to development. During the A-10 it was subordinated to efficiency on the battlefield, while the F-35 was a victim of marketing and the desire to inflate the budget, imo.
Trouble the F-35 that the military wanted to get a universal aircraft for all types of missions and for all military branches. Vertical takeoff is so weighted version of the F-35 STOVL that the probability of survival in aerial combat tends to zero. A similar version was tested in 1974, the Yak-38, but due to the complexity of design and the largest in the history of the air force the number of accidents the idea was abandoned in 1989. Minimal range, poor agility, complexity and high cost of maintenance. Both aircraft (Yak-38 and F-35) undergo the same difficult path.