mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (11/20/88)
[ I am cross posting this to Sci.space, so any further discussion oughtta go there] In article <18263@ames.arc.nasa.gov> mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes: >In article <880@cernvax.UUCP> jon@cernvax.UUCP (jon) writes: > >[quote from The Guardian, a British rag] > >>He starts with a brief history of the Soviet space program. One thing I >>found curious was claim about the demise of the Soviet moon project. >> >> "The superbooster designed to put a Russian on the Moon first didn't >> work. A damage-limitation exercise was started. They didn't want to >> go to the Moon they said. What they intended to do along was to build >> space stations. Curiously the West believed them." >> >>This is the first time I have heard that the Russian ever had serious >>plans to land a man on the moon. Is it true? >> > >See if you can pick up a copy of Jim Oberg's book, "Red Star in Orbit". You >won't be able to put it down. > >Yes, according to him and other Soviet space watchers, the moon race >was every bit as real as we thought it was. The problem was that the >Soviets underestimated our ability to beat them, thinking that they had >at least until 1972. Apollo 8 changed all of that. > >There was an extraordinary article in Astronomy magazine a couple of years >ago by Peter Pasevento (sp? I'm working from memory, since that issue is >packed well away). > For those interested, I found the article. It is in the December 1984 issue of Astronomy, pages 6 to 22. What follows are some excerpts: "About December 2, 1968, A Zond spacecraft and Proton booster were erected on a pad at Tyuratam launch site in Soviet Kazakhstan, in preparation for a launch within a week. A cosmonaut was . . . placed in the Zond on December 9th. The countdown went off without a hitch, but the launch was cancelled. From information gleaned by Western experts, there seems to have been an electrical problem in the spacecraft". "The later space shots in the Luna series - Luna 16, which returned 3.5 ounces of lunar soil in September 1970, and Luna 17, which soft landed the first robot rover in November 1970 - probably used lander components for their descent stages. . . . Luna 15 (which crashed the day after Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon) is believed by some analysts to be a stripped down version of the actual Soviet lunar lander." "[CIA Informant Peter N. James] a Sovet Space technology specialist, had good friends among the Russian group that was attending the [symposium on space science, Venice, Italy, May 1969]. The group, . . . also included a few cosmonauts and KGB agents. At one evening reception James recalls a heated debate with KGB Col. Nikolai Beloussov: I told him 'All things considered, the USA is going to beat the USSR to putting men on the moon, and you Soviets can't do a thing about it'. Beloussov, who had been looking at the ceiling with a drink in his hand, fired back 'You may be surprised!' He then paused, considered what he had just said, and then walked away. "At Tyuratam, the much-rumored G-1 rocket and its smaller Proton counterpart were erected at their respective pad sites sometime in mid or late June. The payload for the Proton launcher was a manned Zond spacecraft; for the giant G-1 booster, it was an operational lander with an added fuel stage." "As June 1969 waned into July, three men from the cosmonaut corps were flown from the Gagarin Training Center. . .On the morning of July 4th, the men entered their Zond spacecraft." "A planned series of holds delayed the countdown until early afternoon, when the first launch signal was given. The G-1 booster roared to life and rose from the pad, but the rocket never cleared the launch tower. Some analysts believe that on-board sensors detected a fuel-flow problem. . .[while others] think that the second stage collapsed. In any case, the rocket fell back on the pad and blew up. Everything within a mile was either destroyed or heavily damaged in the fiery explosion. THe gantry observation towers, support equipment, and pieces of the launch pad itself flew in all directions, while some of the attending Soviet engineers perished." "The simultaneous countdown of the Proton booster/Zond spacecraft was halted and the cosmonauts left the capsule." Perhaps the most amazing thing about this story is the fact that the Soviets were trying to fly such a complex mission, with 2 of it's 3 major components, completely untested. The G-1 had never flown successfully, and the lander had never flown at all. It would have been almost as it the Apollo 7 mission attempted the landing itself, and tested the the Saturn 5 while they were at it. One also wonders what might have happened had the Soviets actually launched successfully. Would they then cover the misson live, to scoop the Amerikanskis, while risking public embarassment from a possible mission failure during the landing or lunar stay? Or would they wait until the cosmonauts were on their way home to announce their landing. One never knows, do one. . . -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "Some people say I'm arrogant. But I know better then them" - Mike Dukakis at the Al Smith Banquet [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) (11/23/88)
In article <18420@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) writes: > that the second stage collapsed. In any case, the rocket fell > back on the pad and blew up. Everything within a mile was either > destroyed or heavily damaged in the fiery explosion. THe gantry > observation towers, support equipment, and pieces of the launch pad > itself flew in all directions, while some of the attending > Soviet engineers perished." Well, this jibes perfectly with the rumored story that I alluded to in last week's respone to the original posting that started this thread. Big rocket, blew up, wrecked the launch complex and even killed some engineers/scientists. However, in that article I questioned whether you can really get a big explosion out of a failed rocket. A big messy fireball, yes, that would probably melt and destroy the gantry along with the crew. But "everything within a mile?" And the people in the blockhouse? Maybe if the two tanks of hypergolic fuels crunched together you could get a fairly explosive fire? Anyway, I have to agree with this latest posting, that this was a real act of desperation on the Soviets' part. It probably set their space program back several years -- if so, maybe Apollo was worth it politically, tho one can argue that Apollo set *ours* back even more. Myself, I'm just glad that we walked on the moon. -- Mike Knudsen Bell Labs(AT&T) att!ihlpl!knudsen "Lawyers are like nuclear bombs and PClones. Nobody likes them, but the other guy's got one, so I better get one too."
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/24/88)
In article <7827@ihlpl.ATT.COM> knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: >However, in that article I questioned whether you can really get a >big explosion out of a failed rocket. A big messy fireball, yes, >that would probably melt and destroy the gantry along with the >crew. But "everything within a mile?" And the people in the >blockhouse? Maybe if the two tanks of hypergolic fuels >crunched together you could get a fairly explosive fire? Hypergolic fuels actually are rather less dangerous, because they ignite on contact and hence tend to burn rather than explode. Liquid oxygen mixed with kerosene, or liquid hydrogen, is an explosive several times as powerful as TNT. Ever wonder why the viewing stands at KSC are three miles from the pads? It's because an exploding Saturn V could have thrown debris almost that far -- it would have been the equivalent of a small nuclear weapon. A kilogram of TNT is quite an explosion, and we're talking about *thousands of tons* of more-energetic fuels. -- Sendmail is a bug, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology not a feature. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/30/88)
In article <7827@ihlpl.ATT.COM>, knudsen@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Knudsen) writes: > > However, in that article I questioned whether you can really get a > big explosion out of a failed rocket. A big messy fireball, yes, > that would probably melt and destroy the gantry along with the > crew. But "everything within a mile?" And the people in the Have you ever heard about a fuel/air bomb? Small charge speads out an aerosol of some liquid fuel, then an igniter sets off the cloud. Extremely potent for a given weight of bomb. If the rocket first suffered a small explosion that ruptured its tanks, then the resulting fuel/oxidizer cloud gets ignited...it might have the described effect.
doug@primo.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) (12/01/88)
In article <79302@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >Have you ever heard about a fuel/air bomb? Small charge speads out >an aerosol of some liquid fuel, then an igniter sets off the cloud. >Extremely potent for a given weight of bomb. > >If the rocket first suffered a small explosion that ruptured its tanks, >then the resulting fuel/oxidizer cloud gets ignited...it might have >the described effect. I would think that the initial explosion would ignite the fuel before it's had a chance to spread out that fine. It does remind me of the experiment that the Air Force (I think) did where they deliberately crashed a plane to test a new jet fuel mixture. The mixture supposable wouldn't ignite as easily when a place crashed and the fuel was spread out in a fine spray. From the news footage, it didn't look as if it worked very well. doug myhre <doug@loihi.hig.hawaii.edu> Hawaii Institute of Geophysics 2525 Correa Rd. Honolulu, HI 96822
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (12/06/88)
In article <2735@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, doug@primo.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) writes: > In article <79302@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > >Have you ever heard about a fuel/air bomb? Small charge speads out > >an aerosol of some liquid fuel, then an igniter sets off the cloud. > >Extremely potent for a given weight of bomb. > > I would think that the initial explosion would ignite the fuel before > it's had a chance to spread out that fine. As long as the initiator produces more shock than heat, until enough air mixes with the fuel, there won't be an explosion. A lot like setting up conditions for a grain silo explosion. (Or disposing of weevil-infested flour in a burning incinerator. Don't ask.)
ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) (12/06/88)
In article <2735@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> doug@loihi.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) writes: >In article <79302@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >>Have you ever heard about a fuel/air bomb? Small charge speads out >>an aerosol of some liquid fuel, then an igniter sets off the cloud. >>Extremely potent for a given weight of bomb. >> >>If the rocket first suffered a small explosion that ruptured its tanks, >>then the resulting fuel/oxidizer cloud gets ignited...it might have >>the described effect. > >I would think that the initial explosion would ignite the fuel before >it's had a chance to spread out that fine. Take a 5 lb bag of flour (Bleached white or Whole Wheat...) Put it on top of a tuna fish can full of explosive. Place on floor of 12ft square shed. Light fuse and run away. The flour is dusbursed into the air, then the dust/air mix explodes violently. The fuel doesn't burn well until it is disbursed into the oxidizer, then it detonates.
boettche@gumby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Boettcher) (12/06/88)
>In article <2735@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, doug@primo.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) writes: >> In article <79302@sun.uucp>, fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >> >Have you ever heard about a fuel/air bomb? Small charge speads out >> >an aerosol of some liquid fuel, then an igniter sets off the cloud. >> >Extremely potent for a given weight of bomb. >> If I remember my military training correctly, this makes a good bomb for clearing mine fields as well as building demolision (small pressure increases add quickly inside an enclosed area) ******************************************************************************* Michael Boettcher boettche@gumby.cs.wisc.edu Student, Univ. of Wisconsin 107 N. Randall Apt. I Applied Math, Engr. and Physics Madison, WI 53715 *******************************************************************************
roberts@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Timothy Roberts) (12/24/88)
In article <286@internal.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes: >Take a 5 lb bag of flour (Bleached white or Whole Wheat...) Put it on >top of a tuna fish can full of explosive. Place on floor of 12ft square >shed. Light fuse and run away. The flour is dusbursed into the air, >then the dust/air mix explodes violently. The fuel doesn't burn well >until it is disbursed into the oxidizer, then it detonates. Try taking an Estes "D12" model rocket engine and four bags of Nifda non- dairy creamer to a remote site, preferably grass free. Run the engine/ igniter assembly nozzle first through the bottom of a 13 oz. coffee can. Level the can/engine "tube" pointing upward, add creamer, string out a lot of wire to your launcher switch and fire. Awe inspiring mushroom cloud to lighten up any party is produced with lovely caramel odor. I do not recomend you try this with strong winds or sane mind. Tat Tvam Asi (That Thou Art), Svetaketu! Tim (Rein und Raus) Roberts