Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Nice ! Great sound with the delay. I wonder why range safety didn't destroy it sooner...maybe it was too much fun to watch.

The Proton has no self destruct due to the nature of its fuel, apparently. Just asking for a bigger boom. It's actually safer to let it ground burst. That one was at least equal to a small nuke. The US last used this type of fuel...granted a weaker version called Aerozine 50...on the old Titans. This one looks like it was brought down by a guidance issue that induced an incorrect roll and pitch maneuver. Lately the Proton has had issues...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Proton has no self destruct due to the nature of its fuel, apparently. Just asking for a bigger boom. It's actually safer to let it ground burst.

OK....but what if it had failed further into the flight...run for your life ? Maybe "range safety" is just for "girly men", ya ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK....but what if it had failed further into the flight...run for your life ? Maybe "range safety" is just for "girly men", ya ?

The launch azimuth for the vast majority of Russian launches...especially from Baikonur-Tyuratam are all over open wilderness. At regular intervals, the various crash sites for spent stages that do not reach orbital velocity (depending on rocket type) litter the landscape. The areas where the Proton parts drop are particularly toxic. Plus...it's a HUGE hunk of metal that first stage...indeed...run for your life...lol. Russian range safety is much more relaxed than the American's. But they're not launching from the middle of Florida...

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a good vid of a Proton being rolled-out. Note that the 6 nozzles aren't strap-on boosters. All part of the massive 1st stage. It gets fueled on the pad and unlike the Chinese Long March, the hypergolic fuels can be drained in an emergency. Handy...especially if there are major launch delays...since the oxidizer component is very corrosive and can render the rocket junk if allowed to sit too long. NASA (et al) has managed to lessen this problem by adding a small amount of nitric oxide to the mix which is much easier on titanium while lowering the freezing point of the solution. However, NASA only uses hypergolic fuels for attitude control systems these days as far as I recall.

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting....I wonder if all the goat herders know this ! :D

Yes...there is some concern as there have been over 300 Proton launches not to mention untold R-7 (Soyuz et al) launches. One of the craziest Soyuz rides had to be Soyuz 18a which failed to reach orbit and did a 21g reentry...landed on a mountainside in what the crew thought was Red China...rolled downhill towards a cliff before being stopped by the parachute getting fouled. Outside it was subzero with chest deep snow...but, luckily, not in China...they had to wait some hours for rescue. But, they didn't have to fight-off bears and wolves like Voskhod 2's crew had to. :D

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...