| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 524.1 | I'd say it's a societal thing in general | EPIK::BUEHLER | So much noise. So little signal. | Sat Apr 08 1989 19:11 | 23 |
| Their electronics technology is supposed to be pretty far back.
However, in the area of materials processing and several other areas
(such as lasers), they're supposed to have the lead. I don't know what
the underlying theme is to what they're most advanced in (i.e. military
technology).
My car is an example of a moderately high-technology vehicle. It's a
Fiero, with space frame and plastic body panels, etc. But I can easily
torch it if I don't take care of it (Fiero's are infamous for having
engine fires if the engine oil level gets too low). It might just be
that the Soviets haven't figured out what the proper procedures are, or
perhaps they have problems with training their people in general.
Our successes haven't been purely as a result of technology. Safety
measures, appropriateness, etc, all take a big part in how effective a
product is. Just as 'hearing' isn't 'listening', 'building' isn't
'having'.
When they start letting the people at all levels apply themselves
without fear of recriminations or censures, then they'll stop having so
much trouble.
John
|
| 524.2 | | NSSG::SULLIVAN | Steven E. Sullivan | Sun Apr 09 1989 02:33 | 2 |
| Deja Vu? Remember the Thresher?
|
| 524.3 | Sub Accident | PARITY::BIRO | | Mon Apr 10 1989 09:15 | 27 |
|
================================================================================
TASS -< USSR Sub Accident -New Info >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was impressed, this is a new experimental model, with
liquid metal cold reactor.
The fire broke out at 11 hours 41 min(MSK) on the 7th of April but
despite taken measures the submarine sank at 17 hours 15 min at
a depth of more then 1500 meters. The nuclear reactor was shut
down before it sank and is of a double wall design so the possibility
of the destruction of its hull is rulled out. The crew was made
up of 69 men of which 27 of them were saved. The submarine had
onboard two nuclear warhead torpedoes. I am not sure what a
nuclear torpedoes is but I am assuming it is a cruise missle.
If all the above news from TASS is ture, then I am impressed with
their technoliby (not their QA). I see the Soviets using technoligy
where needed else anything will do.. both in the design of their
satellites (military) and in their subs, but as Nick Johnson said
in '1989 Soviet Year in Space' they are still about 8 years
behind...
john
|
| 524.4 | Hunt for Red October | VINO::DZIEDZIC | | Mon Apr 10 1989 09:52 | 10 |
| A really interesting novel called "Hunt for Red October" delves
deeply into Russian submarine technology. The novel is a work
of fiction, but the author spent so much time researching facts
he was debriefed by some government agency! The novel also
raises reasons why the Russians are more prone to such accidents
than the US.
Rather than try to (poorly) communicate the author's thoughts,
I'll just leave the pointer to the book, with a recommendation
that the book is well worth reading.
|
| 524.5 | re: torpedo question | CHRCHL::GERMAIN | Down to the Sea in Ships. | Mon Apr 10 1989 13:07 | 5 |
| A nuclear tipped torpedo is a torpedo with a nuclear warhead.
A very large boom.
Gregg
|
| 524.6 | Useful for things like aircraft carriers. | VEENA::thomas | The Code Warrior | Mon Apr 10 1989 21:02 | 1 |
| Makes you wonder what a near miss is... :-)
|
| 524.7 | | HPSRAD::DZEKEVICH | | Tue Apr 11 1989 16:54 | 3 |
| Yeah.....it kind-of makes surface battle groups obsolete during
a nuclear war....along with a lot of other things.
|
| 524.8 | When it rains, it pours, comrades | DOCO2::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Wed Apr 12 1989 10:38 | 6 |
| To get this back on track with Soviet space events, check out
the latest Notes in Topic 362 for possible problems with the MIR
space station.
Larry
|
| 524.9 | Oberg: "Uncovering Soviet Disasters" | DELNI::B_INGRAHAM | A Thousand Pints of Lite! | Thu Apr 13 1989 13:24 | 13 |
| I deleted the original .9 because I've got some updated information.
I had noted in the first .9 that James Oberg, author of "Red Star
in Orbit", has a book out titled "Uncovering Soviet Disasters -
Exploring the Limits of Glasnost". ISBN 0-394-56095-7. He talks
about Soviet disasters at land, sea, air, space, and even ice (problems
in the Antarctic). The book discusses many disasters as far as
the facts are known, but further delves into how the Soviets react
to their disasters, and how they cover them (or cover them up) in
the press.
Good reading, but a little depressing too.
|
| 524.10 | r16/p2/mir | PARITY::BIRO | | Tue Apr 18 1989 11:52 | 46 |
| -< R-16 accident report >-
The TASS news agency said the decision to discontinue attempts to
reach Phobos-2 was taken by a commission investigated why contact
was originally lost on the 27 th of March
Sunday's Ogonyok article blamed a 1960 launchpad explosion on the
race to catch up with the Americans. The Weekly Ogonyok said program
workers flouted safety rules in their haste to develop the first
Soviet ICBM the R-16. The 1960 accident incinerated the victims
o the launchpad, including the director of its rocket program.
Chief Artillery Marshal Mitrofan I. Nedelin, A world Ware II veteran
serving as the first commander of the newly created Soviet rocket
forces, was about 60 feet from the missile when it exploded, the
article said. The magazine said "a significant number" of people
died in the explosion and the fireball at the secret launch pad
at Tura-Tam near the Aral Sea. It said "particulate nothing was
left - only some metal change, keys etc" Then- Premirer Nikita
S. Khrushchev said in memoirs published in the West that dozens
of soldiers and workers perished. "A stream of fire burst out of
the rocket, inudating everything around it," the article said.
"People tried to escape by running to the covered area where cars
and other equipment was , but the road literally melted in front
of them, blocking their escape route," a survivor recalled, according
to Ogonyok. James Oberg has written that "a million pounds of
kerosenae and liquid oxygen flared up in a pyre witch much have
been visible for hundreds of miles" Oberg said they were preparing
to launch an unmanned probe of Mars. Ogonyok said the launch of
the r-16 had been scheduled for Oct 23 but was postponed because
of an electrical defect in the engine. It said the problem was
causing a fuel leak. Hatches were removed and welding work undertaken
on the fully fueled rocket, Ogonyokk said. It called the move "one
of the gravest violations of safety precautions". Late the next
day, the R-16's launch was schedule in 30 minutes, the magazine
said. But he workers were still installing the electrical
distributor, which somehow gave a command to ignite the rocket's
second stage, the magazine said. The flames from the igition burned
through the fuel tanks of the first stage, touching off the fire
and explosion. The magazine said it was now possible to report
the accident because of the greater openness permitted under
Gorbachev's glasnost campaign.
Tass said that the 1988 MIR and unmanned planetary probes cost about
2 billion dollars...
|
| 524.11 | | STAR::HUGHES | | Tue Apr 18 1989 13:21 | 12 |
| re .10
Thats a very confusing (or confused?) article. The Soviet's first ICBM
was the missile called SS-6 in the US (Sapwood by NATO) and apparently
called R.7 by the Soviets. Whatever, it was designed by the Korolyev
bureau, not Nedelin. I forget what Oberg's book (Red Star in Orbit) has
to say about the explosion, but I do recall something about a hastily
prepared planetary shot.
R-16 may refer to the 16th launch, which would make more sense.
gary
|
| 524.12 | Glastnost comes to the Soviet space program | DOCO2::KLAES | N = R*fgfpneflfifaL | Thu Apr 20 1989 09:11 | 113 |
| From: [email protected] (Cheerfully Anachronistic Turnip Venerator)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Empty Mir?
Date: 17 Apr 89 02:30:46 GMT
In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
(Jack Campin) writes:
>New Scientist (15/4/89, p.20) reports that an editorial in Pravda (the week
>before) seems to be supporting people within Glavkosmos who want to push the
>Soviet space programme towards concentration on remote-sensing satellites. So
>there may be something to this. Anyone got access to the Pravda piece and
>know how to read between the lines?
The article in question is on page 3 of Pravda, 8 Apr 89, written
by A. Pokrovskii (no affiliation given). The following is a summary
and paraphrase of some of the main points. Sorry for the sloppy stream-
of-consciousness style here, I'm too lazy to write this up more carefully.
The article is critical of the secretiveness of Soviet space
organizations. Just like in the bad old days, many state
organizations use a policy of secrecy not only to safeguard legitimate
state secrets, but also to cover up mistakes, bungling, and slackness.
The space program alas, fall into the same category.
Problems with computer programming are noted during the reentries
and landing of both the Soviet-Afghan and Soviet-French missions. So
the problem of Phobos-1 being lost due to its being sent an incorrect
command was not an exceptional case. No comment was forthcoming on
the part of the flight-control organizations in the face of previous
Pravda articles on these flights (15 sept, 22 dec).
Other examples of lack of openness on the part of Soviet space
organizations:
In a pre-launch interview Sergei Krikalev talked about a new
module for Mir, which would contain, among other equipment, spacesuits
for autonomous movement [MMUs?]. Now the flight is almost over, and
it's as if no one has ever heard of this new module. Maybe there are
technical difficulties, but if so the public ought to be informed.
Mentions that before the launch of the French-Soviet mission,
there was a press conference in Leninsk with French & Sov space
representatives. The sign on the building where it was held was
changed from "Officer's Garrison" to "House of Culture". Why? Who
were we trying to fool? Ourselves?
This secretiveness will not go unpunished. Recently, with regret,
but understanding he was coming from, read words of playwright Viktor
Rozov, sharply critical of "billions of rubles" spent on the Phobos
probes. And he's not the only one. Some candidates for the house of
people's deputies included a point in their election campaigns about
cutting space exploration expenses. Well-known author Chingiz
Aitmanov, already elected a deputy, says we must think over these
"astronomical expenditures". [I really hate how people want to throw
in the towel every time a space accident occurs; if we kept up that
attitude in the 1950s and 1960s, we'd still be on the ground! - LK]
What a contrast to the sincere outbursts of enthusiasm and pride
after Gagarin's flight. What's happening to our space program?
It's broken up into many different bureaucratic organizations and
administrations, each pulling for its own interests. Hard to get
straight answers as a result, hard to pin down responsibility, hard to
find out where the money is being spent, or even how much.
Still remember how "Interkosmos" president B. Petrov hemmed and
hawed uncomfortably at a 1975 press conference when asked by American
journalists how much the Soviet Union had spent on the Apollo-Soyuz
mission. Not much has changed over 13 years, judging by the
performance of O. Shishkin at a press conference about Energiya.
Not enough benefits trickling down into the Soviet economy.
Particularly, remote-sensing photos and other data not benefiting
forest, farming, fisheries management...a lot of data just sitting
in archives, monopolized by "Priroda" organization.
Soviet space program should place an emphasis on international
cooperation in "global ecological monitoring", as recommended at the
UN. None of the current Soviet space organizations is capable of doing
this on its own; they must be united under competent leadership.
Very sharp criticism of Buran. Much was said and written about
it, but after the unmanned test flight it got stuck in the hangars at
Baikonur. Is it not to be considered a reliable component of the same
tried-and-true system of orbital stations and expendable rockets? Are
there technical problems with it? As before, we can only guess, no
information is leaking out to us from those hangars. But even so it
is clear that billions of rubles so much needed by the economy are
sitting idle for a long time.
After problems with Phobos-2, deeper analysis of the situation and
examination of problems organized by 12 specialized groups of
engineers and scholars. Here we go again with committees and
subcommittees. Convenient to spread the blame around. No clear vision
of future development of soviet space program, of how to apply its
results to benefit the economy. And, apparently, it makes sense to
the deputies of the future Supreme Soviet to include this problems in
their sphere of interests.
Remember, the above is just a (very) loose paraphrase. None of
the phrasing above should be even remotely construed as a quote.
Reading it over, the original article is not nowhere near as blunt or
direct as the above summary makes it out to be.
The article does not appear to be an editorial, just an ordinary
article. What hidden agenda, if any, the author may have is not
clear. Note, just because it was published in Pravda doesn't mean
(especially these days) that it's "official" policy. The Soviets are
passionate readers and love to carry on debates in the pages of
periodicals; it's likely that a reply politely begging to differ will
soon be published in the pages of this same (or some other) publication.
|
| 524.13 | What about the US technology?... | TUNER::FLIS | Let's put this technology to work... | Thu Apr 20 1989 13:27 | 9 |
| re: .0
I am sure that the Soviets (no doubt in PravdaNotes) are asking
the same questions about the US considering the Shuttle disaster,
oil spill in Alaska, Canon explosion killing 47 on that battle ship,
etc, etc, etc.
jim
|
| 524.14 | PLETENSK DISASTERS | HYDRA::BIRO | | Mon Oct 02 1989 08:45 | 66 |
| 09/27 1809 SOVIETS DISCLOSE DEADLY PAST LAUNCH DISASTERS ...
PLETENSK COSMODROME, U.S.S.R. (SEPT. 27) UPI - The Soviet Union,
opening a secret spaceport to foreign journalists for the first
time, launched a communications satellite Wednesday and revealed
a major space disaster nine years ago that killed 50 space
workers. The accident, possibly the worst space disaster ever
in terms of lives lost, came to light when Western journalists
were taken to a memorial for the fallen technicians in the main
square of Mirny, the bedroom community of this space center 500
miles north of Moscow. Anatoli Lapshin, a spokemsan for the
space center, said on March 18, 1980, a Soyuz rocket was being
filled with kerosene and liquid oxygen fuel when an explosion
tore through the launch pad, killing 45 space workers
immediately. Another five people died later from burns.
Earlier, a similar fueling explosion, also revealed for the first
time Wesnesday, left nine space workers dead on June 26, 1973.
Their bodies also rest in the monument under red granite slabs
marked by pictures of the dead. The monument, topped by a space
rocket carved in granite, overlooks Lake Plesetskaya, which is
framed by a forest of birches and firs. Lt. Gen. Ivan Oleinik,
commander of the spaceport, would not say whether the 1980
disaster surpassed the 1960 explosion of a giant rocket at the
Baikonur Cosmodrome that killed dozens of workers, the only
figure officially released, including Gen. Mitrosan Nedelin, a
major figure in the Soviet space program. "Those were complete
disasters," Oleinik said. "You know when the first automobile was
tested there were also accidents. Also when the first plane was
tested there were accidents. When man tries to master something
new it is inevitable there will be accidents on the road to
mastering a new technique. "It is improper to compare death
tolls. A tragedy is a tragedy. It is unpleasant for any country,
for any branch of industry testing something new for the first
time." Set among the peat bogs, wild birches and lakes in
ancient northern Russia Pletensk is the busiest spaceport in the
world having sent more than 1,150 communications and weather
satellites into orbits around Earth's poles. Satellites launched
from Baikonur are fired into equatorial orbits. But until
Wednesday, no Western journalists had visited this secret
launching center inaugurated in 1957, the year Sputnik soared
aloft from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the south to begin the
space age. Oleinik attributed the decision to open this
cosmodrome to heavy criticism from the new Soviet parliament of
space spending, the need to make the space program pay its own
way and glasnost. "It is now the time of glasnost," he said in
clipped phrases. "It is necessary to make known what has
happened, and now everybody is interested in how space is being
mastered and what scientific results are being obtained.
Therefore the decision was taken to display our exemplary work."
Moments later, at 5:38 p.m., in the first part of a double-header
launch, a rust-colored, four-stage Soyuz rocket roared aloft
carrying a Molniya satellite that will be used to relay
television programs to remote parts of the Soviet Union. At 3
a.m. Thursday a unique two-satellite payload was to be launched,
a mother satellite and a smaller spacecraft that will study
Earth's ionosphere. The liquid-fueled Soyuz rocket, workhorse
of the Soviet rocket fleet, took 530 seconds, about 9 minutes, to
drop the television satellite into an elliptical orbit with a low
point of 2,485 miles and a high point of 24,233 miles. In such
an orbit, the satellite will slowly pass over the Soviet Union to
relay television broadcasts across the nation, answering critics
who charge the Soviet space program has brought few benefits to
ordinary people.
Regards all,
|
| 524.15 | Soviet space disaster films shown on BBC | VERGA::KLAES | Quo vadimus? | Fri Aug 06 1993 18:11 | 80 |
| Article: 68761
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: [email protected] (Luke Plaizier)
Subject: Recent Soviet Footage shown on BBC (And in Australia)
Organization: Craggenmoore public Unix system , Newcastle , Oz
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 21:56:38 GMT
SORRY about the following email header, but I thought to
include it since I am just forwarding this message.
From mag Wed Aug 4 18:40:53 1993 remote from jb.man.ac.uk
Received: by scorch.apana.org.au (smail2.5)
id AA09091; 4 Aug 93 18:40:53 est (Wed)
Received: from nessie.mcc.ac.uk by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V4.2-11
#4399) id <[email protected]>; Tue,
3 Aug 1993 20:35:07 +1000
Received: from jb.man.ac.uk by mailhost.mcc.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id
<[email protected]>; Tue, 3 Aug 1993 11:34:48 +0100
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1993 11:26:37 +0100 (BST)
From: "Mike Garrett (VLBI friend)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Soviet film
To: [email protected]
Message-Id: <Pine.3.04.9308031137.A6950-c100000@jbss4>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Status: RO
Hi,
I can read but not post to USENET. Here's some info on the film you
referred to.
A few days ago the BBC breakfast news showed archive footage of Soviet
Space disasters. The film was obtained from the magazine "Flight
International". I don't know how they got their hands on it.
The clips showed:
1) A very clean escape system abort of a Soyuz capsule (1974/75?).
The film showed the carrier rocket igniting but no lift off!
Seconds later as flames licked up the side of the rocket
the escape system fired lifting off the soyuz spacecraft.
It was very impressive.
2) Film of medics trying to resucitate the Soyuz 11 cosmonauts.
The capsule is nearby and looks in good condition i.e. the
automatic re-entry obviously worked OK.
3) Film of the Soyuz 1 capsule after crash landing. Not much of it
(or Komarov) left I'm afraid. The upper ring hatch is clearly visible
however.
4) Film of a rocket explosion on the pad. This was the famous incident in
which a team of engineers were ordered to inspect a fully fueled
rocket whose engines had failed to ignite. The rocket exploded with
many people on the pad and nearby. You could clearly see people on
fire and several fire-fighting teams. There were also shots of
armoured vehicles. The scene was reminiscent of the Zeppilin disasters
early in this century.
Hope this is of some use. Post it if you like.
cheers, Mike.
_______________________________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Garrett | [email protected] (Internet)
University of Manchester | +44 (0)477-71321 x245 (Phone)
Nuffield Radio Astronomy Laboratories | +44 (0)477-71618 (FAX)
Jodrell Bank | 36149 JODREL G (Telex)
Macclesfield |
Cheshire SK11 9DL |
U.K. |
_______________________________________________________________________________
Gravitational Lenses provide a theorists heaven & an observers hell.
--- P.J.E. Peebles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|