One very strange graphic
Pat Flannery
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/3145968661_9ff9fbbd8f_b.jpg
Pat
Steve Vernon
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:Y9idnZZm8vXTBH7U...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
> How many things can you find wrong in this picture?:
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/3145968661_9ff9fbbd8f_b.jpg
>
> Pat
I don't know much about much, but I know...
1. the crew of a Soyuz rides in the back (the descent module)
2.the Vostok booster and the Soyuz booster are not drawn to the same scale.
Steve Vernon
Alfred S. Dert
> How many things can you find wrong in this picture?:
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/3145968661_9ff9fbbd8f_b.jpg
1) The "hypothetical 3-man Vostok" wasn't hypothetical.
It was called "Voskhod" and was the same size as the
Vostok spacecraft.
2) The Soyuz 19 was crewed with two cosmonauts only
3) Soyuz cosmonauts should sit in the descent module,
not in the orbital module
(maybe no mistake, but poor drawing?)
4) The thrust of the Soyuz rocket wasn't 223500 kN,
but 223500 lbs = 994 kN
5) The thrust of the Saturn V wasn't 34.000.000 MN,
but "only" 34 MN
6) ASTP wasn't launched by Saturn V, but by Saturn-IB
(maybe no fault, just ASTP and Saturn V given as
unrelated examples?)
7) The Soyuz descent module isn't spherical
and does no ballistic re-entry
(only in case of malfunction)
Anything else?
mh...@ohiohills.com
> How many things can you find wrong in this picture?:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/3145968661_9ff9fbbd8f_b.jpg
Where did this come from? Someone out there did a lot of work to
create this sort of graphic.
Mike
Alfred S. Dert
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:46:53 +0200, "Alfred S. Dert"
> <asd...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>> Anything else?
>
> ...There was no "hypothetical 3-man Mercury"
>
> OM
Anybody can think of a 3-man Mercury,
and if Andrew Liebchen did,
there was a hypothetical 3-man Mercury.
Chris Jones
> Pat Flannery schrieb:
>> How many things can you find wrong in this picture?:
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/3145968661_9ff9fbbd8f_b.jpg
>
> 1) The "hypothetical 3-man Vostok" wasn't hypothetical.
> It was called "Voskhod" and was the same size as the
> Vostok spacecraft.
And the Vostok spacecraft was quite a bit larger than Mercury, not that
you would get that idea from the drawing.
Another nit is that Mercury wasn't supposed to reenter with the
retropack still attached, as the drawing shows it doing. It *did* do it
once (John Glenn on Friendship 7), but that was a special case (trying
to hold the feared loose heat shield in place, a fear brought on by a
faulty sensor).
> 2) The Soyuz 19 was crewed with two cosmonauts only
>
> 3) Soyuz cosmonauts should sit in the descent module,
> not in the orbital module
> (maybe no mistake, but poor drawing?)
I'm pretty sure 3 can fit in the orbital module, but not in that
configuration (they'd be probably oriented with their heads toward the
front, sitting around a table). Their were 3 people on Soyuz 19 at
times during their docked operations with the Apollo half of the ASTP.
Also, the Soyuz 19 had a different docking system than shown (a 4
petaled "androgynous" system rather than the probe shown). Many Soyuz
*have* flown with this docking system, however.
David Spain
OK, I'll fess up! Neither I nor my memory had *anything* to do with this one!
:-)
Dave
Pat Flannery
Steve Vernon wrote:
>> How many things can you find wrong in this picture?:
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/3145968661_9ff9fbbd8f_b.jpg
>>
>> Pat
>>
>
> I don't know much about much, but I know...
>
> 1. the crew of a Soyuz rides in the back (the descent module)
>
> 2.the Vostok booster and the Soyuz booster are not drawn to the same scale.
>
Oh, that's just the beginning...the Vostok sphere is drawn too small,
the "hypothetical" three crew Vostok actually existed as Voskhod 1 and
had exactly the same diameter of reentry sphere as the standard Vostok
(around eight feet) via turning the crew chairs around ninety degrees
and sticking the three cosmonauts in there as tight as if they were
packed into a sardine can with no ejection seats like on the Vostok, the
reason the Soyuz was a two-module spacecraft was to reduce the diameter
and weight of the heatshield by letting the cosmonauts spend most of
their time in the disposable orbital module rather than the descent
module, and the "three-man Mercury" capsule was a non-starter, although
"Big Mercury" became the two-man Gemini spacecraft, and the aerodynamics
of Mercury/Gemini and Apollo were unrelated.
But other than that... :-)
The horrible thing about all this is that this comes from this website:
http://5dollarglasses.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html
Where he basicly states that he's going to use this as his graduate
thesis from college.
So what do we do now?
If, on the one hand, we just ignore it, he might end up going right down
the tubes if they figure out his argument is fucked.
If, on the other hand, we point out his errors to him in regard to this
so he can fix it up, there is a real possibility that we might be in
violation of The Prime Directive and giving him outside help that his
fellow graduate students don't have.
But I know what James T. Kirk would do.
That's why I'm going to get in touch with him in the next couple of
days, and tell him to revise things a bit, and also blow up that
computer that's enslaving his life, like Vaal did.
As the Buddhists say: "By choosing not to act, you have already acted."
...and as James T.Kirk would say: "We ...the....PEOPLE...
of....the...UNITED STATES..." :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Alfred S. Dert wrote:
>
>
> Anything else?
The Mercury going into orbit on the Redstone?
Or heading back into the atmosphere with the retro-pack still attached?
(with apologies to John Glenn).
Or the fact that you want the ablative heatshield thickest in the
center, not at the edges?
In fact, it would be hard to come up with something more subtly
screwed-up than this illustration, both in details and the overall
concept it's trying to argue for.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Here: http://5dollarglasses.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html
Yeah, it ranks right up there with those Powerpoint presentations of why
the Columbia was going to be just fine on reentry.
The greater the graphics, the greater the truth. :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Alfred S. Dert wrote:
>
> Anybody can think of a 3-man Mercury,
> and if Andrew Liebchen did,
> there was a hypothetical 3-man Mercury.
And of course "Big Gemini" which had more astronauts aboard than you
could shake a stick at: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bigemini.htm
...if that's your idea of a good time.
Say the magic woid, and the NASA Blue Goose Shuttle will descend. :-)
Groucho
Pat Flannery
Chris Jones wrote:
> I'm pretty sure 3 can fit in the orbital module, but not in that
> configuration
>
They had damn well better hope they can fit up their, as that's where
the toilet is located. :-)
So where's the dinner table?
Simple, it folds down over the toilet when it's not in use.
I'm not kidding, that was actually how it was done on the early versions
of Soyuz. :-D
Actually, the orbital module was fairly roomy on the Soyuz; in fact,
between the descent and orbital module Soyuz had more cubic feet of
living area than the Apollo CM... despite the fact that the whole three
module Soyuz spacecraft only weighed around as much as the Apollo CM due
to the weight of the huge diameter Apollo CM heatshield.
We really should have gone with the three-module GE Apollo design
concept, which was very similar to the Soyuz one... but NASA was
dead-set that it was going to be a squat cone with the giant and heavy
heatshield that that implied.
With making the Orion CM basicly a scaled-up Apollo CM, we are now
replicating a big mistake from the early 1960's in regards to weight and
internal volume versus ability to carry a crew safely back to earth.
Pat
mh...@ohiohills.com
> If, on the other hand, we point out his errors to him in regard to this
> so he can fix it up, there is a real possibility that we might be in
> violation of The Prime Directive and giving him outside help that his
> fellow graduate students don't have.
I think we should let him go on with it. There's just so much
imaginative history and selective memory here that it will be fun to
see where it ends.
Mike
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:Y9idnZZm8vXTBH7U...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/3145968661_9ff9fbbd8f_b.jpg
You mean like the Soyuz showing three people in seats in the *orbital
module* instead of the descent module?
And what's up with the "hypothetical" 3 man Vostok? That would be a
Voskhood, which flew twice, so whoever drew the picture and said that it
would be "no longer fits atop a booster rocket" is flat out wrong.
And then there is the "hypothetical" 3 man Mercury. The Gemini reentry
module had the same basic shape as Mercury reentry module. In fact, it
started out as Mercury Mark II, but the changes between the two were so
significant that most people don't consider a Gemini to be a Mercury Mark
II, but an entirely new spacecraft.
Whoever did this graphic is smoking some funny stuff...
Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson
Jeff Findley
> The horrible thing about all this is that this comes from this website:
> http://5dollarglasses.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html
> Where he basicly states that he's going to use this as his graduate thesis
> from college.
He's a "graduate student at the Rhode Island School of Design". I mean wtf?
> So what do we do now?
> If, on the one hand, we just ignore it, he might end up going right down
> the tubes if they figure out his argument is fucked.
> If, on the other hand, we point out his errors to him in regard to this so
> he can fix it up, there is a real possibility that we might be in
> violation of The Prime Directive and giving him outside help that his
> fellow graduate students don't have.
I just left a comment for him. If he's going to post this on his Blog, then
he's going to get comments. If this screws him over, maybe he needs a
different topic, one where "designers" decide the shape of a thing rather
than the harsh realities of engineering. :-)
http://5dollarglasses.blogspot.com/2008/12/visual-glossary-1.html?showComment=1239716580000#c6832700225224941912
> But I know what James T. Kirk would do.
> That's why I'm going to get in touch with him in the next couple of days,
> and tell him to revise things a bit, and also blow up that computer that's
> enslaving his life, like Vaal did.
> As the Buddhists say: "By choosing not to act, you have already acted."
> ...and as James T.Kirk would say: "We ...the....PEOPLE...
> of....the...UNITED STATES..." :-)
Good luck with that.
If he wants to study something related to space, why not layout of the
interior of a space station. Skylab, Salyut, Mir, and Freedom/ISS would all
be good data points. Since these things are used in a microgravity
environment, the designers are free to chose an interior layout without the
harsh constraints imposed by gravity or reentry.
Of course, that topic has likely been "done to death", which is why he's
looking at reentry vehicle shapes...
Chris Jones
> Chris Jones wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure 3 can fit in the orbital module, but not in that
>> configuration
>
> They had damn well better hope they can fit up their, as that's where the
> toilet is located. :-)
I'm sure the person using the toilet wouldn't consider having two other
people as company an ideal situation.
Jeff Findley
"Chris Jones" <c...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:871vrv6...@duck-dodgers.hsd1.ma.comcast.net...
When you've got to go, you've got to go. At least there *is* a toilet. US
manned spacecraft didn't get a toilet until the space Shuttle. I'm sure
there was nothing like flying an Apollo lunar mission without a toilet. But
still, that's a small price to pay for a trip to the moon, right?
Chris Jones
[...]
> And what's up with the "hypothetical" 3 man Vostok? That would be a
> Voskhood, which flew twice, so whoever drew the picture and said that it
> would be "no longer fits atop a booster rocket" is flat out wrong.
The "3-man" version of Voskhod flew once (not counting an unmanned
Kosmos precursor), while Voskhod 2 had a crew of 2. Much like the
original Soyuz, there was room for three wearing coveralls or two
wearing spacesuits, and Voskhod 2 was flown to give the Soviet Union the
first EVA.
Jeff Findley
You're right. I forgot about Voskhod 2 needing to only have a crew of two
to support the EVA.
Derek Lyons
>We really should have gone with the three-module GE Apollo design
>concept, which was very similar to the Soyuz one... but NASA was
>dead-set that it was going to be a squat cone with the giant and heavy
>heatshield that that implied.
Not NASA, Nax Faget.
>With making the Orion CM basicly a scaled-up Apollo CM, we are now
>replicating a big mistake from the early 1960's in regards to weight and
>internal volume versus ability to carry a crew safely back to earth.
Ah, and of course multiple module spacecraft have never failed to
seperate thir module or seperated early and thus negated their
'safety' by placing the crews lives thus in danger.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Pat Flannery
Jeff Findley wrote:
> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:I9SdnYspfspninnU...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>
>> The horrible thing about all this is that this comes from this website:
>> http://5dollarglasses.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html
>> Where he basicly states that he's going to use this as his graduate thesis
>> from college.
>>
>
> He's a "graduate student at the Rhode Island School of Design". I mean wtf?
>
For many years now, Rhode Island has wanted to redesign itself.
Let's face it, a basicly rectangular shape is boring, and a state shaped
like isosceles triangle or octagon would be inherently more interesting.
>
>> So what do we do now?
>> If, on the one hand, we just ignore it, he might end up going right down
>> the tubes if they figure out his argument is fucked.
>> If, on the other hand, we point out his errors to him in regard to this so
>> he can fix it up, there is a real possibility that we might be in
>> violation of The Prime Directive and giving him outside help that his
>> fellow graduate students don't have.
>>
>
> I just left a comment for him. If he's going to post this on his Blog, then
> he's going to get comments.
He had gotten zero comments on it when I first stumbled on the website. :-)
But I'm glad you sent him a message, as if one of us is going to get
stuck for life on a prison asteroid, I'd prefer it not to be me.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jeff Findley wrote:
> When you've got to go, you've got to go.
Which leads to the story of Soyuz TM-5 where they jettisoned the orbital
module prior to retrofire as was then the normal procedure, then due to
guidance screw-ups, spent a whole day in orbit minus their toilet and
water supply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TM-5
After that mess the orbital module is now retained till _after_ retrofire.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
>
> Ah, and of course multiple module spacecraft have never failed to
> seperate thir module or seperated early and thus negated their
> 'safety' by placing the crews lives thus in danger.
>
Orion is in a real weight crisis in regards to its crew accomedation
capabilities versus size of booster to launch it.
Reducing the heat shield diameter by going with the "gumdrop" Soyuz
shape rather than the Apollo conical shape would have saved a lot of
weight, and a mission-optimized orbital module would have greatly
increased the flexability of the spacecraft.
At the very least they should have ditched the Apollo shape and gone
with something a lot less squat, like the SpaceX Dragon shape:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/155017main_SPACE%20EX%20SHIPS.jpg
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jeff Findley wrote:
> When you've got to go, you've got to go. At least there *is* a toilet. US
> manned spacecraft didn't get a toilet until the space Shuttle. I'm sure
> there was nothing like flying an Apollo lunar mission without a toilet. But
> still, that's a small price to pay for a trip to the moon, right?
>
There's some info on the current Soyuz toilet here:
http://depletedcranium.com/?p=625
It's minimalist to put it mildly.
You can see the original design with the folding table here:
http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/astp/bp227.htm
(I assume the folding table is shown partly cut-away to reveal what's
under it.)
Surprisingly, there's even a little folding bunk in the orbital module
on this, the one used for Apollo-Soyuz.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jeff Findley wrote:
> You're right. I forgot about Voskhod 2 needing to only have a crew of two
> to support the EVA.
>
One Voskhod mission that got canceled was to be a precursor to Leonov's
spacewalk in which (I kid you not) a dog was to perform a EVA.
Pat
Chris Jones
Of course, you have to walk the dog. Developing an outer space canine
toilet would be foolish.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Ok, show of hands of people who immediately thought of the Jetsons.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Wow, I realized that the had jettisoned the orbital module, I didn't realize
how close they came to jettisoning the equipment module while still in
orbit.
Talk about a BAD day.
Actually sort of reminds me of the little note that Swigert put on the
control panel to prevent himself from jettisoning the LM too early.
Jorge R. Frank
> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:ofudneXzlOfGhXjU...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>>
>>
>> Jeff Findley wrote:
>>> When you've got to go, you've got to go.
>>
>> Which leads to the story of Soyuz TM-5 where they jettisoned the
>> orbital module prior to retrofire as was then the normal procedure,
>> then due to guidance screw-ups, spent a whole day in orbit minus their
>> toilet and water supply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_TM-5
>> After that mess the orbital module is now retained till _after_
>> retrofire.
>>
>> Pat
>
> Wow, I realized that the had jettisoned the orbital module, I didn't
> realize how close they came to jettisoning the equipment module while
> still in orbit.
>
> Talk about a BAD day.
This was one of the incidents I was thinking of when I said that modular
separation systems can kill you in three different ways.
1) They can fail to separate when they're supposed to. (Soyuz 5, and a
couple of recent Soyuzes, almost)
2) They can separate when they're not supposed to. (Soyuz TM-5, almost)
3) They can separate so violently they break something else. (Soyuz 11)
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:jMSdndRITLvBznjU...@giganews.com...
>
> This was one of the incidents I was thinking of when I said that modular
> separation systems can kill you in three different ways.
>
> 1) They can fail to separate when they're supposed to. (Soyuz 5, and a
> couple of recent Soyuzes, almost)
>
> 2) They can separate when they're not supposed to. (Soyuz TM-5, almost)
>
> 3) They can separate so violently they break something else. (Soyuz 11)
Yeah. A certain poster talks about how many close calls the shuttle has
had. I think some people need to a closer look at the Soyuz.
Jorge R. Frank
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:24:12 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
> <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>
>> 3) They can separate so violently they break something else. (Soyuz 11)
>
> crew? Are you possibly thinking about Soyuz 10 and its probe/drogue
> issues?
No, I'm thinking about the valve. The consensus is that the separation
event caused the valve to fail.
Jorge R. Frank
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:34:57 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
> wrote:
>
>> At the very least they should have ditched the Apollo shape and gone
>> with something a lot less squat, like the SpaceX Dragon shape:
>> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/155017main_SPACE%20EX%20SHIPS.jpg
>
> going with the original Apollo shape as opposed to a more "gumdrop" or
> Soyuz-shaped CM? Surely NASA couldn't have claimed they had more
> engineering data on the Apollo shape over the Soyuz, especially
> considering the sheer number of Soyuz reentries outnumbers the Apollo
> CM by, what? Something like 5 to one?
That is exactly what they claimed. And in terms of data *possessed by
NASA*, the claim is undoubtedly true.
Derek Lyons
A certain poster? The folks who point out the problems Soyuz has had,
and how it's flight record is barely different from that of the
Shuttle (and worse in some ways), are a distinct minority. Folks
don't like having their dogma (simple is always better!) disturbed by
facts.
Derek Lyons
>On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:34:57 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
>wrote:
>
>>At the very least they should have ditched the Apollo shape and gone
>>with something a lot less squat, like the SpaceX Dragon shape:
>>http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/155017main_SPACE%20EX%20SHIPS.jpg
>
>...Which begs the question as to what *were* the justifications for
>going with the original Apollo shape as opposed to a more "gumdrop" or
>Soyuz-shaped CM? Surely NASA couldn't have claimed they had more
>engineering data on the Apollo shape over the Soyuz, especially
>considering the sheer number of Soyuz reentries outnumbers the Apollo
>CM by, what? Something like 5 to one?
Number of NASA Soyuz reentries = 0.
Number of NASA Apollo reentries = something considerably above zero.
Number of wind tunnels hours for a NASA Soyuz = 0
Number of wind tunnels hours for a NASA Apollo = probably in the
hundreds.
Etc... Etc...
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
> No, I'm thinking about the valve. The consensus is that the separation
> event caused the valve to fail.
The primary set of explosive bolts to separate the orbital module from
descent module failed to fire.
When the back-up set fired it also caused the primary set to fire at the
same time causing a violent shock and the pressure valve to open.
At least that's the official story....but before this happened the
cosmonauts were having trouble sealing the descent module hatch, and a
indicator light was indicating it was not properly closed.
They asked mission control what to do, and were told to keep tightening
it up (it uses a wheel type crank to close it, like a watertight door)
till the light indicated it _was_ sealed, even though that was tighter
than you were supposed to torque it, and not worry about it.
Then when the modules separated the air leaked out.
So if the hatch still wasn't properly sealed, saying it was a pressure
equalization valve that opened got mission control off the hook for the
cosmonaut's death.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
> Wow, I realized that the had jettisoned the orbital module, I didn't
> realize how close they came to jettisoning the equipment module while
> still in orbit.
The Russians claim the story was a gross exaggeration, so it's almost
certainly true. ;-)
On the other hand Leonov's story about being chased around by a werewolf
after Voskhod 2 landed might be a bit exaggerated.
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Where wolf?
Jeff Findley
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49e66f72....@news.supernews.com...
> A certain poster? The folks who point out the problems Soyuz has had,
> and how it's flight record is barely different from that of the
> Shuttle (and worse in some ways), are a distinct minority. Folks
> don't like having their dogma (simple is always better!) disturbed by
> facts.
Shuttle and Soyuz have both had their close calls. They've also had two
fatal flights each. Statistically speaking, it's hard to tell which one is
safer than the other because they're both absolutely awful when compared to
something like a passenger airliner.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:9ac2b$49e5fa4c$927a2cda$13...@FUSE.NET...
>
> "Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49e66f72....@news.supernews.com...
>> A certain poster? The folks who point out the problems Soyuz has had,
>> and how it's flight record is barely different from that of the
>> Shuttle (and worse in some ways), are a distinct minority. Folks
>> don't like having their dogma (simple is always better!) disturbed by
>> facts.
>
> Shuttle and Soyuz have both had their close calls. They've also had two
> fatal flights each. Statistically speaking, it's hard to tell which one
> is safer than the other because they're both absolutely awful when
> compared to something like a passenger airliner.
Oh no argument there.
Jeff Findley
At least the Soyuz toilet provides suction to get feces to settle into the
collection bag.
The NASA adhesive bags used on Gemini and Apollo had no suction. Reportedly
there was trouble getting the excrement to fully release and "drop" into the
bag. From what I remember, there was a place in the bag designed to fit
your finger (like a glove for a single digit) to help with this procedure.
Needless to say, this wasn't an easy task in microgravity.
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>>
>> The Russians claim the story was a gross exaggeration, so it's almost
>> certainly true. ;-)
>> On the other hand Leonov's story about being chased around by a
>> werewolf after Voskhod 2 landed might be a bit exaggerated.
>>
>> Pat
>
> Where wolf?
There wolf... there Kremlin. ;-)
It's amazing to think that Brooks and Wilder managed to get both that
and Blazing Saddles out inside of one year.
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>
>
> At least the Soyuz toilet provides suction to get feces to settle into the
> collection bag.
>
> The NASA adhesive bags used on Gemini and Apollo had no suction.
> Reportedly there was trouble getting the excrement to fully release and
> "drop" into the bag. From what I remember, there was a place in the bag
> designed to fit your finger (like a glove for a single digit) to help with
> this procedure. Needless to say, this wasn't an easy task in microgravity.
This always brings to mind a phrase I once read in a wilderness emergency
medicine book.
Digital Extraction of Fecal Impaction.
>
> Jeff
Pat Flannery
Jeff Findley wrote:
> At least the Soyuz toilet provides suction to get feces to settle into the
> collection bag.
>
Somewhere around here I've got a more detailed drawing of the early
Soyuz toilet, I just haven't been able to find it.
The country that was really forthcoming about a space toilet was China
regarding the one on Shenzhou.
They even put up a webpage giving the dimensions of the urine and feces
collector tubes the Taikonauts would use:
http://wallacewong.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/space-toilet.jpg
It also shows that Taikonauts have completly flat buttocks and either
very loose stools or ones that emerge like rabbit droppings as they
appear to have to go down a tube that a marble would have a hard time
fitting through.
This Japanese design is bound to make embarresing noises when in
operation:
http://www.geekologie.com/2009/01/new_space_toilet_ready_to_drop.php
> The NASA adhesive bags used on Gemini and Apollo had no suction. Reportedly
> there was trouble getting the excrement to fully release and "drop" into the
> bag. From what I remember, there was a place in the bag designed to fit
> your finger (like a glove for a single digit) to help with this procedure.
> Needless to say, this wasn't an easy task in microgravity.
>
Didn't we find some sort of storage box for disposable "scrapers" on a
photo of the ISS toilet a few years back?
Pat
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
> This always brings to mind a phrase I once read in a wilderness
> emergency medicine book.
>
> Digital Extraction of Fecal Impaction.
My God, computers can do anything today, can't they?
Pat
Jeff Findley
>
> The country that was really forthcoming about a space toilet was China
> regarding the one on Shenzhou.
Funny, since I know a guy who married a Chinese woman and went to the
province of her birth for the wedding. Trench toilets were not uncommon
(outside of the big cities) at the time.
> They even put up a webpage giving the dimensions of the urine and feces
> collector tubes the Taikonauts would use:
> http://wallacewong.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/space-toilet.jpg
> It also shows that Taikonauts have completly flat buttocks and either very
> loose stools or ones that emerge like rabbit droppings as they appear to
> have to go down a tube that a marble would have a hard time fitting
> through.
I'm not going to touch this one. :-P
Pat Flannery
Jeff Findley wrote:
>> http://wallacewong.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/space-toilet.jpg
>> It also shows that Taikonauts have completly flat buttocks and either very
>> loose stools or ones that emerge like rabbit droppings as they appear to
>> have to go down a tube that a marble would have a hard time fitting
>> through.
>>
>
> I'm not going to touch this one. :-P
>
I actually got out the calipers to check on it; assuming the drawing is
to scale in the relation of the diameter of the feces collector (10cm)
to the suction tube, then the suction tube is under 2cm in diameter.
But Shenzhou 7 has a "luxury toilet":
http://www.cctv.com/english/20080926/100006.shtml
That is because the two previous missions had no toilet at all.
...but with "vinegar-loving Jing" aboard, a toilet was a obvious
necessity. :-)
Pat
Pat
BradGuth
> Jeff Findley wrote:
> > When you've got to go, you've got to go. At least there *is* a toilet. US
> > manned spacecraft didn't get a toilet until the space Shuttle. I'm sure
> > still, that's a small price to pay for a trip to themoon, right?
>
> There's some info on the current Soyuz toilet here:http://depletedcranium.com/?p=625
> It's minimalist to put it mildly.
> You can see the original design with the folding table here:http://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/astp/bp227.htm
> (I assume the folding table is shown partly cut-away to reveal what's
> under it.)
> Surprisingly, there's even a little folding bunk in the orbital module
> on this, the one used forApollo-Soyuz.
>
One bogus topic for mankind, one giant leap of faith for nothing.
Goof Christ almighty on a stick, is this cesspool getting deeper or
what?
~ BG
Scott Stevenson
<jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>The NASA adhesive bags used on Gemini and Apollo had no suction. Reportedly
>there was trouble getting the excrement to fully release and "drop" into the
>bag. From what I remember, there was a place in the bag designed to fit
>your finger (like a glove for a single digit) to help with this procedure.
>Needless to say, this wasn't an easy task in microgravity.
According to one of Chaikin's books, Bill Anders threatened to go on
a steady diet of Lomotil for Apollo 8 :-)
take care,
Scott
who thinks that being an astronaut is a lot less glamorous than the
brochures made it out to be...
Andrew Liebchen
I've read you comments, and I'd like to thank you for your insights.
I'd like let you know that you can relax, not worry about the future,
and feel good that the Rhode Island School of Design is not getting
into the field of spacecraft design. I am a graduate student studying
architecture.
As a beginning point of my thesis work, I was interested in the
capacity for spacecraft, which are (as you pointed out) almost
entirely the products of engineering and ergonomics, to transform in
their obsolescence into symbols, of capacitors of dreams, mnemonic
devices, and so forth...i.e. things that are beyond engineered
specifications. I was particularly drawn to the Apollo-Soyuz Test
Program: two craft designed for essentially the same mission (going
to the moon) meet in orbit, and look so bizzare together! This moment
is bland in its manned spaceflight achievements, but functions more as
a confirmation of the Soviet-American detante, a spectacular display
of international relations. It is largely remembered today on
commemorative coins, stamps, model kits, etc.
At any rate, my project has moved beyond all this...I'm designing
buildings, not capsules: so rest easy. I moved my blog here:
www.andrew-liebchen.com/5dollarglasses though I've passed the stage
where it is a useful device for my project. I am set to complete my
thesis late in May, around which time I will post the results
(architecture, building) or my investigations. If anyone is in the
Providence, RI area mid-May, and would like to come to the final
review for my project (and embarrass me by calling me out on my
spacecraft short-comings), please get into contact with me. I'll give
you specific time and location info.
Thanks again! Its crazy that this thread has 55 (now 56) posts!
-Andrew.
Derek Lyons
>I was particularly drawn to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program:
>two craft designed for essentially the same mission (going
>to the moon) meet in orbit, and look so bizzare together!
Except that neither was designed to go to the moon.
Pat Flannery
Andrew Liebchen wrote:
> Hey! I'm Andrew Liebchen, and this is my very strange graphic.
>
> I've read you comments, and I'd like to thank you for your insights.
>
Thank God you didn't keep running up that road, because you'd have been
screwed, blued, and tattooed if anyone who was to judge your original
thesis dissertation had looked into it in detail.
It was pure, blind, chance that I ever ran into it, and frankly I think
you might want to thank your lucky stars for pure, blind, chance having
intervened on your behalf right now, at the appropriate moment.
You sir, are apparently "lucky". :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
> Andrew Liebchen <andrewl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I was particularly drawn to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program:
>> two craft designed for essentially the same mission (going
>> to the moon) meet in orbit, and look so bizzare together!
>>
>
> Except that neither was designed to go to the moon.
>
The Apollo CSM was, and was basicly just a under-fueled stock lunar CSM
in the Skylab/Apollo-Soyuz missions - to let it get into orbit via a
Saturn IB, but the Soyuz was going to need a new service module in its
LOK lunar version: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soy7klok.htm
Pat
teres...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>
> news:I9SdnYspfspninnU...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>
> > The horrible thing about all this is that this comes from this website:
> >http://5dollarglasses.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html
> > Where he basicly states that he's going to use this as his graduate thesis
> > from college.
>
> He's a "graduate student at the Rhode Island School of Design". I mean wtf?
>
> > So what do we do now?
> > If, on the one hand, we just ignore it, he might end up going right down
> > the tubes if they figure out his argument is fucked.
> > If, on the other hand, we point out his errors to him in regard to this so
> > he can fix it up, there is a real possibility that we might be in
> > violation of The Prime Directive and giving him outside help that his
> > fellow graduate students don't have.
>
> I just left a comment for him. If he's going to post this on his Blog, then
> he's going to get comments. If this screws him over, maybe he needs a
> different topic, one where "designers" decide the shape of a thing rather
> than the harsh realities of engineering. :-)http://5dollarglasses.blogspot.com/2008/12/visual-glossary-1.html?sho...
>
> > But I know what James T. Kirk would do.
> > That's why I'm going to get in touch with him in the next couple of days,
> > and tell him to revise things a bit, and also blow up that computer that's
> > enslaving his life, like Vaal did.
> > As the Buddhists say: "By choosing not to act, you have already acted."
> > ...and as James T.Kirk would say: "We ...the....PEOPLE...
> > of....the...UNITED STATES..." :-)
>
> Good luck with that.
>
> If he wants to study something related to space, why not layout of the
> interior of a space station. Skylab, Salyut, Mir, and Freedom/ISS would all
> be good data points. Since these things are used in a microgravity
> environment, the designers are free to chose an interior layout without the
> harsh constraints imposed by gravity or reentry.
>
> Of course, that topic has likely been "done to death", which is why he's
> looking at reentry vehicle shapes...
>
> Jeff
> --
> "Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
> My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson
well dear friend of the parallel realities of the world,
if there are all these complains of andrew liebchen's diagrams out
there, then i wonder who in the engineering world is willing to
contribute to better graphics or should i say accurate graphics of his
research. despite his misunderstandings, i personally think that
without his interests in the subject matter then perhaps fewer in the
'design' world would understand the star trek realities of the space
world.
Further more had he perhaps found better graphics to aid his
comprehension, then may you will have loved it. Please, by all means
attempt to create a poster of similar construct to his reserach, with
accurate details. i'm sure there you will too face the challenges of
fitting everything into a page - Letter Size.
anyways good thing his project is not designing a space shuttle, and
there for this diagram is on a fraction of his presentation.
on that note, i think the world has come to a point where its not
about the harsh realities of engineering but rather the harsh
realities of design. i mean common NASA initiated a workshop with RISD
to collaborate on designing new re-entry modules and things to live in
out there in space....
Pat Flannery
teres...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> well dear friend of the parallel realities of the world,
>
> if there are all these complains of andrew liebchen's diagrams out
> there, then i wonder who in the engineering world is willing to
> contribute to better graphics or should i say accurate graphics of his
> research. despite his misunderstandings, i personally think that
> without his interests in the subject matter then perhaps fewer in the
> 'design' world would understand the star trek realities of the space
> world.
>
> Further more had he perhaps found better graphics to aid his
> comprehension, then may you will have loved it. Please, by all means
> attempt to create a poster of similar construct to his reserach, with
> accurate details. i'm sure there you will too face the challenges of
> fitting everything into a page - Letter Size.
>
Oh, it's not the graphics that are the problem...the graphics are very
good and professional looking in fact.
(In fact when I first saw it, I assumed it was something NASA had done
sometime in the mid 1960's)
It's what they are illustrating that's all screwed up.
You look at what it's showing in regards to Soviet and American
spacecraft, and the quality of the illustration will mislead you into
thinking that these drawings have some basis in reality - rather like
running into a illustration of the various types of modern reptiles in a
biology textbook that shows some of them with giant bat wings and
breathing fire. ;-)
Pat
Jeff Findley
"OM" <o...@sci.space.history> wrote in message
news:13rfv4h9u6186df2r...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:02:34 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Oh, it's not the graphics that are the problem...the graphics are very
>>good and professional looking in fact.
>>(In fact when I first saw it, I assumed it was something NASA had done
>>sometime in the mid 1960's)
>>It's what they are illustrating that's all screwed up.
>
> me, he's going to miss out on this one:
>
> http://www.andrew-liebchen.com/5dollarglasses/
>
> ...He really needs to give a tutorial on how to do those coin effects.
To paraphrase Dr. McCoy, and put words into Andrew Liebchen's mouth, "Dammit
Jim, I'm an artist, not an engineer!". :-)
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
Andrew Liebchen
> ...He really needs to give a tutorial on how to do those coin effects.
Thanks for the compliments! Again, the graphic is HIGHLY speculative,
and entirely too reductive. Unfortunately, my positionality is not
explicit in the illustration (and probably unclear elsewhere). The
audience is thankfully not anyone from NASA, a space historians, or
physicists...because I'd definitely get a verbal roasting, or at least
a good laugh. Rather, the graphic is in the an architectural meme of
taking highly reductive concepts from outside the field, adding the
spice of speculation, and running with it. My degree project critics,
panelists, and advisers know well that I am no rocket scientist, nor
are they. They understand this line of thinking, therefore I am not
be disingenuous or stupid.
The internet is problematic, as demonstrated here: no framework is
given for the graphic...it would be bad if some kid cut and pasted it
into a report or something, yeah? ;^)
-Andrew Liebchen.
marika
"Andrew Liebchen" <andrewl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b5d5917-f2d2-42b4...@l16g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rather, the graphic is in the an architectural meme of
> taking highly reductive concepts from outside the field, adding the
> spice of speculation, and running with it.
you mean like a mosque?
>My degree project critics,
> panelists, and advisers know well that I am no rocket scientist, nor
> are they.
how long would it take someone to get it that they were being put on
mk5000
"As soon as we get our transmission working properl.... we get our
transmission working properl .... we get our transmission working
properl .... we get our"--Tim Bruening
marika
"Alfred S. Dert" <asd...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:gs0fes$epi$1...@online.de...
>
> Anybody can think of a 3-man Mercury,
> and if Andrew Liebchen did,
> there was a hypothetical 3-man Mercury.
Let us see if I can help you out here
why not an million man Mercury
mk5000
Bum: Are you a cop?
Max Payne: Not tonight...
Derek Lyons
>Thanks for the compliments! Again, the graphic is HIGHLY speculative,
It's not speculative - it's *wrong*.
>Rather, the graphic is in the an architectural meme of taking highly
>reductive concepts from outside the field, adding the spice of
>speculation, and running with it.
It's not speculation - it's misinformation.
>My degree project critics, panelists, and advisers know well that I am
>no rocket scientist, nor are they. They understand this line of
>thinking, therefore I am not be disingenuous or stupid.
It's a sad day when, as part of a degree project, something containing
so much misinformation is 'understood' and accepted.
>The internet is problematic, as demonstrated here: no framework is
>given for the graphic...it would be bad if some kid cut and pasted it
>into a report or something, yeah? ;^)
A graphic of this nature requires no framework - either it's correct,
or incorrect.
Yours is not correct.
David Spain
> Andrew Liebchen <andrewl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the compliments! Again, the graphic is HIGHLY speculative,
>
> It's not speculative - it's *wrong*.
>
>>Rather, the graphic is in the an architectural meme of taking highly
>>reductive concepts from outside the field, adding the spice of
>>speculation, and running with it.
>
> It's not speculation - it's misinformation.
>
FWIW,
Andrew, if you wanted it to be 'speculative' you should not have used
the names and diagrams of actual spacecraft in the graphic. Make up
some of your own from pure forms of conics, ovals and spheres and leave
out the names Mercury, Vostok, Soyuz, etc.
>>My degree project critics, panelists, and advisers know well that I am
>>no rocket scientist, nor are they. They understand this line of
>>thinking, therefore I am not be disingenuous or stupid.
>
> It's a sad day when, as part of a degree project, something containing
> so much misinformation is 'understood' and accepted.
>
Let me try to re-frame Derek's argument into something more concrete
for an artist or graphic designer. [Derek, please forgive me if I miss
a point]. Let's say you morph a photo of the Mona Lisa using photoshop
into a cubist format ala Picasso and reframe parts of it by changing
perspective, horizon, etc. then claim it as an original concept dealing
with abstraction of perspective. The problem is you can't get around
the fact that everyone will recognize the Mona Lisa, you may have a complete
work that argues your point, but its originality is compromised from the
use of non-original source material.
That's the problem we're having here. You are using factual source material
that in essence is an incorrect depiction of what it was historically.
>>The internet is problematic, as demonstrated here: no framework is
>>given for the graphic...it would be bad if some kid cut and pasted it
>>into a report or something, yeah? ;^)
>
> A graphic of this nature requires no framework - either it's correct,
> or incorrect.
>
> Yours is not correct.
>
> D.
> --
Worse the un-informed might be misled and not know the difference.
Andrew consider carefully the necessary distinction between art and
deception, or if you prefer, the distinction between art and forgery.
Just my $.02....
Dave
Andrew Liebchen
> work that argues your point, but its originality is compromised from the
> use of non-original source material.
"R. Mutt" might disagree. Here:
http://locus.cwrl.utexas.edu/jbrown/files/Marcel%20Duchamp.jpg
And really, I could do without the lecturing. I do appreciate the
sincere criticism offered here and on my blog; however the anonymity
the internet provides does not allow you to presume superiority over
me. Certainly, many of you are more knowledgeable in the vast
specifics of the history of space exploration, but to call me a fraud,
forger, or misleader is a little much. And to lecture me on art? Not
to be a total jerk, but I am a graduate student at a well known art
school.
I'm sure everyone's laughing hysterically right now, but I aim to
please :^)
-Andrew.
David Spain
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:19:30 -0400, David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
>>Let's say you morph a photo of the Mona Lisa using photoshop
>>into a cubist format ala Picasso and reframe parts of it by changing
>>perspective, horizon, etc. then claim it as an original concept dealing
>>with abstraction of perspective.
>
> ...How do you think LEGOs were invented? :-P
>
> OM
What makes you think LEGOs were 'invented'?
How are you so certain that we're all not just some gigantic
lego-like construction from the quantum scale?
Yikes, I'm beginning to sound like some other well-known
posters here.....
:-D
David Spain
>> work that argues your point, but its originality is compromised from the
>> use of non-original source material.
>
>
> "R. Mutt" might disagree. Here:
>
> http://locus.cwrl.utexas.edu/jbrown/files/Marcel%20Duchamp.jpg
>
But did R. Mutt label this work 'Drinking Fountain Used By Children'?
> And really, I could do without the lecturing. I do appreciate the
> sincere criticism offered here and on my blog; however the anonymity
> the internet provides does not allow you to presume superiority over
> me.
When did I do that? I was merely trying to reframe Derek's argument into
one of terms of artistic merit. It seemed to me that you were talking
past each other. Derek's commentary that your graphic was not factually
correct and your agrument that scientific/historical accuracy was not necessary
for your project and therefore could be ignored. Woe be to the civilization
that becomes complacent with ignorance willful or otherwise. Do you disagree?
> Certainly, many of you are more knowledgeable in the vast
> specifics of the history of space exploration, but to call me a fraud,
> forger, or misleader is a little much.
If you have corrected your graphics based on what you have been told
or have fact checked yourself, then there is no deception. Or if you
removed the names of Mercury, Vostok and Soyuz and replaced them with
names like my conic capsule, my ovid capsule, etc. there is no
deception.
But what else can I call it if you have been informed and continue
to misrepresent? What would you call it? When your work was first brought
to light here it was pondered whether you should be told that it was
factually incorrect. There was a chance you might not have ever been
told. If your work had not been available on-line you would not have
been told. Would you have preferred that?
> And to lecture me on art? Not
> to be a total jerk, but I am a graduate student at a well known art
> school.
I only offered a different viewpoint. You are posting in a newsgroup
about space history and space policy, not art. I have no expertise
in art per se, only opinions. And it may surprise you to know, but
as the many who have been here awhile know, no expertise in aerospace
either.
As per my opinions:
Some of the world's best graphic artists have spent the better portion
of their days in prison or worse when their counterfeits were uncovered.
Perhaps one can safely assume that a few of the very, very best, never spent
a day in prison. Because their work was of such high quality it transcends
ethics? Is that your argument?
>
> I'm sure everyone's laughing hysterically right now, but I aim to
> please :^)
>
> -Andrew.
A question for you Andrew; What do you think is more important in art,
the perception of pleasure or the perception of honesty?
Dave
jamc...@yahoo.com
> > work that argues your point, but its originality is compromised from the
> > use of non-original source material.
>
> "R. Mutt" might disagree. Here:
>
> http://locus.cwrl.utexas.edu/jbrown/files/Marcel%20Duchamp.jpg
>
> And really, I could do without the lecturing. I do appreciate the
> sincere criticism offered here and on my blog; however the anonymity
> the internet provides does not allow you to presume superiority over
> me. Certainly, many of you are more knowledgeable in the vast
> specifics of the history of space exploration, but to call me a fraud,
> forger, or misleader is a little much. And to lecture me on art? Not
> to be a total jerk, but I am a graduate student at a well known art
> school.
The thing is, some of your work is asking interesting questions. Why
did the Apollo and Soyuz capsules look so wildly different? Should it
be odd that a lot of the work done for such a mind-bogglingly
audacious effort as putting people on the moon took place in
shockingly dull lowest-bidder drop-ceiling office buildings? Even when
airports of the time were much more elegant and stylish?
Answers to these questions would be interesting and informative,
particularly at a time when the nation's space program seems to be
lacking direction.
Yet having posed an interesting question, rather than trying to answer
it in a meaningful way, you seem content to just make some shit up. To
someone with a knowledge of space history and some rough understanding
of spacecraft design, a strong interest in the questions you started
asking, but without the design language needed to come up with an
answer, this is intensely frustrating.
Pat Flannery
David Spain wrote:
> Let me try to re-frame Derek's argument into something more concrete
> for an artist or graphic designer. [Derek, please forgive me if I miss
> a point]. Let's say you morph a photo of the Mona Lisa using photoshop
> into a cubist format ala Picasso and reframe parts of it by changing
> perspective, horizon, etc. then claim it as an original concept dealing
> with abstraction of perspective.
>
http://www.mcadamreport.org/Mona%20Cubist.jpg
Although this may be more fitting:
http://www.mcadamreport.org/Mona%20Moon.jpg
Pat
Pat Flannery
Andrew Liebchen wrote:
> And really, I could do without the lecturing. I do appreciate the
> sincere criticism offered here and on my blog; however the anonymity
> the internet provides does not allow you to presume superiority over
> me. Certainly, many of you are more knowledgeable in the vast
> specifics of the history of space exploration, but to call me a fraud,
> forger, or misleader is a little much. And to lecture me on art? Not
> to be a total jerk, but I am a graduate student at a well known art
> school.
>
> I'm sure everyone's laughing hysterically right now, but I aim to
> please :^)
>
Oh, from a artistic point of view the drawing is very good; as I said, I
thought it was a drawing NASA did in the mid 1960's when I first saw it.
Years ago, our local library had a book on space exploration that had
some way off-kilter graphics in it also; these included showing a Salyut
space station being launched with a Soyuz already attached to it, and a
cutaway of a Vostok showing the cosmonaut being seated feet-upwards as
he was launched. And many people do think that the round upper part of
the Soyuz is where the cosmonauts ride, and what they descend in at the
end of the mission... that's even been shown on network news animations
from time-to-time.
The big problem is that what you have shown as evidence to back up your
thesis isn't evidence, it's fabrication based on drawing things that
didn't ever exist, at least in the form you have drawn them.
It would be like me making a illustration showing the evolution of the
plesiosaur family of prehistoric marine reptiles, and having it split
off at the end with one branch evolving into sea serpents, and the other
branch evolving into the Loch Ness Monster...to prove that some marine
creatures can evolve into both fresh and saltwater forms.
Pat
Pat Flannery
David Spain wrote:
> If you have corrected your graphics based on what you have been told
> or have fact checked yourself, then there is no deception. Or if you
> removed the names of Mercury, Vostok and Soyuz and replaced them with
> names like my conic capsule, my ovid capsule, etc. there is no
> deception.
>
Which actually would have been a very good subject for a thesis, as
there are advantages and disadvantages to both the conic and modified
sphere form of capsule design, and if you had done a top notch study on
something like that, you might well have ended up working in the
aerospace industry or for NASA in fairly short order.
Lord knows, somebody should have pointed out to Griffin early on that by
doing a scaled-up Apollo CM clone for Orion he was going to end up with
one mighty heavy heatshield compared to the internal volume of the
capsule, and a gumdrop-shaped Soyuz style one would make a lot more
sense from a weight point of view.
But live and unfortunately don't learn it seems.
Pat
Pat Flannery
jamc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The thing is, some of your work is asking interesting questions. Why
> did the Apollo and Soyuz capsules look so wildly different? Should it
> be odd that a lot of the work done for such a mind-bogglingly
> audacious effort as putting people on the moon took place in
> shockingly dull lowest-bidder drop-ceiling office buildings? Even when
> airports of the time were much more elegant and stylish?
>
Or that the Soviets may have ripped off the GE Apollo design for their
Soyuz?: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/wastolen.htm
Pat
Jeff Findley
>
>> work that argues your point, but its originality is compromised from the
>> use of non-original source material.
>
>
> "R. Mutt" might disagree. Here:
>
> http://locus.cwrl.utexas.edu/jbrown/files/Marcel%20Duchamp.jpg
But he wasn't trying to make statements on how shapes of space capsules
evolved over time. One can be verified as historically accurate, or not.
The other is a urinal that's signed. :-P
> And really, I could do without the lecturing. I do appreciate the
> sincere criticism offered here and on my blog; however the anonymity
> the internet provides does not allow you to presume superiority over
> me. Certainly, many of you are more knowledgeable in the vast
> specifics of the history of space exploration, but to call me a fraud,
> forger, or misleader is a little much. And to lecture me on art? Not
> to be a total jerk, but I am a graduate student at a well known art
> school.
>
> I'm sure everyone's laughing hysterically right now, but I aim to
> please :^)
This is why artists don't get along with historians and engineers.
Andrew Liebchen
Why
> did the Apollo and Soyuz capsules look so wildly different? Should it
> be odd that a lot of the work done for such a mind-bogglingly
> audacious effort as putting people on the moon took place in
> shockingly dull lowest-bidder drop-ceiling office buildings? Even when
> airports of the time were much more elegant and stylish?
>
> Yet having posed an interesting question, rather than trying to answer
> it in a meaningful way, you seem content to just make some shit up. To
> someone with a knowledge of space history and some rough understanding
> of spacecraft design, a strong interest in the questions you started
> asking, but without the design language needed to come up with an
> answer, this is intensely frustrating.
I'm glad that someone seems to understand what the thrust of my degree
project was/is. Remember, I am studying architecture, not space
capsule design. Accordingly, I am interested in how humans make form
(the shapes of things), and how that form makes space (like inside a
volume, not outer space) which engages in a dialectic with society. A
form-to-socio-spatial dialectic.
Of course, I don't mean to be caviler with history. This graphic was
produced at an early point in my research period (which to architects
is not just academic research, but also form-making processes,
building systems development, cultural study, etc.) It was pretty
obvious to me that I did not have, nor did I wish to complete the
necessary research to fully describe all the nuances of the formal
development of spacecraft.
Instead, I noted that American and Soviet engineers devised two
methods of re-entering the atmosphere. The Soviets choose a ballistic
shape, a simple sphere, with a centroid behind the cosmonaut so that
capsule would be self-righting. The American approach was decidedly
more complex, based on the idea that a blunt-bodied shape would create
a cushion of drag and slow the spacecraft during descent (Vostok
cosmonauts ejected from their capsule...I don't know if this is
because they didn't put parachutes on the capsule, or were just afraid
the capsule and man would not survive the hard land impact). I only
wished to point out that from this moment on, American capsules were
cones (a "parametric" shape in that you can change the height AND
radius of the cone to affect is formal and performative
characteristics) while the Soviets, until Soyuz, relied on the sphere
(non-parametic, in that you can only change the radius) until Soyuz
(which does have a blunted-body reentry capsule, but also a decided
spherical orbital module).
Now, I know that there were millions upon millions of decisions that
further impacted the formal characteristics of spacecraft, but since I
am studying architecture, I don't have the luxury to study them all.
I don't think it is a crime to point out that one technical decision,
that is as much cultural and political (Soviets were RACING to beat
America to space) can affect how these highly technical objects look
and perform. So, David, I think I can say based on this reductive
concept, and ONLY this reductive concept, a *hypothetical* 3-man
Mercury capsule would be three times larger than the actual one man
Mercury (conceding: I know that Vokshod use essentially the same
capsule as Vostok but crammed two men into it...) At this point, the
diagram is not about space capsule design, but about divergent form
and its consequences.
At any rate, I find the assertion that I should go to prison for this
pretty ridiculous. I'm happy to ruffle feathers though.
As a postscript, the culmination of my project will result in a
building that examines the relationship between agriculture and
industrial production, the disney-ification of NASA, and how banal
technical construction at a large scale can make symbolic and
memorable buildings...so, not at all designing capsules.
Thanks!
-Andrew.
Derek Lyons
>fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) writes:
>
>> Andrew Liebchen <andrewl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a sad day when, as part of a degree project, something containing
>> so much misinformation is 'understood' and accepted.
>
>Let me try to re-frame Derek's argument into something more concrete
>for an artist or graphic designer. [Derek, please forgive me if I miss
>a point]. Let's say you morph a photo of the Mona Lisa using photoshop
>into a cubist format ala Picasso and reframe parts of it by changing
>perspective, horizon, etc. then claim it as an original concept dealing
>with abstraction of perspective. The problem is you can't get around
>the fact that everyone will recognize the Mona Lisa, you may have a complete
>work that argues your point, but its originality is compromised from the
>use of non-original source material.
>
>That's the problem we're having here. You are using factual source material
>that in essence is an incorrect depiction of what it was historically.
That's pretty much the gist of it David. He's being rewarded for
orginal work that isn't in fact original. I know when it comes to
thesis projects "we stand on the shoulders of giants", but there is a
difference between building on the research of the past and filing off
the serial numbers and gluing on your own nameplate.
Derek Lyons
>Instead, I noted that American and Soviet engineers devised two
>methods of re-entering the atmosphere. The Soviets choose a ballistic
>shape, a simple sphere, with a centroid behind the cosmonaut so that
>capsule would be self-righting. The American approach was decidedly
>more complex, based on the idea that a blunt-bodied shape would create
>a cushion of drag and slow the spacecraft during descent
But the problem is - the Soviet's abandoned the simple sphere for the
blunt body early on. Your lack of research failed to uncover this
fact, and you continue to insist it matters _despite being told you
are wrong_.
>Now, I know that there were millions upon millions of decisions that
>further impacted the formal characteristics of spacecraft, but since I
>am studying architecture, I don't have the luxury to study them all.
>I don't think it is a crime to point out that one technical decision,
>that is as much cultural and political (Soviets were RACING to beat
>America to space) can affect how these highly technical objects look
>and perform.
The crime is that you continue to push falsehood in place of fact -
your whole thesis on how these objects look and peform is fraud
because you fail to realize that they are not different. Worse yet
you continue to perpetuate the fraud _despite being told of your
error_.
Andrew Liebchen
Derek, I think you're being a bit dramatic.
Pat Flannery
Andrew Liebchen wrote:
>
> Of course, I don't mean to be caviler with history. This graphic was
> produced at an early point in my research period (which to architects
> is not just academic research, but also form-making processes,
> building systems development, cultural study, etc.)
>
Is anyone else smelling the Bauhaus right now? ;-)
Pat
David Spain
> So, David, I think I can say based on this reductive
> concept, and ONLY this reductive concept, a *hypothetical* 3-man
> Mercury capsule would be three times larger than the actual one man
> Mercury (conceding: I know that Vokshod use essentially the same
> capsule as Vostok but crammed two men into it...) At this point, the
> diagram is not about space capsule design, but about divergent form
> and its consequences.
>
I'm going to keep this short and to the point, I've pretty much said
all I want to say on this subject. I have no problem with your thesis
project. I have no problem with the concepts you wanted to explore.
I don't even have a problem with your creating (incorrect) graphics during
your research that are essentially private notes in a notebook.
But you *chose* to put that notebook on-line, in effect whether you
are aware of it or not, you have *published* your notebook. When
errors were discovered and disclosed to you, you refuse to correct
your published work. What should I call a published work with deliberate
errors contained within? Why not just re-label your drawings? Adding
the word *hypothetical* to your Mercury-3 diagram would be a good start.
Removing the errors in seat positioning in the Russian craft would
be another. None of this has anything to do with design or reductive
concepts, it's just correcting factual mistakes. Why is that too hard to do?
> At any rate, I find the assertion that I should go to prison for this
> pretty ridiculous. I'm happy to ruffle feathers though.
>
For the record, I did *not* assert you should go to prison. I was drawing
an analogy between art and ethics.
> As a postscript, the culmination of my project will result in a
> building that examines the relationship between agriculture and
> industrial production, the disney-ification of NASA, and how banal
> technical construction at a large scale can make symbolic and
> memorable buildings...so, not at all designing capsules.
>
> Thanks!
> -Andrew.
If a structural engineer points out issues with your design I *do* hope
you choose not to ignore them.
Dave
Alfred S. Dert
>
> "Alfred S. Dert" <asd...@inbox.com> wrote in message
> news:gs0fes$epi$1...@online.de...
>
>>
>> Anybody can think of a 3-man Mercury,
>> and if Andrew Liebchen did,
>> there was a hypothetical 3-man Mercury.
>
>
> Let us see if I can help you out here
>
> why not an million man Mercury
Don't forget to think of a big hypothetical rocket.
;-)
Andrew Liebchen
> But you *chose* to put that notebook on-line, in effect whether you
> are aware of it or not, you have *published* your notebook. When
> errors were discovered and disclosed to you, you refuse to correct
> your published work. What should I call a published work with deliberate
> errors contained within? Why not just re-label your drawings? Adding
> the word *hypothetical* to your Mercury-3 diagram would be a good start.
> Removing the errors in seat positioning in the Russian craft would
> be another. None of this has anything to do with design or reductive
> concepts, it's just correcting factual mistakes. Why is that too hard to do?
Quite a frenzy has been whipped up about this graphic. Have you
looked closely at the original? Here is the link:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/3145968661_9ff9fbbd8f_b.jpg
Two "hypotheticals" were there already. I'm not sure if there was so
much to quibble about. So, if I were to remove the retro-rocket pack
from the Mercury capsule, move the Cosmonauts from the orbital module
to the re-entry module, and add an accompanying note that the graphic
is a reductive and perhaps speculative argument, all this would be
less of an issue? Only three things? I think this makes some of you
look a little alarmist, if one were to read the comments here.
> If a structural engineer points out issues with your design I *do* hope
> you choose not to ignore them.
We've been engaged in quite a intense and helpful conversation here
(humans are visual creatures, graphics = power), I wish you weren't so
dismissive and perhaps haughty.
Derek Lyons
>So, if I were to remove the retro-rocket pack
>from the Mercury capsule, move the Cosmonauts from the orbital module
>to the re-entry module, and add an accompanying note that the graphic
>is a reductive and perhaps speculative argument, all this would be
>less of an issue? Only three things? I think this makes some of you
>look a little alarmist, if one were to read the comments here.
Those three things are for starters. Then there are the factual
conclusions you draw not from a factual basis, but from thin air.
Fred J. McCall
:
:> work that argues your point, but its originality is compromised from the
:
I'll merely say you probably have a future in the news media. They
tend to not know what they're talking about on any given topic,
either, yet insist that their 'interpretation' is correct and that it
is the facts that are deficient.
--
"But if this ever changing world in which we live in
Makes you give in and cry...
Say live and let die."
-- Paul McCartney & Wings
Andrew Liebchen
> across his inaccuracies and pick them up as fact.
If my eyes were to roll any more, they'd fall out of my head.
-Andrew.
Fred J. McCall
:
:> But you *chose* to put that notebook on-line, in effect whether you
And many of us no doubt wish you weren't so ignorant coupled with your
displayed degree of arrogance.
Let him leave it the way it is. Find out who is sitting on his board.
Write up all the stuff that's wrong and deliver it to them.
His choice to roll the dice.
--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush
Fred J. McCall
:> I can only hope that future generations don't run
:> across his inaccuracies and pick them up as fact.
:
:If my eyes were to roll any more, they'd fall out of my head.
:-Andrew.
:
Nah. I'm pretty sure the vacuum in your head will hold them in no
matter what you do.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Pat Flannery
David Spain wrote:
> I'm going to keep this short and to the point, I've pretty much said
> all I want to say on this subject. I have no problem with your thesis
> project. I have no problem with the concepts you wanted to explore.
> I don't even have a problem with your creating (incorrect) graphics during
> your research that are essentially private notes in a notebook.
>
What do you think the odds are that someone who's going to judge his
thesis or someone who knows that crew are going to run into all of this
on the internet?
I think it's around 25%, easy.
It's a real pity that we didn't stumble on this a year or so ago when he
had a chance to shift the whole focus of it easy, before he headed down
this doomed road.
All-in-all, in retrospect I wish I'd never brought this to anyone's
attention...but when I spotted the graphic, I didn't know about the
master's thesis aspect of it - I was just hunting around for graphics of
Soyuz and did a double-take when I ran into it on a Google Image search.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Alfred S. Dert wrote:
>
> Don't forget to think of a big hypothetical rocket.
"Great Big Mercury" on a Sea Dragon. :-D
Pat