[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Re: [sarex] ISS Transmissions

>Correct me if I am wrong.
>The most reliable rocket motor in history is Russian. In fact we are buying
>it and retrofitting our rockets with it. It's cheaper, more reliable, more
>powerful and it attaches to the rocket in four places. The connections
>necessary are another four I think. It takes a days work and you install 
>engine on the rocket.
>Our own engine requires something like 2500 connections, that is wires,
>hydraulic lines, etc...
>I saw this on TV I think it was Discovery channel or another show about

One new rocket uses a Russian derivative.

>The most powerful rocket is also Russian. Only they could have lifted the
>biggest components of the ISS. That's why they built those components.<<

No.  they are not building the biggest compnoents of ISS.  The only two the 
Russians have built and are likely to build are the service module and the 
FBG (functional cargo block).  The service module is a Mir core and the FGB 
is a knock off of their Almaz.  If you want to look at weight you should 
look at the latest solar array addition.
>About their fighters, they are just great. They can operate from unimproved
>airstrips ( rough compacted dirt with a lot of debris like  loose gravel).
>They shift their intake nozzle to the top of the wing so that they don't
>absorb debris during take-off. Our fighters cannot do that. <<  thats a 
>nice attribute of a fighter but it certianly is not the only one.  In terms 
>of manueverability the F-14 I fly (and hte future Mrs. Oler does) can 
>handle anything Ivan has...and its old.

They also built
>their own Concord version that was more efficient than the British one. In
>fact we rent it to do supersonic research. That was also on the Discovery
>channel. they are so broke that if we don't rent or buy their technology
>they would have to scrap it for lack of money for maintenance.
Well part right.  We did rent it to do some supersonic research but it was a 
flop commercially and it was a disaster aerodynamically.  It certianly was 
not more efficient then the British one.

>I am a Russian technology admirer.<<  good for you.  I admire what they 
>have done engineering wise with what they have.  What they have is vastly 

Robert Oler WB5MZO Houston TX

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org