Soyuz 7K-TM

[Pyromaniac605]

Dance Dance Revolution has humor? 0.o
Thanks you for the English anyway.

Darren

 

[castorp]

BO and PAO (sans umbilical cabling) modules for the 7K-T and 7K-T-AF are up ==> [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=4859"]7K-T & -T-AF modules[/ame]

Soyuz-13 assembly configuration:

next up, the -TM.
(with apologies... 'can't resist... "Vorwärts immer, rückwärts nimmer!")



cheers
hc

 

[Urwumpe]

Are you sure that the 7K-T/AF version is correct that way? The drawing I have here looks like the sensors are more exposed, and the sensor platform was three axis stabilized with 13 electro-motors.

 

[castorp]

Are you sure that the 7K-T/AF version is correct that way? The drawing I have here looks like the sensors are more exposed, and the sensor platform was three axis stabilized with 13 electro-motors.

Of course I'm not sure... this is still an early Soyuz afterall! ;-)
I think I know the drawing you're referring to, but most of the other iconographic data seem to show the Orion2 being encased in some sort of protective housing (which would be reasonable, nicht wahr?)...

==> http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz13.htm

==> http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_sdat/soyuz_7k-t-af.htm

...

if this article could be hunted down ==> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984MIzMa....R....A I feel confident it would have a more definitive answer...

Let me know your thoughts though and I can happily make any amendments toward a more accurate model!

Also, I've just received a request for a L1/Zond variant of the -OK meshes, so those will be getting added to the pipeline as well (likely after I do the -TM)...

cheers
hc

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, I have this and western drawing in the Soyuz book:

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz13.htm

Essentially, the telescope has to be able to move in its gimbals, so it can accurately track a star despite the limitations of the Soyuz attitude control.

The problem with Zond is the lack of information about it, I only have some more or less coarse panel drawings.

 

[castorp]

Well, I have this and western drawing in the Soyuz book:

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz13.htm

Essentially, the telescope has to be able to move in its gimbals, so it can accurately track a star despite the limitations of the Soyuz attitude control.

The problem with Zond is the lack of information about it, I only have some more or less coarse panel drawings.

ok, 'found this ==> http://www.springerlink.com/content/t86653l4r3523857/

"Orion-2 itself was outside the spacecraft, on its docking unit, and it was remotely controlled by a cosmonaut inside the craft at a control panel. ... Orion-2 was operated by the cosmonauts in the same way as Orion-1, which was setup on Salyut-1. The cosmonaut, who operated the viewfinder inside the craft opposite one of its illuminators, and also the servosystem, pointed the Orion-2 platform on the first reference star to an accuracy of about one degree. ..."

(Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR. Translated from Astrofizika, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 177–183, April–June, 1974.)


and then there's that pic from the Universal Spacecraft book ==>

which then also mentions that "Lebdev operated the instruments from the OM..." (p. 205)

...

so I wonder then if that housing structure shown in the other images was something that was jettisoned upon attaining orbit? or maybe the housing is just a fiction in place of details as to the Orion-2's components?

unfortunately, that image of the Orion-2 from the Armenian pavilion of the 2000 Hanover expo ==>

seems to be missing a lot of the components shown in the drawing from Hall&Shayler... any ideas as to what some of those other components might be? 'might help in finding further source images for modeling the apparatus...


as for Zond, I'll be using the astronautix reference image as my primary source ==>

as well as ==>

( http://www.myspacemuseum.com/zond.htm )

any further reference images/data would of course be most welcome!

cheers
hc

---------- Post added at 04:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:08 AM ----------

but then, Orion-1 seems to have been partially 'encased' within the DOS-1 body ==>

(#5 in the drawing)

...

so i wonder if that housing on the -AF BO actually was there in a similar fashion to DOS-1, but just with a large top aperture to allow the Orion-2 its full range of mobility/functionality?

something like this (the orion-2 shown here is just uncompleted WIP) ==>

???

 

[Urwumpe]

I suspect the drawing was made without exact knowledge of the Orion-2, and is just a symbolic space telescope. The number of components roughly converges, just the size, shape and orientation of them varied.

Since the Expo 2000 image is showing a pretty unprotected system, maybe the fairing was in two pieces, and the front part allowed the telescope to gimbal, while the aft part was connected to the docking port.

---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 AM ----------

On another note, which Soyuz launcher do we use?

 

[castorp]

I suspect the drawing was made without exact knowledge of the Orion-2, and is just a symbolic space telescope. The number of components roughly converges, just the size, shape and orientation of them varied.

i'll buy it!

Since the Expo 2000 image is showing a pretty unprotected system, maybe the fairing was in two pieces, and the front part allowed the telescope to gimbal, while the aft part was connected to the docking port.

hmmm...
can you do a little "napkin" sketch showing what you're envisioning? in the meantime i'll finish-up modeling the Orion-2 then as it's depicted in the expo image without worrying about "extras"...

On another note, which Soyuz launcher do we use?

i really like thorton's work ==> [ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=4545"]Soyuz FG/U v1.1[/ame] (though i suspect some of the detailing might need to be "retro-ed"? 'need to examine that)

 

[Urwumpe]

can you do a little "napkin" sketch showing what you're envisioning? in the meantime i'll finish-up modeling the Orion-2 then as it's depicted in the expo image without worrying about "extras"...

Ok, give me some seconds to Inkscape it.

EDIT: Like that:

 

[4throck]

I've uploaded to OH ([ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=4865"]http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=4865[/ame]) a spacecraft.dll implementation of 7K-OK using separate dockable spacecraft. The changes to include the versions you are discusing here are very simple. Perhaps I'll do it in a future update, but of course and by all means please continue developing a better custom dll version.

 

[Urwumpe]

I have a rough DLL version in the making, currently focusing on Soyuz-1 and the other early docking missions. Is not yet as complete as yours...also I plan to paint some 2D panels for it.

 

[N_Molson]

I've always dreamt of a Soyuz panel with everything written in russian. Even a simple but realistic one would be awesome

 

[Urwumpe]

I've always dreamt of a Soyuz panel with everything written in russian. Even a simple but realistic one would be awesome

Actually, with the 2D Panel API, I could permit using ANY language. ^^ I just need to change textures, if the textures use the same format.

PS: If somebody wants to help me, I have a 47 page PDF file in Russian here, that could need a translation, I would need some months getting my Russian back close enough to translate it.

 

[castorp]

View attachment 5874

that's intriguing!

i've been thinking though: one of the neat things about all this early soviet hardware is the constant reuse of existing parts (which is really quite convenient from a modeling standpoint)... the genius of innovation through recycling! anyhoo, the fairing where/as it's shown in the images really just looks like the -OK docking tunnel—

so perhaps they just took the -OK's tunnel, removed the docking aparatus, and stuck the Orion-2 in there in its place (without any sort of gimbaling of a second fairing construct, relying solely on the Orion-2's 13 servos)? it seems to me that this might then account for both sets of images in a way (instrument exposed vs contained)? ==>

(n.b. as you can see the Orion-2 is just about done.)

i'm thinking as well that I might take this Orion-2 mesh and update the DOS-1 model with it since it must be pretty close in appearance to what the Orion-1 must have looked like [?]...

yes, no, maybe???

---------- Post added at 09:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

I've uploaded to OH (http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=4865) a spacecraft.dll implementation of 7K-OK using separate dockable spacecraft. The changes to include the versions you are discusing here are very simple. Perhaps I'll do it in a future update, but of course and by all means please continue developing a better custom dll version.

nicely done, 4throck! many thanks!!
:thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

From what I can see, the telescope is about as large as a Soyuz docking port, so your solution would make it too small - the gimbal frame is already as large as the docking port ring. The base OM must have been a 7K-T OM anyway, from what I can read about the production process - so no 7K-OK OM.

 

[castorp]

From what I can see, the telescope is about as large as a Soyuz docking port, so your solution would make it too small - the gimbal frame is already as large as the docking port ring. The base OM must have been a 7K-T OM anyway, from what I can read about the production process - so no 7K-OK OM.

hmmm...
I used the Orion-2's primary mirror dimension of 300mm as my base measurement for the model and scaled the rest of it from there...
and the Soyuz forward hatch is 800mm, so while it is close, it does seem to fit in there with the listed dimensions ==>

but maybe the Orion's mirror size isn't a good base for the model scale? do we have the dimensions for the Orion + gimbal mechanism listed somewhere? and while the BO may indeed have been from the -T, wouldn't it have been more sensible to use a preexisting module with the appropriate [?] dimensions to house the telescope then radically transform the -T's BO? (of course, just because it would have been sensible is no guarantee that it would've been done that way...)

???

i suppose that getting a handle on the Orion's dimensions is the most important issue here...

'nice to be back in it all though! 'had been missing the mess and confusion of figuring out just what ganja the design bureau had been smoking back in the day...

 

[n72.75]

Are any of the authors interested in throwing all the work you have done into a sourceforge svn repository. Then we can all have at this NASSP style.

I've tried several times to do a full featured Soyuz addon and failed. I think the reason for this is the standards which we hold addons to. For example: no one is going to develop a spacecraft3 Space Shuttle addon; because there are already Space Shuttle addons that are better.

In short: addon developers are unlikely to to publish addons that cannot compete with the addons that are already published.

I know that I don't have the time to develop an addon at this point in time, but I would be more then willing to contribute on a regular basis.

I don't know how the original authors feel about this, but I think it would be a great opportunity to bring a Soyuz addon to it's full potential.

 

[castorp]

???

here btw is the .msh with my suggested configuration...http://www.orbiter-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5878&stc=1&d=1286149306

 

[Urwumpe]

Are any of the authors interested in throwing all the work you have done into a sourceforge svn repository. Then we can all have at this NASSP style.

Well, I still have started no project on Sourceforge, so no problem to do just that, once I have some core code to start developing.

But I would have a price... I have some Soyuz related PDF files, that are in Russian, and which I can only translate at painfully slow speed (Google Translates fails it). Making a bigger project would only work for me, if all who are capable of English language, have access to translations of such documents.

Also I don't want to play project lead or something without people I can command around. Otherwise it would be impossible to really distribute the work. And for making a one-man project, where people can peek in and modify the source code, I don't need to have it hosted on Sourceforge.

And I would prefer having the power to do more than just say that "committing undocumented code is a capital sin" and "ignoring the project code style guides is a reason to smite you".

Of course, it is Utopian. But I see it like that: Either we do it professional, or we won't do it at all. (As explanation for non-coders: Developing professional means that you do work only once, and then properly. Not inventing the wheel 10 times.)

Also, I would suggest a clear cut to keep distance to other projects. We won't do Soyuz TMA and later models, but stop at the Soyuz TM.

And as such a project would be pretty research-heavy, compared to the Space Shuttle which overwhelms you simply with information, I would suggest having powerful positions in the project for Russian-diaspora hardened researchers. Those people wouldn't need to be able to code, or make graphics, but simply dig all thinkable sources for reference material. Such a job would be much more important IMHO, than all the coding that needs to be done. And should thus come with some admiration.

All said?

I think, even if my offer is too expensive, anybody else will quickly get close to my price in the reality of the project. Somebody will have to play the bad guy. I actually don't want to. I hate paperwork, communication or controlling. I just want to play....i mean, to program.

In short: addon developers are unlikely to to publish addons that cannot compete with the addons that are already published.

Sadly true. It takes a lot of discomfort with the existing add-ons to change something.

 

[castorp]

I hate paperwork, communication or controlling. I just want to play....i mean, to program.

ditto. (or, in my case, make models and play with them)