5 ms·

Wait, soviets already did automated sample returns while apollo was still ongoing [0]?! That's quite a surprise to me... don't think I ever came across this, an

by Faark 7y ago

Wait, soviets already did automated sample returns while apollo was still ongoing [0]?! That's quite a surprise to me... don't think I ever came across this, and I do follow quite a bit of space news. E.g. this [1] recent set of videos how Apollo moon rocks are stored did not mention it at all, and I'd certainly expect them to have exchanged some samples. Now I'd really love to learn more about what kind of tech that long ago achieved the precession necessary for an automated sample return. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_16 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxZ_iPldGtI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxZ_iPldGtI

deepnotderp 7y ago
If you think that's interesting, check out the buran shuttle which landed autonomously from orbit, a feat only replicated in the us decades later with the x-37.
- Faark 7y ago
  Yeah, kinda sad it only made orbit once. Buran is at least mentioned every once in a while, though obviously not as often as Sputnik, Gagarin and the like. Youtube has a bunch of hits for it, while in contrast to what there is barely anything at all in english for "Luna 16". I also vividly remember this photo series about remaining Buran mockups [0]. [0] https://imgur.com/gallery/b70VK https://imgur.com/gallery/b70VK
- edouard-harris 7y ago
  The American space shuttle orbiter at the time had exactly the same autonomy capabilities as the Buran. The only constraint was computer memory: the astronauts had to manually load magnetic tapes into the flight computer that had the takeoff and landing programs in them.
  - trothamel 7y ago
    The American shuttle also had a few things that needed to be done by hand, like deploying the landing gear and the air data probes. These were actions that are irreversible (once the Shuttle drops its gear, they can't be raised without outside help) and would lead to destruction if they happened too early. During the early Shuttle program, there was a worry about these events happening due to a software problem, so the decision was made to isolate them from the computer. Post-Columbia, cables were made that allowed the shuttles to be re-wired to allow these events to occur under the control of the computer, to allow a damaged shuttle to attempt a return without crew, or to dispose of itself safely.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      > Post-Columbia, cables were made that allowed the shuttles to be re-wired to allow these events to occur under the control of the computer, to allow a damaged shuttle to attempt a return without crew, or to dispose of itself safely. As grisly of a question as this is, are there launch failure scenarios that involve complete loss of crew but successful orbit? IANARC, but it seems if something goes bad in the launch sequence, it's normally catastrophic.
      - nullwasamistake 7y ago
        > are there launch failure scenarios that involve complete loss of crew but successful orbit? Explosive decompression. Not sure if shuttle crews wore pressure suits. Happened on a Russian mission once, during reentry. They opened the capsule on landing and everyone was dead.
        darkpuma 7y ago
        Soyuz 11. It wasn't an explosive decompression per se, merely a rapid decompression, but no less lethal to a crew without oxygen masks. Decompression can be explosive, but in space you'd only be dropping from 1 atmosphere to 0, which isn't that far to drop. For decompression to truly be explosive, a greater pressure differential is required. In the infamous Byford Dolphin incident, four saturation divers were depressurized from 9 atmospheres down to 1 in an instant, and that was a sufficient pressure differential to explode them.
        dredmorbius 7y ago
        NB: The Apollo Command Mudule operated at 5 PSI in spave, about 34% og atmospheric sea level pressure. Over 25,000 feet / 7600 meters elevation. The LM operated at 3.5 PSI. The Space Shuttle and ISS operate at 14.7 PSI -- normal sea level atmospheric pressure.
        darkpuma 7y ago
avmich 7y ago
Luna-16 returned lunar soil after Apollo-11. If Luna-15, the previous one, succeeded, that would be another story :) but it didn't.
- hn23 7y ago
  Nevertheless it is technically pretty impressive if you take the computers of that time, esp those made in Russia, into consideration. The Russians where into unmanned space exploration pretty early.
- jbay808 7y ago
  Luna 9 landed before Surveyor did, too. It's funny, my Russian friend and I were playing Timelines and the moon landing came up. We couldn't agree on the date; she insisted that "the moon landings" were in 1966, when the first robots landed on the moon. Apparently in Russia that's what they teach as the key milestone. And when I think about it, it's no less valid.
Retric 7y ago
It’s interesting technically. I just think the scale is really telling. Three missions returned a combined 300g. By comparison the Apollo missions collected 382,000g while also returning with several people etc. Apollo missions where IMO the most massive projects without direct benefit beyond basic research throughout human history. In aggregate the Internet for example is a larger investment, but there is direct utility and ROI. Honestly, only the ISS really compares.
- outside1234 7y ago
  Didn’t the Apollo missions push along CPUs technology?
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Looks like. I expect because digital guidance was edge of the envelope in the 1960s. Only later did performance increase enough that space hardware could be conservative. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
    - Retric 7y ago
      That had some creative editing. “The Apollo flight computer was the first computer to use integrated circuits (ICs).[citation needed]” The integrated circuit first won a place in the military market through programs such as the first computer using silicon chips for the Air Force in 1961 and the Minuteman Missile in 1962. It was very much cutting edge for the time, but not really more innovative than other similar examples.
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      Space is very conservative due to its nature. Even (or especially) at the offset. When you mission planning and construction takes several years, you can’t just go in and swap parts for “cutting edge” and “best-of-breed”. Mission parameters are locked several years before the actual mission takes place and are based on tech that was considered safe, sound, and stable by the time parameters are locked. So, when the mission flies, you get 6-8 year old tech that flies in it. The combination of all the components is usually bigger than the sum of its parts (that is it could be pushing the envelope of what mankind can achieve), but it’s usually built on top of some very boring things.

by Faark 7y ago

deepnotderp 7y ago

If you think that's interesting, check out the buran shuttle which landed autonomously from orbit, a feat only replicated in the us decades later with the x-37.

Faark 7y ago
Yeah, kinda sad it only made orbit once. Buran is at least mentioned every once in a while, though obviously not as often as Sputnik, Gagarin and the like. Youtube has a bunch of hits for it, while in contrast to what there is barely anything at all in english for "Luna 16". I also vividly remember this photo series about remaining Buran mockups [0]. [0] https://imgur.com/gallery/b70VK https://imgur.com/gallery/b70VK
edouard-harris 7y ago
The American space shuttle orbiter at the time had exactly the same autonomy capabilities as the Buran. The only constraint was computer memory: the astronauts had to manually load magnetic tapes into the flight computer that had the takeoff and landing programs in them.
- trothamel 7y ago
  The American shuttle also had a few things that needed to be done by hand, like deploying the landing gear and the air data probes. These were actions that are irreversible (once the Shuttle drops its gear, they can't be raised without outside help) and would lead to destruction if they happened too early. During the early Shuttle program, there was a worry about these events happening due to a software problem, so the decision was made to isolate them from the computer. Post-Columbia, cables were made that allowed the shuttles to be re-wired to allow these events to occur under the control of the computer, to allow a damaged shuttle to attempt a return without crew, or to dispose of itself safely.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    > Post-Columbia, cables were made that allowed the shuttles to be re-wired to allow these events to occur under the control of the computer, to allow a damaged shuttle to attempt a return without crew, or to dispose of itself safely. As grisly of a question as this is, are there launch failure scenarios that involve complete loss of crew but successful orbit? IANARC, but it seems if something goes bad in the launch sequence, it's normally catastrophic.
    - nullwasamistake 7y ago
      > are there launch failure scenarios that involve complete loss of crew but successful orbit? Explosive decompression. Not sure if shuttle crews wore pressure suits. Happened on a Russian mission once, during reentry. They opened the capsule on landing and everyone was dead.
      - darkpuma 7y ago
        Soyuz 11. It wasn't an explosive decompression per se, merely a rapid decompression, but no less lethal to a crew without oxygen masks. Decompression can be explosive, but in space you'd only be dropping from 1 atmosphere to 0, which isn't that far to drop. For decompression to truly be explosive, a greater pressure differential is required. In the infamous Byford Dolphin incident, four saturation divers were depressurized from 9 atmospheres down to 1 in an instant, and that was a sufficient pressure differential to explode them.
        dredmorbius 7y ago
        NB: The Apollo Command Mudule operated at 5 PSI in spave, about 34% og atmospheric sea level pressure. Over 25,000 feet / 7600 meters elevation. The LM operated at 3.5 PSI. The Space Shuttle and ISS operate at 14.7 PSI -- normal sea level atmospheric pressure.
        darkpuma 7y ago

avmich 7y ago

Luna-16 returned lunar soil after Apollo-11. If Luna-15, the previous one, succeeded, that would be another story :) but it didn't.

hn23 7y ago
Nevertheless it is technically pretty impressive if you take the computers of that time, esp those made in Russia, into consideration. The Russians where into unmanned space exploration pretty early.
jbay808 7y ago
Luna 9 landed before Surveyor did, too. It's funny, my Russian friend and I were playing Timelines and the moon landing came up. We couldn't agree on the date; she insisted that "the moon landings" were in 1966, when the first robots landed on the moon. Apparently in Russia that's what they teach as the key milestone. And when I think about it, it's no less valid.

Retric 7y ago

It’s interesting technically. I just think the scale is really telling. Three missions returned a combined 300g. By comparison the Apollo missions collected 382,000g while also returning with several people etc. Apollo missions where IMO the most massive projects without direct benefit beyond basic research throughout human history. In aggregate the Internet for example is a larger investment, but there is direct utility and ROI. Honestly, only the ISS really compares.

outside1234 7y ago
Didn’t the Apollo missions push along CPUs technology?
- ethbro 7y ago
  Looks like. I expect because digital guidance was edge of the envelope in the 1960s. Only later did performance increase enough that space hardware could be conservative. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
  - Retric 7y ago
    That had some creative editing. “The Apollo flight computer was the first computer to use integrated circuits (ICs).[citation needed]” The integrated circuit first won a place in the military market through programs such as the first computer using silicon chips for the Air Force in 1961 and the Minuteman Missile in 1962. It was very much cutting edge for the time, but not really more innovative than other similar examples.
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    Space is very conservative due to its nature. Even (or especially) at the offset. When you mission planning and construction takes several years, you can’t just go in and swap parts for “cutting edge” and “best-of-breed”. Mission parameters are locked several years before the actual mission takes place and are based on tech that was considered safe, sound, and stable by the time parameters are locked. So, when the mission flies, you get 6-8 year old tech that flies in it. The combination of all the components is usually bigger than the sum of its parts (that is it could be pushing the envelope of what mankind can achieve), but it’s usually built on top of some very boring things.