Sputnik in flight ;-)

Hi,

I’m not sure if it will ever leave the stage of WIP but C&C welcome… So it occurred to me that nobody ever saw sputnik up-close in flight. So here we are free to imagining it.
With this perspective I looked for pictures. There are few of them, and I suspect many are bogus HENCE my note on the this picture: I would hate for a search engine to find it, and someone to believe it’s for real… It’s also my first use of the “new” (to me) blender (ray etc).

http://www.hpks.com/artsy-funny/sputnick-in-flight.jpg

See-ya next week (I don’t do no computer on week-ends :0) )

Arnaud

Hmm, interesting. Don’t forget to put CCP on it and a star… I think that’s what it had.

where are the umbrellas and duct tape?
at least thats what my american history teacher told me it was made of…
nice model, the starfield actually has a use i guess.
could use some logos.

where are the umbrellas and duct tape?
at least thats what my american history teacher told me it was made of…

Maybe because he/she was an American history teacher…? This is not an American history.

Nice start

I don’t see why you call it sputnik, the word sputnik translated into english from Russian means Satellite, so if your speacking english then name the object your making IN ENGLISH!!!

I’m tired of these people thinking that sputnik is the name of the satelite.

Get it right!!

now that I got that out of the way… :smiley:

mystery

mystery00, actually “sputnik” is roughly stranslated as satellite, but that’s not the only meaning. A moon is a sputnik, a friend that comes with you on a trip is a sputnik. Sputnik is something that follows around. Since that name was given to this ship, countries do not take it as a word and it’s even being capitalized to emphisize that. That ship is named Sputnik and you can’t change it. It was given that name because it flew around the earth. When Russians are refering to a simple satellite, they do not capitalize sputnik.

So… get it right, bud!!! :wink:

~Blade

:expressionless:

mystery

Was it that shiny or not? I’ve seen models etc but forget.

Also your model is fine; but a general observation about Sputnik: we imagine it “flying” with antennas pointed backwards but it probably orbited either in an arbitrary orientation or with antennas downwards, right?

reed

BTW mystery, if it was my picture and I wanted to call it “Műhold”, what would exactly be wrong with that?

Erufailon: oh come on! don’t kick a man thats already down! :expressionless:

mystery

Nee, I’ve written it before reading blade’s comment. Don’t feel so bad that history teacher’s comment was worse imho (though politicaly explainable) :slight_smile:

They’re just jelouse that we beat them to space, so they make fun of us… pfft…

Thats funny cus some of the people at my school still think that the Americans were there first, and I think that I still haven’t convinced them othewise…idiots

[edit]

Reed: yes I’m pretty sure it was quite shiny

mystery

Even in the NASA, there was a lot of misunderstanding about russian technology by their own account.

Russian tech is often crude looking and of a lower complexity level than american or west-european one. That doesn’t mean it’s inferior. The reliabity of the Soyuz T is something no other is even close. They are truly masters of feedback rings and auto-control, which mean they don’t need to have high level controller system. However it means also, that if somethings goes wrong, they cannot correct it, so you better have truly top of range pre-flight controls, which is the recent years at least is no more the case.

That is only a different take on the problem.

Yeah, that’s not exactly umbrellas and duct tape :slight_smile:

Reminds me of a story:

When the Americans went into space they realised that ordinary ball-point pens, which use gravity to move the ink onto the ball, wouldn’t work in freefall. To this end they spent millions designing a pen that could wite upside-down, underwater etc…

So how did the Russians deal with this problem without the vast budgets that the Americans had to throw around?

They used a pencil.

Which solution was better?

Pic looks good.

Alex

Ok, lets not turn this into a everbody kick the Americans in the butt fest, cuz we all know that we (the Americans) would win!

:smiley: :stuck_out_tongue:

that duct tape thing is from the time than the sovjets ran out of money. and why not? you dont have gravity so you dont need a good connection between parts.

nice model btw.

Only half of the story.
NASA did not spent a cent on this. It’s the pen manufacturer (Reynold’s ???) which spent millions on this to fit NASA requirement, and NASA bought it at a high price yet realistic. But then, he had very high publicity from this and was able to sell a fortune those pens to people who wanted “The pen which was on the moon”. he has largely recoup its investement. I think they still sell the “Appollo” but have a newer “shuttle” model.

It’s true Russians used pencils.

Same for the food. Nasa (or furnishers) designed crumble-free liophilized food, when russian took normal cans and a vacuum-cleaner.

Another story : Angenieux, a french company specialized in highest quality zooms, was asked to provide some optics for flight cameras on NASA missions (not appollo, later). They did it at a rather step price (From rumors, it was one of the most profitable deal they have ever done), but were shocked when they learned the price at which NASA was buying the container for it. Typically it is a paperboard tube with some velvet in it, but the flight-worthy model was in the many thousands dollar range !

Russians certaintly use paperboard :wink:

Reminds me of a story:

When the Americans went into space they realised that ordinary ball-point pens, which use gravity to move the ink onto the ball, wouldn’t work in freefall. To this end they spent millions designing a pen that could wite upside-down, underwater etc…

So how did the Russians deal with this problem without the vast budgets that the Americans had to throw around?

They used a pencil.

Lol that story still makes me laugh :smiley:

mystery