Soyuz battery worry may force landing 1 rev early

Soyuz battery worry may force landing 1 rev early

From April 21 On-Orbit Status Report (courtesy spaceref.com),
"Soyuz-215/9S Status: The backup/reserve battery of the Soyuz 9S vehicle is
known to be degraded, with some unquantifiable charge remaining. TsUP/Moscow
is considering a modified return/descent plan by reducing the time between
undocking and landing, requiring lower-than-nominal battery capacity to
reduce reliance on the reserve battery. This would involve switching to
spacecraft internal power at undocking (not some time before as usual) and
landing on the first orbit, but keeping the backup battery online during the
descent, as done normally, with software enabled to activate the reserve
battery automatically if required."

"Jim Oberg" wrote:

Soyuz battery worry may force landing 1 rev early

From April 21 On-Orbit Status Report (courtesy spaceref.com),
"Soyuz-215/9S Status: The backup/reserve battery of the Soyuz 9S vehicle is
known to be degraded, with some unquantifiable charge remaining. TsUP/Moscow
is considering a modified return/descent plan by reducing the time between
undocking and landing, requiring lower-than-nominal battery capacity to
reduce reliance on the reserve battery. This would involve switching to
spacecraft internal power at undocking (not some time before as usual) and
landing on the first orbit, but keeping the backup battery online during the
descent, as done normally, with software enabled to activate the reserve
battery automatically if required."


All-singing, All-Dancing.

If this were the Shuttle, folks all across the sci.space hierarchy
would be screaming to high heaven.

But it's OK for the Soyuz to have non-trivial problems.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
All-singing, All-Dancing.

If this were the Shuttle, folks all across the sci.space hierarchy
would be screaming to high heaven.

But it's OK for the Soyuz to have non-trivial problems.

This is little different than the shuttle mission that was cut short due to
fuel cell problems. NASA re-flew the mission and completed the objectives.
In neither case was the crew in serious trouble, as mission control was able
to work around the problems and bring the vehicles and crew home safely.

Again, in terms of safety and reliability, shuttle vs. soyuz is a
statistical draw.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in
:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
All-singing, All-Dancing.

If this were the Shuttle, folks all across the sci.space hierarchy
would be screaming to high heaven.

But it's OK for the Soyuz to have non-trivial problems.

This is little different than the shuttle mission that was cut short
due to fuel cell problems. NASA re-flew the mission and completed the
objectives. In neither case was the crew in serious trouble, as
mission control was able to work around the problems and bring the
vehicles and crew home safely.

Again, in terms of safety and reliability, shuttle vs. soyuz is a
statistical draw.

I agree, and suspect Derek does as well. I think his comments are aimed
more at the folks who think Soyuz is safer than the shuttle. As you say,
the safety and reliability statistics are a draw.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
All-singing, All-Dancing.

If this were the Shuttle, folks all across the sci.space hierarchy
would be screaming to high heaven.

But it's OK for the Soyuz to have non-trivial problems.

This is little different than the shuttle mission that was cut short
due to fuel cell problems. NASA re-flew the mission and completed
the objectives.

There is however a significant difference between how this would be
handled in the media and on these newsgroups if it were the Shuttle.
When the Shuttle has a similar problem, these groups are filled with
self-righteous idiots castigating NASA for building such a 'complex
and problem filled craft'.

Yet two out of six (?) Soyuz-TMA flights have now suffered significant
problems - and the groups are strangely silent.

waits for Jeff to finish his cheerleading routine...

In neither case was the crew in serious trouble, as mission control was able
to work around the problems and bring the vehicles and crew home safely.

Yet somehow, it escapes you and many others that two out of six (?)
Soyuz-TMA flights have now had significant problems, and a third had
to have repair parts shipped up via Progress.

Again; If this had happened to the Shuttle the idiots would be out in
full force.

Again, in terms of safety and reliability, shuttle vs. soyuz is a
statistical draw.

Something I know full well. However, unlike virtually every other
person in group, I apply the same criteria to Shuttle and Soyuz. The
Russians don't get a free pass.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
There is however a significant difference between how this would be
handled in the media and on these newsgroups if it were the Shuttle.
When the Shuttle has a similar problem, these groups are filled with
self-righteous idiots castigating NASA for building such a 'complex
and problem filled craft'.

Being a bit self critical is the only way one can attain self improvement.
On the other hand, complaining about others (e.g. Soyuz) doesn't accomplish
much. Note that there is little NASA can do about the safety of Soyuz since
without Soyuz, there would be no NASA astronauts on ISS, except for very
brief and infrequent shuttle visits.

Just so you know, I no longer support the CEV program, as it looks likely to
produce very little in the way of reduced (manned) launch costs. It also
looks like it will do little to increase reliability and safety. I'm not
just against continuing the shuttle program, I'm also against any future
government developed space vehicle. Radical for someone who wants to open
up access to space? Not if you think NASA is (again) headed in the wrong
direction.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
There is however a significant difference between how this would be
handled in the media and on these newsgroups if it were the Shuttle.
When the Shuttle has a similar problem, these groups are filled with
self-righteous idiots castigating NASA for building such a 'complex
and problem filled craft'.

Being a bit self critical is the only way one can attain self improvement.

Agreed.

On the other hand, complaining about others (e.g. Soyuz) doesn't accomplish
much.

On the other hand, attempting to learn from the problems of others
rather than lionizing them and handwaving away the issues may be a
path to accompling much.

One of the carved-in-stone doctrines of the Capsule Cabal is that
capsules are utterly and completely safer and more reliable than any
other form of space transportation. So Mote it Be. Let he who
questions this be cast beyond the pale. Amen.

Out here in the real world, we find that doctrine to not entirely
accord with reality. Answers to the question 'why?' could be crucial.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
On the other hand, complaining about others (e.g. Soyuz) doesn't
accomplish
much.

On the other hand, attempting to learn from the problems of others
rather than lionizing them and handwaving away the issues may be a
path to accompling much.

One of the carved-in-stone doctrines of the Capsule Cabal is that
capsules are utterly and completely safer and more reliable than any
other form of space transportation. So Mote it Be. Let he who
questions this be cast beyond the pale. Amen.

Out here in the real world, we find that doctrine to not entirely
accord with reality. Answers to the question 'why?' could be crucial.

The latest info about the Lockheed Martin CEV proposal shows that it's crew
module would be a lifting body landing by parachutes and air bags. This may
be a reasonable compromise between a winged vehicle and a capsule. The
lifting body would presumably give higher hypersonic lift than a capsule,
reducing the g-loads on the passengers and increasing cross range, while
falling back to (capsule proven) parachutes for final descent allows you to
land "almost anywhere".

You still have a more complex design than a capsule (the movable aerodynamic
surfaces and likely lack of a completely passive reentry mode), but you do
eliminate some complex equipment like landing gear, brakes, nose wheel
steering, and the like that you need on a vehicle intended to make a runway
landing.

I personally think the ability to land on water and pretty much any other
flat surface (can you say US Great Plains) is a good thing when you're
returning from the Moon or Mars.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

The latest info about the Lockheed Martin CEV proposal
shows that it's crew module would be a lifting body
landing by parachutes and air bags. This may be a
reasonable compromise between a winged vehicle and a
capsule.

As I stated over in .policy, it's an elegant design on multiple
levels.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL