Soyuz TMA-12 faulty

They think the faulty explosive bolts that caused the service module
separation problems on Soyuz TMA-10 and 11 are also on TMA-12:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienc...82559920080523
If that's the case, then the crew probably has at least a 10% chance of
being killed during reentry.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
They think the faulty explosive bolts that caused the service module
separation problems on Soyuz TMA-10 and 11 are also on TMA-12:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienc...82559920080523
If that's the case, then the crew probably has at least a 10% chance
of being killed during reentry.

Pat

"...at least a 10% chance of being killed...." Where does
that 10% come from? It's not in the original Science News
reference link.

I'll be watching for what the Russians come up with. It's
likely to be interesting -- and effective.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 May 24]

Martha Adams wrote:

They think the faulty explosive bolts that caused the service module
separation problems on Soyuz TMA-10 and 11 are also on TMA-12:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienc...82559920080523
If that's the case, then the crew probably has at least a 10% chance
of being killed during reentry.

Pat

"...at least a 10% chance of being killed...." Where does
that 10% come from? It's not in the original Science News
reference link.

That's based on the fact that Soyuz 5 was very nearly fatal when it had
this problem (to the point of the cosmonaut getting his teeth knocked
out on impact), and TMA-11 getting very near a burn-through situation
during its recent reentry.
As to how severely damaged TMA-10 was after its reentry - we don't
really know, as there was no American astronaut aboard it, and the
Russians apparently didn't mention the separation problem to anyone till
after the TMA-11 flight.

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

They think the faulty explosive bolts that caused the service module
separation problems on Soyuz TMA-10 and 11 are also on TMA-12:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienc...82559920080523

What I find really strange is that obviously there's not even enough
information available to say *which* module didn't separate cleany. I've
read "equipment module" several times now and still don't know if that
means the orbital module or the service module.

If that's the case, then the crew probably has at least a 10% chance of
being killed during reentry.

I don't think anyone can quantify the probability of the crew being
killed. There's just not enough information available.

Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
Pat Flannery writes:

They think the faulty explosive bolts that caused the service module
separation problems on Soyuz TMA-10 and 11 are also on TMA-12:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienc...82559920080523

What I find really strange is that obviously there's not even enough
information available to say *which* module didn't separate cleany. I've
read "equipment module" several times now and still don't know if that
means the orbital module or the service module.

It means service module.

If that's the case, then the crew probably has at least a 10% chance of
being killed during reentry.

I don't think anyone can quantify the probability of the crew being
killed. There's just not enough information available.

Agreed.

Jochem Huhmann wrote:

I don't think anyone can quantify the probability of the crew being
killed. There's just not enough information available.
Do you really want to find out via real-world experience?
Volynov on Soyuz 5 went so far as to stick his orbital log between his
spacesuit's inner lining and his body, so that it would have a chance of
surviving as he died during reentry.
You can't quantify the actual lethality risk of a Soyuz reentry with the
service module still attached with three reference points on the graph,
but this is damn near as off-nominal and dangerous as it gets.
That's why I said 10% _minimum_.

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

Jochem Huhmann wrote:

I don't think anyone can quantify the probability of the crew being
killed. There's just not enough information available.
Do you really want to find out via real-world experience?

Depends...

You can't quantify the actual lethality risk of a Soyuz reentry with the
service module still attached with three reference points on the graph,
but this is damn near as off-nominal and dangerous as it gets.
That's why I said 10% _minimum_.

I'm not totally sure what's going on on the russian side here. Either
they're a a bunch of irrational fools or they have looked at the
evidence and came to the conclusion that even with the service modul not
fully separated you can rely on it to come off in time with only very little
real danger of causing anything more harmful than a ballistic reentry.
And since they certainly have acted rather rational when it comes to
crew safety in the past and have access to data and flown hardware I
would tend to the latter.

I agree with you that this is a very unhappy situation and if I would be
the tourist scheduled to fly back with that Soyuz I would prefer to
stay home.

Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Jochem Huhmann wrote:

I'm not totally sure what's going on on the russian side here. Either
they're a a bunch of irrational fools or they have looked at the
evidence and came to the conclusion that even with the service modul not
fully separated you can rely on it to come off in time with only very little
real danger of causing anything more harmful than a ballistic reentry.

Had it in fact caused nothing more harmful than a ballistic reentry,
you'd have a point.

And since they certainly have acted rather rational when it comes to
crew safety in the past and have access to data and flown hardware I
would tend to the latter.

By those standards, how NASA acted prior the loss of Challenger and
Columbia should have gotten numerous engineers and managers large cash
awards and promotions for meritorious service.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

(Derek Lyons) writes:

Jochem Huhmann wrote:

I'm not totally sure what's going on on the russian side here. Either
they're a a bunch of irrational fools or they have looked at the
evidence and came to the conclusion that even with the service modul not
fully separated you can rely on it to come off in time with only very little
real danger of causing anything more harmful than a ballistic reentry.

Had it in fact caused nothing more harmful than a ballistic reentry,
you'd have a point.

Well, apart from subjective accounts of one crew member and quite
sensational media reports we have nothing substantial to support the
view that there was much more than a ballistic reentry. Or have we? The
thing(s) got down to the ground in one piece after all. The service
module not separating is certainly not good, but the Soyuz is up there
and the next one will hopefully have better quality control and so: what
to do?

And since they certainly have acted rather rational when it comes to
crew safety in the past and have access to data and flown hardware I
would tend to the latter.

By those standards, how NASA acted prior the loss of Challenger and
Columbia should have gotten numerous engineers and managers large cash
awards and promotions for meritorious service.

I think you know what I mean. If there would be a real, foreseeable
danger for the crew the russians wouldn't pretend there isn't. And
spaceflight isn't totally danger-free after all. I'm quite sure that the
crew of the next Soyuz knows more than I or you or Pat and if they don't
speak up I think we should respect that.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
I agree with you that this is a very unhappy situation and if I would be
the tourist scheduled to fly back with that Soyuz I would prefer to
stay home.


Here's the tourist BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garriott

Pat