Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Fri, 12 Oct 2018
16:32:55 -0400:

On 2018-10-12 15:18, Fred J. McCall wrote:

I know you can never be bothered to look things up before you make
ignorant statements, but you should read the Falcon 9 payload
integration document.


I doubt NASA would consider a crewed capsule to be a mere payload on a
otherwise automated rocket.


You doubt all sorts of things that are facts.


There has to be far more sophisticated command/control channels between
crew module and stage 1 and stage 2 than for a cargo flight.


Why?


And that would mean software on stage 1 and 2 would need to have the
ability to send and receive far greater range of packet types on what
might be an existing data bus. (or perhaps crewed Fancons will have
extra data bus going to capsule).


Or perhaps you're simply on your ass (which is the actual case).



Why would you expect that? What is the crew going to do?


If the capsule has the ability to automatically command an eject, ...


There is no 'eject'.


... then
that capsule must be getting a whole bunch of telemetry from the stages
below it to make the decision.


Why? The capsule doesn't 'command' in this case. It IS commanded by
the booster.


In an eject, ...


Again, there is no 'eject'.


... do the fairings have to go out first? Won't the capsule
have to have authority to command fairing ejection? (and would there be
explosive bolts to ensure this works even when in atmosphere or are the
existing pneumatic locks considered failsafe even if the stage below is in


There are no fairings. Dragon rides naked and unafraid.



they needed it done right now. This capsule is the test article for
DM-1, the unmanned orbital test flight.


Yep. Not a real article.


Wrong.


Can this test article actually support a manned
mission in a pinch ? Or does it lack seats and other things that would
sort of be necessary for an actually non-test manned mission ?


Since it's a full up Crew Dragon, it's just like the one people would
ride in.


Will this one even attempt docking to station or just a fly by and then
de-orbit and land ?


I know you're incapable of reading anything, but this is dead easy to
find. It will dock, stay docked for a couple weeks, then reenter and
be recovered. The only thing missing is the people.


Just because they have a test article at the Cape doesn't necessarily
mean that it can be converted overnight to carry people the next day.


Since it's identical to the ones that will carry people, it can be
'converted' in the time it takes people to get up the tower and climb
in.



That was hardly the only thing they found. Go read the report.


The Columbia destruction was caused by foam that hit RCC panels on
leading edge of wing. They found this very quickly. That was the cause
of loss of vehicle.


Yes, I know. But until you go through the entire failure review you
are only guessing. Have you ever participated in a Failure Review
Board? I have and you don't just pull the first likely answer out of
your ass and top looking.


The board, in making its inquiry found many other things wrong even if
they weren't involved in the loss of Columbia per say. Many of the
problems were with NASA culture and not the Shuttle.


And why do you think they look at all those things?


The Russians may not do in-depth investigations such as with Challenger
and Columbia but that doesn't mean they don't find the actual cause of a
failure quickly and if tyey are confident the problem isn't present in
the next Soyuz, they will launch quickly since they can check for it.


Well, yeah, actually it DOES mean they don't find the actual cause of
the failure BECAUSE WITHOUT A COMPLETE ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS THEY DON'T
BLOODY KNOW. What you're suggesting is "take a guess and then just
keep flying".


It is when you have a problem where you are not sure why it happened, or
how to fix it that you have to suspend flights for a long time.


You don't know jack **** about failure analysis, do you?



Well, perhaps that's all YOU know, but those of us who are paying
attention know that there was a booster failure that caused the core
stage to shut down.


I was quoting a NASA astronaut in yesterday's press conference who
stated boosters came off cleanly.


Then either you misheard him or he was totally out of the loop,
because the separation problem was known almost immediately.


You are basing your insult on
information that was not yet available at the time I made that post.


Not yet available TO YOU. Perhaps if you paid attention you'd have
the same information available as everyone else.


It is surprising that the core engine didn't go kaboom if it was damaged
by a booster as it separated. I guess it would have hit only engine bell?


Have you ever SEEN a Soyuz booster? The first two stages don't
'stack' the way you're thinking of them. The first stage consists of
four strap-ons that attach to the SIDES of the second stage.

Why would you expect the core engine to explode? Hell, real bombs
don't do that on bad separations and neither do the aircraft they hit.


The NASA statement today they are confident of a flight in December is
interesting since I would think that with this information,
anyone/everyone would wait till they have recovered the boosters and the
core to see the attach point to get a hint on what happened.


Make up your rabbit-assed mind; will there be an investigation or not?



The first two stages (the strap ons and the core stage) aren't
significantly different from the original R7 ICBM.


And were Shuttle SRBs significantly different from ICBMs ?


Very.



I wouldn't say 'plenty' and most of them were for emergency systems.


Pyros on shuttle:
Holding SRBs to the pad.
Holding SRBs to the ET.
Holding Shuttle to the ET.

None of those were for "emergency systems"


Which part of 'most', which is a fairly common English word, is it
that you don't understand? Pad hold downs are not part of the
vehicle. So you have cited a whopping TWO sets of pyros. In other
words, not 'plenty' and most pyro systems were safety related and
never used.



They know WHAT happened. What they don't know is WHY it happened.


Knowing that a booster didn't separate cleanly does tell you what
happened.


That's what I said, above. are you incapable of reading simple
declarative English sentences, even when the operative word is in all
upper case?


You want to know whether any of the attach points failed to
separate and if one which one and why.


Again, just what I said, above. Again, are you incapable of reading
simple declarative English sentences, even when the operative word is
in all upper case?


Fr instance, if they recover a booster and find one of the attach point
still has its pyro device undetonated, this gives a clue, especually if
it ripped part of code stage skin with it because it failed to sepaare
while the other attach pointseparated.


The bottom attach points (the only ones that use pyros) aren't
structural and the pyros are just to separate some umbilical lines.
The entire structural support comes from the ball joint at the top,
which doesn't use pyros for separation (it relies on inertia and some
vented gas, in a very elegant and unique system).

You can see in the videos that the separation didn't make a proper
Korolev Cross but instead looks very 'messy', which indicates
something didn't work properly during the separation.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson