A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 13th 18, 01:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,896
Default 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
Ads
  #12  
Old October 13th 18, 02:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,826
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article ,
says...


AND THIS JUST IN:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45842731

"Speaking in Moscow, Nasa head Jim Bridenstine said he expected a
December mission to the International Space Station (ISS) to go ahead as
planned."

To me, this points to initial investigation pointing to either a sensor
malfunction when everything was working well, ...


Nope. You really need to avoid giving serious consideration to how
things 'seem' to you or what you think facts might 'point' to. You
are almost inevitably wrong.


... or they already identified
what failed and know what to check on the new rocket before granting it
right to fly.


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


Agreed. And the fact that Russia is still planning on launching the
next Soyuz on time, presumably with a crew on board, is indicative of
how they handle these investigations. They assign blame as quickly as
possible, fix the singular issue which was blamed, and start flying
again as quickly as possible. All other issues are ignored in the
interest of flying again as quickly as possible.

The press even called this a "criminal investigation". The connotations
of this are not good if you are one of the workers who build the vehicle
or one of the people who are supposed to be part of quality assurance
procedures.

This is the polar opposite of what NASA does which is pause everything
for an indeterminate amount of time to allow everyone to review their
systems looking for trends or ways it could fail. This is absolutely
encouraged and not punished. This is why after each major accident,
*many* issues are found, brought to the attention of management, and
these issues are addressed in some way.

Let's not sugar coat this. Russia has had a **** poor reliability
record over the life of ISS. Three Progress resupply vessels never made
it to ISS and the latest one of those was yet another launch failure. I
think they have a systemic quality assurance problem which is partly
driven by cultural differences that make that job very difficult. They
assign blame, shoot the messenger, whatever you want to call it instead
of encouraging an environment of continuous improvement.

For ISS this is a good thing, because it means it very likely won't have
to be de-crewed for any length of time. This reduces the chance that
ISS will break when it is without a crew and can't be fixed remotely.
So this increases the chance that the ISS program will continue to
succeed.

But, this is a bad thing for the safety astronauts who have to use Soyuz
vessels to get to/from ISS. They don't really know what might happen
next because Russia just fixed that one thing that went wrong and
immediately started flying again.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #13  
Old October 13th 18, 03:02 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,826
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article ,
says...

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're wrong. There is a lot of monitoring of what is happening with
the launch vehicle and anything critical automatically triggers the
abort system. Some catastrophic failures happen so fast that this is
the only way to trigger the abort system fast enough. Putting a person
in the loop would not help at all.

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


Nope. Either the flight control system gets the capsule to earth orbit
or the capsule aborts. There is very little middle ground here. The
only middle ground is something like a first stage engine failure which
causes that stage to abort its recovery attempt and use its remaining
fuel to get the second stage to where it needs to go. This happened on
one Dragon flight and it still got to ISS. However the secondary
payloads didn't make it to their intended orbits.

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).


Dragon 2 might be used to store telemetry data, but I doubt that it
commands the launch vehicle in any way. Dragon is just another payload.
You don't want it to be "special" or you open up the possibility that
what makes it "special" will cause a launch failure.

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


If the capsule has the ability to automatically command an eject, then
that capsule must be getting a whole bunch of telemetry from the stages
below it to make the decision.


Not necessarily. The simplest solution is that the flight control
computer on the Falcon 9 sends a single ABORT signal to the Dragon 2.
The Dragon 2 doesn't care why it's aborting, it just needs to GO!

In an eject, do the fairings have to go out first? Won't the capsule
have to have authority to command fairing ejection?

snip

There are no fairings on a Dragon or Dragon 2 flight. The Dragon or
Dragon 2 is the "nose cone" and is exposed to the atmosphere on all
sides except aft, where its trunk attaches to the Falcon 9.

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.

The board, in making its inquiry found many other things wrong even if
they weren't involved in the loss of Columbia per say.


This is true. Note that they found actual hardware issues that
engineers needed to fix.

Many of the
problems were with NASA culture and not the Shuttle.


This is sort of true. NASA didn't bother planning for a shuttle
stranded in orbit. After Columbia there not only was a plan, but actual
changes in how the program was executed.

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.


I'd argue they will find the singular cause of this incident and address
it. But they'll ignore any and all other problems in order to fly again
quickly. NASA has had groundings that lasted a couple years. Russia's
Soyuz isn't really grounded. They plan on launching in December, which
was the original plan all along.

They're not fixing the bigger problem of lax quality control. Vehicles
which have heritage back to the 1960s shouldn't randomly fail like they
have been for Russia.

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.


This is how the Russian space program thinks. Unfortunately, this sort
of thinking is what eventually gets people killed.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #14  
Old October 13th 18, 06:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,896
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

Jeff Findley wrote on Sat, 13 Oct 2018
09:43:55 -0400:

In article ,
says...


AND THIS JUST IN:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45842731

"Speaking in Moscow, Nasa head Jim Bridenstine said he expected a
December mission to the International Space Station (ISS) to go ahead as
planned."

To me, this points to initial investigation pointing to either a sensor
malfunction when everything was working well, ...


Nope. You really need to avoid giving serious consideration to how
things 'seem' to you or what you think facts might 'point' to. You
are almost inevitably wrong.


... or they already identified
what failed and know what to check on the new rocket before granting it
right to fly.


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


Agreed. And the fact that Russia is still planning on launching the
next Soyuz on time, presumably with a crew on board, is indicative of
how they handle these investigations. They assign blame as quickly as
possible, fix the singular issue which was blamed, and start flying
again as quickly as possible. All other issues are ignored in the
interest of flying again as quickly as possible.


Russian authorities claim the investigation will be completed by the
20th.


The press even called this a "criminal investigation". The connotations
of this are not good if you are one of the workers who build the vehicle
or one of the people who are supposed to be part of quality assurance
procedures.


Actually they're not making these rockets anymore. They have a bunch
of them in storage and when they need one they pull it out of the
warehouse and assemble the stages. Russia says that the QC on
boosters that are going to carry people is much more stringent than
otherwise.


This is the polar opposite of what NASA does which is pause everything
for an indeterminate amount of time to allow everyone to review their
systems looking for trends or ways it could fail. This is absolutely
encouraged and not punished. This is why after each major accident,
*many* issues are found, brought to the attention of management, and
these issues are addressed in some way.


Somewhere between those two approaches is probably the right approach.
Groups should be looking for 'random **** that's wrong' all the time,
not just when investigating an accident. Stuff that couldn't
contribute to the accident under consideration should be eliminated
from the tree early.


Let's not sugar coat this. Russia has had a **** poor reliability
record over the life of ISS. Three Progress resupply vessels never made
it to ISS and the latest one of those was yet another launch failure. I
think they have a systemic quality assurance problem which is partly
driven by cultural differences that make that job very difficult. They
assign blame, shoot the messenger, whatever you want to call it instead
of encouraging an environment of continuous improvement.


Russia has had around three rockets fail a year. They're just not
typically the manned ones. So maybe there's some truth to those
getting more QC attention.


For ISS this is a good thing, because it means it very likely won't have
to be de-crewed for any length of time. This reduces the chance that
ISS will break when it is without a crew and can't be fixed remotely.
So this increases the chance that the ISS program will continue to
succeed.


We're a long way from having to decrew ISS. The current crew can stay
another six months and the Soyuz can be replaced by an unmanned flight
using the hardware originally scheduled to take crew up in December.

But, this is a bad thing for the safety astronauts who have to use Soyuz
vessels to get to/from ISS. They don't really know what might happen
next because Russia just fixed that one thing that went wrong and
immediately started flying again.


I'm not sure they're even doing that. It sounds to me like what
they're going to do is just inspect the **** out of the rockets in
storage and see if they find anything wrong, even if they don't know
exactly what they're looking for.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #15  
Old October 14th 18, 07:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Elliot[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

Let's not sugar coat this. Russia has had a **** poor reliability
record over the life of ISS. Three Progress resupply vessels never
made it to ISS and the latest one of those was yet another launch
failure. I think they have a systemic quality assurance problem
which is partly driven by cultural differences that make that job
very difficult. They assign blame, shoot the messenger, whatever
you want to call it instead of encouraging an environment of
continuous improvement.


For years the US been dependent upon Russia for ISS access.
That's how reliable US is.

For ISS this is a good thing, because it means it very likely won't
have to be de-crewed for any length of time. This reduces the
chance that ISS will break when it is without a crew and can't be
fixed remotely. So this increases the chance that the ISS program
will continue to succeed.

But, this is a bad thing for the safety astronauts who have to use
Soyuz vessels to get to/from ISS. They don't really know what might
happen next because Russia just fixed that one thing that went wrong
and immediately started flying again.


  #16  
Old October 14th 18, 08:37 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,896
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 13 Oct 2018
15:56:38 -0400:

On 2018-10-13 09:43, Jeff Findley wrote:

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


Agreed. And the fact that Russia is still planning on launching the
next Soyuz on time, presumably with a crew on board, is indicative of
how they handle these investigations.


If NASA's methods wee applied to car travel, there would be no cars
travelling because with each accident, NASA would convene a 3 year
investigation to ensure there are no safety defficiencies or design
problems at GM, even if the accident was caused by a car driver going
through a red light and hitting another car.


Mostly bull****.


It is ironic that you are quick to believe that they found out exactly
what happened, but then criticise the Russians for not cancelling plans
for another launch.


It's ironic that you'd lie.


Once they know what happened, then they can check the next rocket to
ensure all the parts in that area of rocket were assembled properly and
launch. Once they know it was human error and not a design flaw, the
need to ground the fleet until the design flaw has been isolated is reduced.


Except they won't know that just from knowing 'what happened'. They
need to figure out WHY and HOW it happened, and that's the hard part.


Same with that hole in the Soyuz. Once they find out that it was human
error, they know where to check on the upcoming ships to ensure same
error not present and allow it to launch.


The Russians are constantly trying to 'inspect out' problems rather
than figuring out root causes and fixing those to prevent the problems
in the first place. It's a very 1960's approach and it simply doesn't
work very well.


That doesn't mean that they stop looking at why that emnployee made that
mistake, why he was handed the wrong tenmplate, why he didn't notice it,
and why he didn't warn anyone after he realized he drilled hole in wrong
place.


Of course it does. They punish that guy and move on. Again, a very
1960's approach.


Having a 3 year long commission to conclude what they already know about
a cultural problem that lacks full quality assurance mentality wouldn't
do much since they already know that.

My guess is that the drilling and now this accident will cause whatever
relaxation in quality assurance to be undone to return to a stricter
quality assurance.


For a little while. And that's the whole problem with 'inspect in the
quality'. It's just not sustainable in the long term. Your guess is
wrong. I'd bet they didn't 'relax' or change anything at all, so
there's nothing to 'undo' and nothing different to 'return to'.


There is a huge difference between a problem that has already happened
(loose bolt) that you can check for, and a problem that hasn't happened
yet but could happen due to design flaw (battery issues on 787 for
instance). In the later case, you want to ground the fleet because you
can't predict/check when it will happen next.


But why was that particular bolt loose? Design flaw? Bad
manufacturing? Lack of retainer? Bad maintenance procedure? Higher
than predicted vibration levels? You need to know and just inspecting
that particular bolt just adds to the inspection load without solving
the potential problem.


But if an employee didn't tighten bols sufficiently it is easy to tell
airlines to check their aircraft for loose bolts. (and once rectified,
there is no fear of a problem so you can fly safely).


Until the next plane goes down because of the next bolt...


--
"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
  #17  
Old October 14th 18, 08:45 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,896
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 13 Oct 2018
16:03:47 -0400:

On 2018-10-13 13:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:

We're a long way from having to decrew ISS. The current crew can stay
another six months and the Soyuz can be replaced by an unmanned flight
using the hardware originally scheduled to take crew up in December.


the "and" is the wrong word.


You're a stupid ****er.


Had you said we're a long way from decrew ISS *because* we can send
unmanned Soyuz, then I would aggree.


But that's not why, so 'because' is the wrong word.


But as it stands, Jan 4, one Soyuz comes back. If there is no other
Soyuz on station on that date, the remaining crew turns off the lights
and comes back. So we are NOT a long way from an empty ISS.


Want to bet? I bet they won't decrew.


If Russia is confident it has isolated the cause and can check the next
soyuz to ensure that flaw isn't present, then it can either launch
crewed or uncrewed.

But if it isn't so sure but decides to launch uncrewed, then it risks
losing another Soyuz and that can eat up in its budgets and image.


They lose three launchers a year. Which is the biggest hit to their
image, running the (small) risk and losing an unmanned vehicle,
running that same risk and losing a manned vehicle, or abandoning ISS
because of their inability to perform?



storage and see if they find anything wrong, even if they don't know
exactly what they're looking for.


But didn't you argue they already knew exactly what happened on this
last flight?


You really don't read simple declarative English, do you? They know
WHAT happened, but they don't know WHY it happened. And knowing WHY
is how you know how to prevent it from happening again.


They shouldn't fly, manned or unmanned if they don't know what happened
and thus can't check the next rocket for a defect.


You're an idiot.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #19  
Old October 15th 18, 05:26 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,504
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

On 10/11/2018 9:19 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Jeff Findley"* wrote in message
...


Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing for US-Russian
Space Station Crew
By Meghan Bartels, Space.com Senior Writer | October 11, 2018 05:11am ET
https://www.space.com/42097-soyuz-ro...expedition-57-
crew.html

Stupid Russian reliability finally bit us in the ass.* Luckily it sounds
like the crew survived the ballistic reentry and landing after the upper
stage failed to start.* On Facebook someone said reentry G's were 6
point something.* High, but survivable.

This comes on the heels of the hole, causing air loss, that was
discovered in the orbital module of one of the Soyuz capsules docked to
ISS.

We need to fly commercial crew test flights a.s.a.p.* At this point it's
reportedly NASA "paperwork" that's delaying the program!

Jeff


I've said for years, give me a comfortable lawn chair, some SCUBA
equipment and some snacks and I'd fly Cargo Dragon tomorrow.

But yeah, I can see this very quickly moving up the launches of Dragon 2
(and perhaps CST-100, but I suspect they're more constrained by
available boosters.0



Not happening, according to spokesmen for both Boeing and SpaceX.

https://spacenews.com/safety-panel-f...fety-concerns/



quote
Commercial crew providers respond

During a panel session later in the day [Oct. 11th] at the International
Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight here, managers of
Boeing’s and SpaceX’s commercial crew programs said they were still
confident that they could meet their current schedules for testing their
vehicles, but would not sacrifice safety for schedule.

The latest schedule, released by NASA Oct. 4, calls for an uncrewed test
flight by SpaceX in January, followed by a crewed one in June. Boeing
would perform an uncrewed test flight in March and a crewed one in
August. That schedule, though, represented a delay of two months for
SpaceX, and a roughly similar time frame for Boeing, since the previous
schedule released in August.

“You lay out a plan you believe you can achieve,” said John Mulholland,
vice president and program manager for commercial programs at Boeing’s
space exploration unit. He noted the company was 85 percent of the way
through the overall test program, but added that still meant a chance of
discovery of new issues during that final 15 percent. “If there’s
discovery that we have, we’ll address it correctly, and fly as soon as
we’re ready.”

“You put together a plan, you expect to follow it, and you do your best
to get there,” said Benji Reed, director of commercial crew mission
management at SpaceX. “While we’re all pushing hard to get flying, you
also want to want to provide it safely.”

/quote

These companies are too smart to buck the party line and bite the hand
that feeds.

Dave



  #20  
Old October 15th 18, 05:28 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,504
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

On 10/15/2018 12:26 AM, David Spain wrote:
On 10/11/2018 9:19 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Jeff Findley"* wrote in message
...


Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing for US-Russian
Space Station Crew
By Meghan Bartels, Space.com Senior Writer | October 11, 2018 05:11am ET
https://www.space.com/42097-soyuz-ro...expedition-57-
crew.html

Stupid Russian reliability finally bit us in the ass.* Luckily it sounds
like the crew survived the ballistic reentry and landing after the upper
stage failed to start.* On Facebook someone said reentry G's were 6
point something.* High, but survivable.

This comes on the heels of the hole, causing air loss, that was
discovered in the orbital module of one of the Soyuz capsules docked to
ISS.

We need to fly commercial crew test flights a.s.a.p.* At this point it's
reportedly NASA "paperwork" that's delaying the program!

Jeff


I've said for years, give me a comfortable lawn chair, some SCUBA
equipment and some snacks and I'd fly Cargo Dragon tomorrow.

But yeah, I can see this very quickly moving up the launches of Dragon
2 (and perhaps CST-100, but I suspect they're more constrained by
available boosters.0



Not happening, according to spokesmen for both Boeing and SpaceX.

https://spacenews.com/safety-panel-f...fety-concerns/

These companies are too smart to buck the party line and bite the hand
that feeds.

Dave




BTW. ASAP == Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel - talk about acronym abuse.

Dave

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soyuz rocket launch aborted [email protected] Space Shuttle 0 October 11th 18 12:23 PM
Behind the beautiful Soyuz launch: overcoming a communications emergency Jim Oberg Space Station 2 April 11th 06 03:50 AM
Behind the beautiful Soyuz launch: overcoming a communications emergency Jim Oberg History 2 April 11th 06 03:50 AM
Soyuz emergency landing in U.S. instructions. Pat Flannery History 7 June 21st 04 02:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.