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

Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 5th 18, 11:12 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
Posts: 9,978
Default Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight

JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 5 Nov 2018
01:28:34 -0500:

On 2018-11-04 19:08, Fred J. McCall wrote:

You assume incorrectly. Essentially no air means essentially no wind.

Pressure may be "near" 0, but what causes one to state essentially no
wind when considering the speed at which the rocket is going?

The speed of the rocket has nothing to do with 'wind'. Take a physics

I knwo the stack reached a peak of 93km altitude (where air density is
very very very negligible) but unsure on what altitude the incident

A little over 130,000 feet is where staging occurs. This is
preposterously easy to find out.

Scouring through Russian SpaceWeb, I find booster separation at roughly
118 seconds happens at roughly 48km altitude. This is when the incident

See? Like I said. Ridiculously easy to find. Even you managed it.

So air density wouldn't be so nill at that altitude
considering the speed rocket is going at.

The air density also has nothing to do with the speed of the rocket.
It is what it is. Pressure at that altitude is around 0.04 psi. That
qualifies as a medium quality vacuum.

"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
Old November 5th 18, 11:42 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
Posts: 1,881
Default Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight

In article ,

On 2018-11-04 08:24, Jeff Findley wrote:

I swear we went over this when SpaceX lost a Falcon 9 on the pad when
the COPV let loose. It's a very similar situation. Here we go again.

Falcon 9 happened at ground in dense air with lost of availabhel ambient

I was asking specifically at that altutude whether ambient air would be
sufficient to support combustion. Ignition could come from sparks of
metal rubbing agaist metal, or from the core's exhaust, or even fuel
touching the booster's engine bell(s).

I assume there is still sufficient wind at that altitude that fuel
leaking from core would quickly move down to below the stack ? (as well
as continued acceration of core done by core's engines before they shut).

Outside the core's bells, would there be enough residual O2 from the
tanks to allow the leaked kerosene to burn, or is all of the O2 used up
by the time the exhaust leaves the engine bell?

You said, and I quote using cut-and-paste, "QUESTION: at that altitude,
would releasing large amounts of kerosene cause an explosion". Which
you "conveniently" removed from this reply.

There was no explosion and could be no explosion because that would have
required mixing of fuel and oxidizer. End of discussion on a the
"explosion" that could not have happened.

The Russian launch program has a failed safety culture.

No. The Russian launches have see an increase in failures. The types of
faulures *seem* to point to quality assurance/safety culture defficiencies.

And just what on God's green earth would cause so many failures over so
many years of two designs that have been flying (and slightly evolving)
for more than half a century? Was every single one an "act of God"?

No, the data is clear. Designs that are robust and should not fail
continue to fail due to **** poor quality control. Look at each
incident individually and you'll see human error after human error that
was not caught before launch.

If you were granted powers like those NASA commissions, you could then
spend the time to access al the information and do the interviews and
make a conclusion that this is the case, cite specific areas where it is
properly imploemented and areas where it isn't etc etc. And inrnally,
the russians may very well have done that. Or they may be doing this on
a case by case basis. (for instance after hole drilled in wring place,
and now with the push button damage).

You could potentially also find that the crews performed as documented
in mating procedures and it was the procedures which were wrong all
those years and had a low risk of damage to sensors, and this time, that
risk materialised. The vlame shifts away from assembly workers and move
to the engineers who designed the mouting hardware/procedures in a way
that wasn't failsafe.

You would blame failures of designs that are *this* old on engineering
errors? Bull****. That's not what we're seeing here. You go look at
the reasons for each failure. The information is there, on the
Internet, and you'll see what I have seen over the years which is
manufacturing error after assembly error after operational error (e.g.
programming the launch vehicle with the wrong launch location). Design
errors on Soyuz and Proton launch vehicles are few and far between.
There have been some of these on the upper stages, but that's not the
cause of the majority of Russian launch failures over the last 20 years.

How many more failures will it take before the Russians realise they
need to change the culture? How much business must they lose before
Russians change it? I don't know.

I don't claim to know what is wrong with their program. I am merely
poiting out that lots could be wrong and you can't draw conclusions from
what little information we get.

And that's the point. Lots of various individual "causes" are found but
nothing is done to fix the bigger problem. Furthermore, they show zero
signs that they are even willing to admit that there is a bigger
problem. Every time there is an "incident" it is "resolved" far too
quickly to address the underlying cultural problems with their (lack of)
quality control.

What we are seeing is the Russian space program's funding being cut by
ending of foreign ISS related payments, rapid decline in commercial
launches (due to **** poor reliability and relatively high cost), and
decreased government funding. Their budget is getting cut in every way

No one but the Russians can fix this. But the attitude of their
government administrators is that the beatings will stop when morale

Stick a fork in it, the Russian space program is done.

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.

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 Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz! Jeff Findley[_6_] Policy 51 October 18th 18 11:53 PM
After 44 years and 787 launches, Russia to Retire World's LongestServing Soyuz-U Rocket Jonathan Policy 2 February 25th 17 09:26 PM
What does Russia do with Soyuz that returns to Kazakhstan autonut843 History 9 October 14th 05 03:17 AM
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight Rusty B Space Shuttle 1 May 14th 04 08:46 AM
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight Rusty B Policy 1 May 14th 04 08:46 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 AM.

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.