Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...

Alfred S. Dert wrote:

Or acting as submarine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_23

I've never heard of it being completely submerged. The Soyuz is designed
to float, and cosmonauts are given training in water landings.
The whole parachute system only weighs a few hundred pounds, so even if
it were waterlogged it wouldn't drag the capsule underwater.
Even the page with photos of the recovery that the article cites shows
it floating:
http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru/bib...ov/text/12.htm
The fact that the parachute didn't detach is odd though.
Theres a somewhat garbled description of the landing he
http://www.videocosmos.com/soyuz23.shtm
According to James Oberg's study, a electrical short after the water
landing caused the reserve parachute to deploy also:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html

Pat

On Apr 22, 2:13*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Alfred S. Dert wrote:

Or acting as submarine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_23

I've never heard of it being completely submerged. The Soyuz is designed
to float, and cosmonauts are given training in water landings.
The whole parachute system only weighs a few hundred pounds, so even if
it were waterlogged it wouldn't drag the capsule underwater.
Even the page with photos of the recovery that the article cites shows
it floating:http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru/bib...ov/text/12.htm
The fact that the parachute didn't detach is odd though.
Theres a somewhat garbled description of the landing hehttp://www.videocosmos.com/soyuz23.shtm
According to James Oberg's study, a electrical short after the water
landing caused the reserve parachute to deploy also:http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html

Pat

Interfax now reporting that the descent module came in "hatch first"
instead of heat sheild with signifigant damage occuring, pressure
relief valve damaged and comm antenna burned off. russian officials
give it a criticality of 3 out of 5. See
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...h8fGQD90749E80
.............Doc

wrote:

Interfax now reporting that the descent module came in "hatch first"
instead of heat sheild with signifigant damage occuring, pressure
relief valve damaged and comm antenna burned off. russian officials
give it a criticality of 3 out of 5. See
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...h8fGQD90749E80
.............Doc


James Oberg was just on NBC news saying the same thing.
This was accompanied by great animation of a joined orbital module and
descent module entering the atmosphere with the crew landing in the
orbital module. :-D
According to the NBC report, the equipment module didn't detach the last
time either, which led to that ballistic reentry.
If the thing really did come in front-end first like Soyuz 5, that would
explain possible parachute damage, as that did occur on Soyuz 5 (Pat
pats self on back... as for once he did mention that as a possible cause
of parachute damage in a earlier posting on this landing:
http://tinyurl.com/59th8c )
If this really did occur twice in a row, then it's crazy to trust the
lives of American astronauts to the Soyuz for reentry.
This will have huge ramifications for the ISS program.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

If this really did occur twice in a row, then it's crazy to trust the
lives of American astronauts to the Soyuz for reentry.
This will have huge ramifications for the ISS program.


This New Scientist article says the equipment module also separated late
on the TMA-10 mission: http://tinyurl.com/4x3t84
Odd, I don't remember hearing about that at the time it occurred.
This report speaks of a faulty electrical control cable:
http://ruspace.blogspot.com/2008/01/...ing-cause.html
Of course if one of the things that control cable was supposed to do was
separate the descent and equipment modules, then a lot is explained.
Another alternative is that the equipment module separated, but remained
attached to the descent module via the electrical cables that connected
them till they burned through or were torn off during the initial stages
of reentry. (normally, a pyrotechnic activated guillotine device is
supposed to sever them)
If that's the case, then it's a old problem for the Russians; the Vostok
spacecraft had problems with the umbilical between the crew sphere and
equipment/retro module not detaching, and more than one of the manned
flights (including Gagarin's) came into the atmosphere dragging its
equipment module behind it till the umbilical burned through or was
pulled out of its socket on the reentry sphere.

Pat

T.B. wrote:

I've heard of one Soyuz reentry where the descent module tumbled
severely (not including Soyuz 1) but never one that apparently came in
nose first for most or all of the descent. I would guess it's a miracle
that the parachute cover wasn't fused closed from the heat.

Soyuz 5 did, in 1969.

http://www.jamesoberg.com/062002flightjournalsoyuz5.html

On Apr 22, 5:42 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

If this really did occur twice in a row, then it's crazy to trust the
lives of American astronauts to the Soyuz for reentry.
This will have huge ramifications for the ISS program.

This New Scientist article says the equipment module also separated late
on the TMA-10 mission:http://tinyurl.com/4x3t84
Odd, I don't remember hearing about that at the time it occurred.
This report speaks of a faulty electrical control cable:http://ruspace.blogspot.com/2008/01/...tic-landing-ca...
Of course if one of the things that control cable was supposed to do was
separate the descent and equipment modules, then a lot is explained.
Another alternative is that the equipment module separated, but remained
attached to the descent module via the electrical cables that connected
them till they burned through or were torn off during the initial stages
of reentry. (normally, a pyrotechnic activated guillotine device is
supposed to sever them)
If that's the case, then it's a old problem for the Russians; the Vostok
spacecraft had problems with the umbilical between the crew sphere and
equipment/retro module not detaching, and more than one of the manned
flights (including Gagarin's) came into the atmosphere dragging its
equipment module behind it till the umbilical burned through or was
pulled out of its socket on the reentry sphere.

Pat

Latest news:
Citing an unmanned space official close to Russia's post-landing
investigation, Interfax reported that the propulsion module did not
jettison properly, preventing the Soyuz's heat shield from bearing the
brunt of the fiery temperatures during reentry.

Instead, the spacecraft's hatch side was facing forward and suffered
some heat damage before the propulsion module separated for good and
allowed a successful landing, the news agency reported.

Just like Soyuz 5, could have been a bad day....

On Apr 23, 3:50*pm, M wrote:

Citing an unmanned space official close to Russia's post-landing
investigation,

probably should be 'unnamed' although I suppose the official could be
a robot

Neil Gerace wrote:
On Apr 23, 3:50 pm, M wrote:

Citing an unmanned space official close to Russia's post-landing
investigation,

probably should be 'unnamed' although I suppose the official could be
a robot

Or even a woman, though given Russian officials' attempts at "humor"
that is somewhat unlikely...

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
T.B. wrote:

I've heard of one Soyuz reentry where the descent module tumbled
severely (not including Soyuz 1) but never one that apparently came
in nose first for most or all of the descent. I would guess it's a
miracle that the parachute cover wasn't fused closed from the heat.

Soyuz 5 did, in 1969.

This New York Times article also says the TMA-10 flight didn't separate
correctly from its equipment module either:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/sc...tml?ref=europe
Although the Russians characterized this as a 3-out-of-5 on the scale of
severity, When Soyuz 5 did its reentry with the equipment module still
attached, everyone (including cosmonaut Boris Volynov) was amazed that
he had survived the reentry.
The fact that the problem on TMA-10 was considered minor at the time,
and that its true nature wasn't discussed by either the Russians or
NASA till now makes it look like a very severe situation got swept under
the rug in order to keep the ISS program running smoothly.
The fact that the same problem has now happened on two successive
flights indicates a major problem with the standards being used in
assembling and inspecting the Soyuz in Russia, and now further US
astronauts should be entrusted to it either on ascent or descent, till
what exactly went wrong on the the last two flights is tracked down and
fixed.
In the US, a problem of this magnitude would (hopefully) involve
grounding the spacecraft, fixing the problem, and flying one or two test
missions in a unmanned condition to check out those fixes before
restarting manned flights.
I seriously doubt the Russians will do this; they will assure us that
the problem is fixed, and keep right on launching...on the grounds that
no one has been killed yet, so it's safe to fly.
We've had a couple of run-ins with that thought process already in our
Shuttle program.
ISS requires deadlines to be met to keep the station manned and
supplied, and that is going to influence decisions as to whether the
manned spacecraft heading to it are safe to launch for its entire lifetime.

Pat

On Apr 23, 2:02*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
...
James Oberg was just on NBC news saying the same thing.
This was accompanied by great animation of *a joined orbital module and
descent module entering the atmosphere with the crew landing in the
orbital module. :-D
...
Pat

Pat,

I thought maybe I was the only one who noticed the mistake in the NBC
animation. After reading a few of your posts, I can see you've spent
even more time than me reading about the Soviet... uh, excuse me, I'm
showing my age, now it's the "RUSSIAN" space program!

MSNBC plays the clip at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619#24261472

I was already working online when the news aired last night on the
east coast, so I quickly e-mailed NBC News about the animation,
telling them I was just a nerd trying to be helpful. Surprisingly, Tom
Costello responded within minutes, with one of their producers
ultimately sending me this e-mail later last night:

From: Monahan, Kevin (NBC Universal)
To: 'spazhoward'
Sent: Tue Apr 22 21:52:37 2008
Subject: NBC News thank you
I just wanted to write you in order to thank you for your e-mail this
evening. Because of your information, we were able to fix the graphic
for the rest of the country tonight in Tom Costello's piece. Call
yourself a nerd if you want, but you helped us make a correction for
several million of our viewers tonight. Sorry for our mistake. Thanks
again,
Kevin Monahan
Nightly News with Brian Williams

I'd be interested in hearing if anyone on the west coast saw the
animation and noticed if they got it right, and maybe just didn't
update the website (or maybe they just flipped the orbital module this
time and THOUGHT they fixed the animation?)