A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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
  #31  
Old October 16th 18, 11:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article ,
says...

On 2018-10-15 07:46, Jeff Findley wrote:

If you look at Russia's overall rate of launch failures and Progress
vessels not making it to ISS (three so far), it's pretty damn clear that
this recent Soyuz failure with a crew on board isn't a one off failure.


Internally, Roscosmos would know if they reduced quality assurance or
what changes they have made that would result in a change in the safety
culture.


Not necessarily. If the lower QA was a result in worker dissatisfaction
due to not being paid on time (which has happened) then Roscosmos may be
blissfully unaware that something changed that they never intended.

They obviously need to get flights back to normal as soon as possible.
But internally, they should, by now, have enough data to justify
inceaseing quality assurance and fixing culture to ensure quality.


But without a budget increase, such a thing wouldn't be possible. I
don't pretend to know everything that goes on inside Roscosmos. I just
look at their string of failures over the last 10 to 20 years and can
see that failures are higher than they were when they were being funded
by the Soviet Union.

The more difficult part is change culture to remove blame. Let that
worker go to supervisor and be rewarded for showing he drilled hole ins
wrong place instead of him fearing reprissals and plugging hole with his
gum and then hiding it by screwing the control panel over it.

(The SNCF in their presentation to NTSB outlined the importance of this,
calling it "Just and Fair" policy that needs to come from the top to
cover everyone so nobody is affraid to go to their supervisor.)


That requires a culture change, which is a hard thing to do. When your
origins are that of an organization once run by the iron fist of the
Soviet Union, I think this sort of culture change would be doubly hard.

Soyuz, as a launch
vehicle, is nearing the end of its life and the new launch vehicle meant
to replace it is literally taking decades to come online.


Out of curiosity, what is "old" about Soyuz being launched today?


Soyuz 2 is the latest series, but they're still quite similar to the
originals in many ways. In particular, the booster/core arrangement and
staging are pretty much the same as it's been since the R-7
launcher/ICBM days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-2

But just look at the string of failures in the above chart. That's not
what you want to see in a new version of an existing launch vehicle.
Imagine if Atlas V or Delta IV had such a string of failures.

Also, look at the long list of planned launches. Soyuz isn't going away
anytime soon.

It seems to be that its performance is "good enough" and that it doesn't
justify spending megabucks on a new rocket (which is why it isn't
happening) and instead just improve the Soyuz which they have done over
the years.


They want to change launch sites to ones in Russia and get rid of
suppliers that aren't Russian. This decision was made in 1992, which is
when the Angara concept took shape. Now it's over a quarter of a
century later and Russia is still working on making it fully operational
from their new Russian launch site. So far Angara has flown *twice*.

Angara is the new vehicle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_(rocket_family)

Also, considering what SpaceX has achieved in terms of landing stages,
it would be wise for Russians to put their "new" rocket on hold while
they redesign it to be able to be re-used like Falcon9.


It's taken them a quarter of a century to get this far with their "new"
launch vehicle. Do you really think they'll scrap everything and start
again in the hopes that 25 years from now they can compete with Falcon 9
and Falcon Heavy?

Is there much of a point today to design a new non-re-usable rocket ?


Government launch contracts will still be a thing. Russia will no doubt
continue to launch their own payloads on their own launch vehicles as a
matter of pride and national security. Note these are part of the
reasons why they're working on their own launch site in Russia proper.

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.
  #33  
Old October 16th 18, 12:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 16 Oct 2018
07:00:33 -0400:

In article ,
says...
You mean besides it being a 1960's design?


Come on. I this a fair accusation of Soyuz? The capsule has modern
electronics, glass cockpit, automated ejection system etc. So I have to
wonder what else was upgraded over time and what is left of the originla
design.

And if the engines work well and have proven themselves over many years
and perform close to what modern engines can do, why re-inent the wheel?

Spacex use Kerosene, so it can't be all that bad.


Yes Soyuz the launch vehicle (we're not talking about the crewed Soyuz
capsule) has had some minor tweaks since the 1960s, but it's still
essentially the same. It's boosters and core stage are arranged and
function the same as they have since the R-7. The stage separation
sequence is pretty much the same as it's always been. It's a very old
design.


[The following is actually intended for you, Mayfly, since Jeff
probably already knows all this stuff.]

And how that stage separation works is a particularly elegant design.
Soyuz doesn't 'sit' on the pad like other launchers. Instead it is
suspended by the upper attachment points of the strap-ons. This means
that the same forces that hold the thing together in flight hold it
together on the pad. Once you're under thrust the force holds the
ball joint at the upper attachment point in place and the rocket is
still 'suspended by them'. When the strap-ons shut down, they start
to 'fall' backward since the rest of the rocket is still under thrust.
This motion triggers a 'separation signal' that blows the pyros on the
cabling at the lower attachment points and commands open a valve to
vent oxygen from the tip of the strap-on. The strap-ons fall backward
and the venting gas pushes the 'nose' of the strap-on out away from
the core (second) stage of the rocket, leading to something known as
the 'Korolev Cross' as the four strap-ons separate.

In the case of the failed launch, the 'Cross' looks particularly messy
and we know at least one of the strap-ons hit the core stage during
separation. My guess (and it is a guess) is that one or more of the
valves that is supposed to vent gas didn't do so, so there was no
impetus to 'push' the strap-on away from the core and it fell straight
down instead. Of course, even that explanation isn't a complete
'why', since you'd still want to know WHY the gas venting didn't
happen; valve failure, insufficient gas available, separation signal
not sent or not received, etc.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #34  
Old October 17th 18, 02:37 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 16 Oct 2018
14:48:28 -0400:

On 2018-10-16 06:56, Jeff Findley wrote:

Not necessarily. If the lower QA was a result in worker dissatisfaction
due to not being paid on time (which has happened) then Roscosmos may be
blissfully unaware that something changed that they never intended.


Statistics showing higher failure rates should be "in your face" to
uppoer managemenrt that there is a quality assurance problem.


Eventually, sure, assuming 'upper management' pays any attention to
the data.


If errors
increase for whatever reasons (such as workers being tires, not being
paid etc), it means that the Q/A is not detecting those errors and needs
to be improved.


Wrong approach. What you're describing is not a QA failure. It's a
QC failure and you can't 'inspect in' quality on the back side.


And then with a proper Q/A, those doing it will go back to management
and tell them that it costs X% more to build the rocket because of all
the problems that need to be fixed, and all those problems are caused by
workers not being paid and being demoralized.


Not what will happen. What will happen is that they will go back and
say it will cost more BECAUSE OF MORE QC.



But without a budget increase, such a thing wouldn't be possible. I
don't pretend to know everything that goes on inside Roscosmos.


But this is where failures come into play. Losing $100m in revenues from
a launch because rocket went kablooey and you can pinpoint the cause to
bad Q/A which would cost $300,000 to fix should become a no brainer in
terms of finances.


You don't seem to know the difference between QA and QC.


On the other hand, if the mentality is that the government will pay for
any rocket that exploded with no financial penalties to Roscosmos and
those who build them, then there is no incentive to improve Q/A unless
the government gets concerned about its image and wants to make sure
Soyua is seen as a reliable transport that Russia can be proud of.


'Concern about image' is why you get the bad culture.



look at their string of failures over the last 10 to 20 years and can
see that failures are higher than they were when they were being funded
by the Soviet Union.


When Air Canada was privatized in late 1980s, it started debt free,
owning its aircraft, but still bloated inefficient operation. It
replaced lost government subsidies by progressively selling its aircraft
to lessors and leasing them back. This allowed AC to continue its cushy
existence till it had no aircraft to sell at which point it went under
CCAA (Canadian equivalent to Chapter 11). It even spun off its frequent
flyier programme and maintenance facilities.

But that was the rude awakening it needed to become a commercial entity
since it now had no assets and no government to bail it out. This was
roughly 2003-2004. It has since been more or less profitable and is even
going to buy back its frequent flyer programme.

It basically will take a "survival" event for a significant change in
corporate culture.


Non sequitur much?



That requires a culture change, which is a hard thing to do. When your
origins are that of an organization once run by the iron fist of the
Soviet Union, I think this sort of culture change would be doubly hard.


Soyuz is built by Progress Rocket in Samara which appears to be
controled by Roscosmos. (is this correct?). As long as the government
will inject additional money to compensate for the loss of a rocket,
there is no incentive to fix the problems. But if the loss of a rocket
represents real hardship, then Roscosmos would pretty quickly insist
Progress Rocket gets its QA back in shape and ensure no mistakes go
unchecked.


You're talking about QC, not QA.


Either way, the news that Progress/Roscosmos don't have equal QA for
cargo vs manned launches should get the insurance companies on the case
because they will likely raise rates to launch satellites and that makes
Soyuz a less atrractive launch vehicle.


I don't think launch insurance works the way you think it does.



Soyuz 2 is the latest series, but they're still quite similar to the
originals in many ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-2


So basically an upgrade to Soyuz, like Falcon9 got an upgrade with Block
5. The capsule got significant upgrades over time and is still called
"Soyuz". And the current Soyuz

Note that the current Soyuz isn't the original 1966 models as is
asserted in this model.

Soyuz 11A511 (1966-1975)
Soyuz-L 11A511L (1970-1971)
Soyuz-M 11A511M (1971-1976)
Soyuz-U 11A511U (1973-2017)
Soyuz-U2 11A511U2 or 11A511K (1982-1995)
Soyuz-FG 11A511U-FG (2001-today)
Soyuz-2 14A14 (2006-today)

So when Soyuz 2 becomes "mainline" it will likely to be called "Soyuz"
just like Soyuz-FG (current mainline) is called "Soyuz".


No, it won't. Look at the bloody dates for Soyuz-2. It went
"mainline" in 2006. Still called Soyuz-2.



It's taken them a quarter of a century to get this far with their "new"
launch vehicle. Do you really think they'll scrap everything and start
again in the hopes that 25 years from now they can compete with Falcon 9
and Falcon Heavy?


Fair point. But Suyuz-2 started in 2006 so 12 years, not 25. I was
mislead by someone else who claimed Soyuz-2 was a new rocket. It's just
an upgrade on existing Soyuz.


It didn't 'start in 2006'. They were finished developing it in 2006
and started replacing other Soyuz models with it. Soyuz-FG is no
longer being built and will be replaced as a manned launcher by
Soyuz-2 in 2019 or so.

It's astonishing to me that you could go and find the historical model
history but were apparently unable to read any further.


--
"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
  #35  
Old October 17th 18, 02:40 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 16 Oct 2018
14:57:07 -0400:


So just because the Soyuz dates back from 1966 doesn't mean that it
isn't a good sound design that is still valid today. It's gotten more
upgrades than the 737 has over time.


Compare your new car to an old car from 1966. It's a totally
different design. There's a reason for that.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #36  
Old October 17th 18, 02:44 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 16 Oct 2018
15:04:57 -0400:

On 2018-10-16 07:31, Fred J. McCall wrote:

separation. My guess (and it is a guess) is that one or more of the
valves that is supposed to vent gas didn't do so, so there was no
impetus to 'push' the strap-on away from the core and it fell straight
down instead.


Yet, you stated categorically they knew WHAT happened. But now admit
that it is just a guess on what happened.


Once again your defective English language skills appear to have
betrayed you.


Fact: Anomaly detected and capsule eject was activated automatically.
Fact: Crew landed safely.

Fair speculation: one booster didn't separate normally.


No, that's a fact.


The rest at this point is pure guessing/speculation. So anyone who makes
claims to know WHAT happened is really stating his guesses are facts.


Again you display massive ignorance about the difference between WHAT
and WHY.


The russian investigators may have mnore factual data at this point that
point to what happened. But as fat as I know, this hasn't been released
to media.

The youtube videos of the event don't seem to be high enough resolution
for general public to even really see what happened, even less guess
that some valve malfunctioned. For all we know, the same gremlins that
scared the pants off William Shatner in an old documentary called "The
TWilight Zone" started to tear the metal off the rocket as it ascended.


For all YOU know, perhaps, but then you're pretty much perpetually
stupid with an axe to grind.


--
"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
  #37  
Old October 17th 18, 11:49 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article ,
says...

On 2018-10-16 06:38, Jeff Findley wrote:

You might want to read up on commercial crew. Start with the basics
like how many crew NASA is planning on flying inside them on each
flight.



can you point me to authoritative place where current information is
easily found? Before making the previous post, I googled it and all I
found was the design capacity of 7. Not the planned capacity for ISS
flights.


Seriously? O.k. I'll agree NASA's Commercial Crew webpage is devoid of
nearly all factual (useful) information. NASA's PAO is going for flashy
looking webpages instead of, you know, actual information like they used
to provide in PDF form. Ugh. I hate this trend. Dumbing down content
of the nation's most well known scientific/engineering organization.

So, as always, Wikipedia is pretty much the best starting point for
anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commer...ew_Development

So, it looks like crews of 4 for most operational missions. The list of
crewmembers on Wikipedia are only NASA astronauts. As previously
discussed, commercial crew will carry international astronauts also,
including Russian cosmonauts.

The maximum crew capacity of 7 could be used in a contingency. Say a
commercial crew vehicle develops a problem on orbit and another vehicle
needs to replace it. In that situation, it could come down with more
crew than it went up with.

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.
  #38  
Old October 17th 18, 11:54 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article ,
says...

On 2018-10-16 06:56, Jeff Findley wrote:

Not necessarily. If the lower QA was a result in worker dissatisfaction
due to not being paid on time (which has happened) then Roscosmos may be
blissfully unaware that something changed that they never intended.


Statistics showing higher failure rates should be "in your face" to
uppoer managemenrt that there is a quality assurance problem. If errors
increase for whatever reasons (such as workers being tires, not being
paid etc), it means that the Q/A is not detecting those errors and needs
to be improved.


The data is on Wikipedia for all to see. The failure rates over the
last 10 to 20 years are quite obvious.

And then with a proper Q/A, those doing it will go back to management
and tell them that it costs X% more to build the rocket because of all
the problems that need to be fixed, and all those problems are caused by
workers not being paid and being demoralized.


Unfortunately, hand-waving all of this isn't going to fix the Russian
cultural problems. IMHO, the rest of the world should just stop flying
payloads and people on Russian launch vehicles. If Russia complains,
tell them they just need a better trampoline. They'll get the reference
and it will **** them off to no end.

I used to think Russia was a reliable contributor to spaceflight, but
the data don't lie. They're not reliable anymore.

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.
  #39  
Old October 17th 18, 12:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article ,
says...

On 2018-10-16 07:00, Jeff Findley wrote:

Yes Soyuz the launch vehicle (we're not talking about the crewed Soyuz
capsule) has had some minor tweaks since the 1960s, but it's still
essentially the same. It's boosters and core stage are arranged and
function the same as they have since the R-7. The stage separation
sequence is pretty much the same as it's always been. It's a very old
design.


And the Cadillac of today is still called a Cadillac and still has rear
wheel drive with engine in front, 4 wheel and same general arrangement
and recognizable style as it had in the 1960s.


Bull****. Not the same at all. With Soyuz, you could likely take a
Soyuz 2 back in time to the 1960s, sit it on the pad, hook it up (with a
little Russian ingenuity), and get it to fly. All of the structural
connections are sure to be the same. The issues would be with the upper
stage, which is where you'd need the ingenuity to get it fueled.

Really, Soyuz 2 has way more in common with the original R-7 than your
**** poor Cadillac analogy. A modern Cadillac has absolutely nothing to
do with a 1960s Cadillac except for the name. Even the damn nuts and
bolts won't fit because they're all metric today while whey were
"imperial" in the 1960s!

snip

You're just not getting it, are you?

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.
  #40  
Old October 17th 18, 12:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article ,
says...

On 2018-10-16 07:31, Fred J. McCall wrote:

separation. My guess (and it is a guess) is that one or more of the
valves that is supposed to vent gas didn't do so, so there was no
impetus to 'push' the strap-on away from the core and it fell straight
down instead.


Yet, you stated categorically they knew WHAT happened. But now admit
that it is just a guess on what happened.

Fact: Anomaly detected and capsule eject was activated automatically.
Fact: Crew landed safely.

Fair speculation: one booster didn't separate normally.

The rest at this point is pure guessing/speculation. So anyone who makes
claims to know WHAT happened is really stating his guesses are facts.

The russian investigators may have mnore factual data at this point that
point to what happened. But as fat as I know, this hasn't been released
to media.

The youtube videos of the event don't seem to be high enough resolution
for general public to even really see what happened, even less guess
that some valve malfunctioned. For all we know, the same gremlins that
scared the pants off William Shatner in an old documentary called "The
TWilight Zone" started to tear the metal off the rocket as it ascended.


I'm sorry JF, but you're full of ****. Go read all of the news articles
coming out about this incident. The space media is covering this
incident like white on rice on a paper plate in a snowstorm.

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.
 




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 05:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.