|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, David Spain wrote:
BTW. ASAP == Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel - talk about acronym abuse. In that context does ASAP mean "as slow as possible"? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 15 Oct 2018
16:40:04 -0400: On 2018-10-14 03:37, Fred J. McCall wrote: 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. If you are NASA and find a worker forgot to tighten a bolt and this was not detected, there will be a 3 year long Commission that will do a comprehensive review of ALL aspects of assembly/quality assurance and require 15 people sign off on that one bolt and fill out 173 separate forms. Your ass must get really sore, pulling all that stuff out of it. Very few would bet that Russia has a quality assurance that is on par with NASA. But sometimes "it'd good enough" works well enough and ends up costling a lot less than the NASA way. Except it doesn't "cost a lot less" because that savings is wiped out and then some the next time you lose a vehicle. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 15 Oct 2018
17:00:13 -0400: I recently listened to an NTSB hearing on 2 Amtrak crashes. They invited the regulatory head from England and safety director from French SNCF. They had long ago implemented safety management systems as integral part of organsiations (as opposed to separate departments) and that in the end, this reduced the accidents's costs by more than it cost to implement. In other words, a sound business decision instead of costly regulatory burden. NASA is imposed costly regulatory burdens. And when it loses a ship, it is a PR disaster for itself and government and not really a financial issue. But to a railway, there are real costs associated with a derailment, not only the cost of damaged/destroyed equipment, but loss of business on that line for howevere many days it takes to fix the site. You think railways don't have regulatory burdens? How cute! When you have former government organisations that turn private, the former corportare culture takes a long while to convert to private enterprise. We had that with Air Canada and CN Rail in Canada. If Roscosmos is more and more supposed to be a self standing business, then while the hole in a Soyuz wouldn't cost them anything, the loss of a rocket does. And once they can no longer count on the Ruissian covernment to fill their coffers whenener they need cash, then they will start to want to reduce rocket failures. And will implement better quality assurance natively and in a cost efficient way. Except that hasn't happened. Care to speculate on just why that is? The initial reaction is to cut quality assurance, but once you see that it does increase ship losses, it becomes better business to bring back quality assurance and even increase it. If Roscosmos is to survive after the Americans stop paying $85m per seat likely next year, they will need to be seen as a reliable way up to orbit for commnercial uses. If they charge much less, but insurance companies charge much more because they aren't relaiable, then it is no longer good business proposition. So better quality assurance may come to Roscosmos because of business necessity. Do us all a favor and hold your breath waiting for that. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 15 Oct 2018
17:07:05 -0400: On 2018-10-14 03:45, Fred J. McCall wrote: You really don't read simple declarative English, do you? They know WHAT happened, but they don't know WHY it happened. As of the day after the incident, the only information was capsule eject was autopmatically triggered and it seemd to be due to anomaly with core engines after oen booster seemd to not detach cleanly. I don't consider this to be knowing WHAT happened. OK, you don't know the difference between WHAT and WHY. Like I said, you have this problem reading and understanding simple declarative English sentences. Once they find that it was a specific explosive bolt that didn't fire, and the aerodynamic forces sheared the booster off the core's skin and in doing so, damaged one of more core engine bells, then I'll consider that to be "WHAT" happened. And we're back to you not speaking English again. I explained this to you once. The only pyros are on the bottom attachment points to sever data lines. THE BOTTOME ATTACHMENT POINTS ARE NOT STRUCTURAL. The upper ball attachment point bears all the structural stress and it relies on the strap-on being under thrust to stay attached. ANY of that look familiar to you, Mayfly? And the "WHAT" should also include why that explosive bolt didn't fire (faulty eectrical connection, someone forgot to put the explosive charge, or was explisive charge too small? or what). Please read up on how this booster works, Mayfly. -- "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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 15 Oct 2018
17:37:51 -0400: 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. 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 they won't. 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.) The Russians operate on a very 1960's QC model. 'Blame' is an integral part of that. 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? You mean besides it being a 1960's design? 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've made third stage changes. Justification isn't the problem. Having the money is the problem. 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. Why would they do that? ULA isn't doing that with their new rocket. ESA isn't doing that with their new rocket. The only people doing that are SpaceX and Blue Origin. Everyone else is still stuck in the paradigm that it's 'cheaper' to throw the whole works away every time rather than spend a little extra money to enable some reuse. Is there much of a point today to design a new non-re-usable rocket ? Ask ULA. Ask ESA. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 16 Oct 2018
01:36:51 -0400: On 2018-10-15 19:36, Fred J. McCall wrote: The Russians operate on a very 1960's QC model. 'Blame' is an integral part of that. This *appears* to be the case but I don't work there so I can't say for sure. The fact that the guy who drilled hole in wrongt place didn't tell supervisor is an indicating that this is a problem. Indication does not make "proof" though. And this is part of your problem, Mayfly. You look at the facts (or at least the few that you remember) and then discount what they tell you as "not proof". You mean besides it being a 1960's design? Come on. I this a fair accusation of Soyuz? Yes. The capsule has modern electronics, glass cockpit, automated ejection system etc. The capsule and the rocket are two different independent things, despite both being called 'Soyuz'. Note that a lot of that 'modern electronics' and such was funded by NASA in order to modify the capsule so that larger American astronauts would 'fit'. There is no "automated ejection system". There IS an automated Launch Escape System, the design of which has not changed since it was developed back in the 1960's. So I have to wonder what else was upgraded over time and what is left of the originla design. The first two stages (the strap-ons and the core) haven't changed basic design since they were originally developed for the R-7 ICBM. There have been a couple of engine changes to uprate performance (the last of these was in 2000), but the vehicle design (including the analog control system) haven't changed. Switching to a digital control system to get rid of the limitations imposed by the old analog system is pretty much the driving force behind Soyuz-2 development. 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? Ask the Russians. They have done that several times with the current family of Soyuz rockets and have done it again with Soyuz-2, which is much further along (to the point of being phased in) than you seem to think it is. Spacex use Kerosene, so it can't be all that bad. Who (other than you) said anything about kerosene? Why would they do that? ULA isn't doing that with their new rocket. ESA isn't doing that with their new rocket. The only people doing that are SpaceX and Blue Origin. Soyuz is commercially viable as a cheap alternative to the ULA/ESA expensive rockets. With SpaceX now winning the low cost market, why should Russia spend rare money to develop a clone of Soyuz that still wouldn't compete against SpaceX ? Why would ULA? Why would ESA? And yet that is precisely what they are doing. There is no 'low cost' vs 'high cost' market. There's a payload market. This isn't like cell phones or computers. Everyone else is still stuck in the paradigm that it's 'cheaper' to throw the whole works away every time rather than spend a little extra money to enable some reuse. No, ULA/ESA know they can still get somke customers with their expensive rockets, either because of unique capabilities SpaceX or Soyuz don't have, ... Name those capabilities. Payload interface is different by launcher, so the only 'capability' I can think of is support for a specific payload interface. If your payload is already designed and it would be expensive to change it, you might opt for the vehicle that supports the interface you built to. Other than that, 'capability' equates to 'payload to orbit' and neither ULA nor ESA offer anything that 'special' there. ... or because lobby efforts garantee money coming their way from government/military launches. There's going to be some of that. Nobody is claiming ULA new rocket would be cost competitive with Falcon9 or BFR. Well, nobody except ULA, which insists that the sort of reuse SpaceX and Blue Origin are targeting is the wrong path and will be more expensive in the long run. Note that ESA sort of makes that same claim. -- "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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |