|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |