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

Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 15th 18, 05:53 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,492
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

Russian investigation proceeds today...

http://tass.com/science/1025869


Dave
Ads
  #23  
Old October 15th 18, 07:46 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Elliot[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default 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  
Old October 15th 18, 12:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,745
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article m,
says...
The thing that I find most troubling though is that even when
commercial crew is flying, NASA will still fly astronauts on Soyuz
in exchange for flying Russian cosmonauts on commercial crew.


Why?


See below.

If I had to pick between the two, I
would not choose to fly on Soyuz.


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.
It's part of an overall trend in failure rates. 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. I have little
faith that this new vehicle will be safe since it's been a long time
since Russia has successfully fielded a new crewed launch vehicle.

NASA is overly cautious, IMHO, to the point that they're now dragging
out the schedule of commercial crew due to "paperwork" and safety
concerns raised at the last damn minute. Still, I would hope that
commercial crew is safer than Soyuz and the Russian space program in
general. Falcon 9 and Atlas V taken together have had very few
failures. And the failures that Falcon 9 has had have been investigated
by NASA as well as SpaceX and those failure modes (and more) have been
addressed.

Soyuz may still be considered "good enough" by NASA, but NASA still has
far less insight into what Russia does than what they have with SpaceX
and ULA. At this point in history, I would much prefer a ride on a
Dragon 2 or Starliner than a Soyuz.

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.
  #25  
Old October 16th 18, 12:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,795
Default 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  
Old October 16th 18, 12:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,795
Default 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  
Old October 16th 18, 12:24 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,795
Default 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  
Old October 16th 18, 12:36 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,795
Default 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  
Old October 16th 18, 08:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,795
Default 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  
Old October 16th 18, 11:38 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,745
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article ,
says...

On 2018-10-14 10:12, Jeff Findley wrote:

The thing that I find most troubling though is that even when commercial
crew is flying, NASA will still fly astronauts on Soyuz in exchange for
flying Russian cosmonauts on commercial crew. If I had to pick between
the two, I would not choose to fly on Soyuz.


I didn't know that. The only positive I can find for this is to keep
Soyuz alive and keep relationship alive so Soyuz can be used if needed.

If Dragon and CST are limited to 3 by NASA, and russians only send 2
crews up, Americans could send 1 up with them and have 4 US crewmembers
on station.

If Dragon can hold 7 to ISS, then it makes it easy to sell seats to
Russians.

It also depends on how long the commercial crew stay at ISS relative to
Soyuz. It may become convenient from a schedule point of view to send
am american on a Souyz because the next crewed flight is 4 months later.

(and similarly, as espace pod rotation go, the flight schedules of Syouz
vs crewed may be such that Soyuz is more convenient.


But it does seem rather odd to develop 2 US crewed vehicles to be
redundant but still rely on russians.

Are both Dragon2 and CST limited to the one PMA2 port which means that
they can't have 2 docked at same time ? If so, the multiple Soyuz ports
provided added flexibility.


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.

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 07:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.