|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing for US-Russian Space Station Crew By Meghan Bartels, Space.com Senior Writer | October 11, 2018 05:11am ET https://www.space.com/42097-soyuz-ro...expedition-57- crew.html Stupid Russian reliability finally bit us in the ass. Luckily it sounds like the crew survived the ballistic reentry and landing after the upper stage failed to start. On Facebook someone said reentry G's were 6 point something. High, but survivable. This comes on the heels of the hole, causing air loss, that was discovered in the orbital module of one of the Soyuz capsules docked to ISS. We need to fly commercial crew test flights a.s.a.p. At this point it's reportedly NASA "paperwork" that's delaying the program! 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
Jeff Findley wrote on Thu, 11 Oct 2018
06:23:40 -0400: Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing for US-Russian Space Station Crew By Meghan Bartels, Space.com Senior Writer | October 11, 2018 05:11am ET https://www.space.com/42097-soyuz-ro...expedition-57- crew.html Stupid Russian reliability finally bit us in the ass. Luckily it sounds like the crew survived the ballistic reentry and landing after the upper stage failed to start. On Facebook someone said reentry G's were 6 point something. High, but survivable. 6g? Hell, that's not that much worse than the 'jolt' on a normal Soyuz landing. This comes on the heels of the hole, causing air loss, that was discovered in the orbital module of one of the Soyuz capsules docked to ISS. We need to fly commercial crew test flights a.s.a.p. At this point it's reportedly NASA "paperwork" that's delaying the program! Right now I think they're talking about next June for Crew Dragon and a couple months after that for Boeing. -- "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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
... Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing for US-Russian Space Station Crew By Meghan Bartels, Space.com Senior Writer | October 11, 2018 05:11am ET https://www.space.com/42097-soyuz-ro...expedition-57- crew.html Stupid Russian reliability finally bit us in the ass. Luckily it sounds like the crew survived the ballistic reentry and landing after the upper stage failed to start. On Facebook someone said reentry G's were 6 point something. High, but survivable. This comes on the heels of the hole, causing air loss, that was discovered in the orbital module of one of the Soyuz capsules docked to ISS. We need to fly commercial crew test flights a.s.a.p. At this point it's reportedly NASA "paperwork" that's delaying the program! Jeff I've said for years, give me a comfortable lawn chair, some SCUBA equipment and some snacks and I'd fly Cargo Dragon tomorrow. But yeah, I can see this very quickly moving up the launches of Dragon 2 (and perhaps CST-100, but I suspect they're more constrained by available boosters.0 -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...
Watching the NASA press conference: Rocket was at roughly 50km altitude. Just after the boosters separated normally, the "situation" was found and abort declared. Took about 35 minutes for capsule to fall down, capsule would have spun some and experienced up to 6g. Question from media: Does NASA still pay for flight if the Russians don't deliver astronauts? "I am not sure" was the answer :-) Apparently the contracts as milestones, so I would venture that the time spent to train the crews is still paid. The Soyuz which was to be replaced has a "Best Before" date of Jan 4th, and there were questions of decrewing the station. Crew currently at 5. I recall, perhaps erroneously that post Columbia, they shrunk it down to 2 to insufficient cargo capacity. In the current station config, could 2 keep the station alive or would they need 3 ? (cargo no lonegr an issue). If I'm reading right, the actual crew right now is 3. 3 returned on the 4th on MS-08. This flight would have brought the crew up to 5. So in January, wouldn't the crew drop to 3 with 2 returning? When is the other soyuz's "Best before" date? I believe right now the only Soyuz at the Station is Soyuz MS-08. The NASA official: there is a hard requirement for crews to be on board the ISS to accept the first commercial crew test flight. When pressed on that issue, NASA guy seemed to want to leave the door open for a review of this requirement if things come to that. I was discussing options elsewhere and part of it depends on a few factors: 1) How long before the Russians fly again. If it's before January, no real issues. And knowing the Russians, they'll fly before January, even if it's an all Russian crew. 2) If they don't, in theory, SpX-DM1 is scheduled to fly in January. One possibility is to fly this as is, but keep it on orbit and de-orbit the Soyuz. I doubt NASA would want to trust this as a lifeboat/return craft, but I think it's worth considering the risk. 3) Even if the Russians won't fly a crewed flight before January, they could fly an uncrewed Soyuz, dock it and replace Soyuz MS-08. 4) I suspect we're going to see a bunch of paperwork suddenly flying that will give an option of moving up the Dragon v2 flights. I don't think CST-100 will change much because I don't think ULA has the boosters available to make much of a difference. This is a way SpaceX really shows what frequent, cheap launch can do. When you've got a cadence of 15-20 flights a year, it's pretty easy to move stuff around. Right after booster separation, booster emergency light turned on, and the ejection system fired automatically. Search and rescue were already on the ground at the time the capsule reached the ground. -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
JF Mezei wrote on Thu, 11 Oct 2018
12:52:07 -0400: Crew currently at 5. I recall, perhaps erroneously that post Columbia, they shrunk it down to 2 to insufficient cargo capacity. In the current station config, could 2 keep the station alive or would they need 3 ? (cargo no lonegr an issue). Crew is, so far as I can determine, currently at three, not five. It was up at six prior to the first week of October, when three returned. So in January, wouldn't the crew drop to 3 with 2 returning? When is the other soyuz's "Best before" date? There is no 'other Soyuz'. It returned a week or so ago. The crew has already dropped to three. Those three were supposed to return in December. There is another Soyuz launch scheduled for December 20 with three more crew. That would have led to a crew of five if the last launch hadn't failed. Right after booster separation, booster emergency light turned on, and the ejection system fired automatically. There is no 'ejection system'. -- "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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
JF Mezei wrote on Thu, 11 Oct 2018
14:54:59 -0400: What are the odds of having a new Soyuz ready by then? Thankfully there is half of october, november and december for russians to accelate finishing a Soyuz capsule and rocket. Having hardware 'ready' isn't an issue. There is a launch scheduled for December. The issue is whether or not the investigation has cleared things for launch. Is there a precedent for sending an empty Soyuz to the ISS? Would docking have to be via Toru or still via Kurs? If via Kurs, controled by ground or ISS ? This is one of the options. If the system hasn't been cleared for humans, they could send up the scheduled December launch empty and extend the three people currently on ISS. Unless it can fly before January 4th, it may force the remaining crew to return to earth on the Soyuz. Unless some paperwork is signed to allow extension of "Best before" date on the Soyuz. There will be hardware ready in December. The question is whether it is cleared for people. With regards to the crewed Dragon flights. Are the Falcon stages "special" for crewed flights, or are they stock Block 5 ? Stock. In a crewed configuration, wouldn't the capsule have data a data connection to command/control of Stage 1/Stage 2 to not only get health of stage, bit also be able to comand it (such as aborting)? Such data paths wouldn't exist for cargo flights, right ? There's no difference between Crewed Dragon and a cargo Dragon V2. This is a way SpaceX really shows what frequent, cheap launch can do. When you've got a cadence of 15-20 flights a year, it's pretty easy to move stuff around. Isn't the critical path the Dragon vehicle itself and not the rocket? It is the first crewed Dragon, so at this point, "frequent" can't be applied to it. The barrier for Boeing is having a booster. That's not a barrier for SpaceX. I know this may sound ludicrous, but how long would it take to fit a Soyuz Capsule on top of a Falcon9 stage 1 or Stage and 2 ? Is this even feasable or would weight/size make it a show stopper ? It's a lot of work and it doesn't buy you anything. -- "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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!
JF Mezei wrote on Fri, 12 Oct 2018
12:59:09 -0400: On 2018-10-12 06:55, Jeff Findley wrote: There is a connection between the two so that the automated abort system on the capsule can be triggered. So except for triggering abort, the Dragon crewed vehicle is just an inert payload on top of the automated remotely controlled Falcon 9? I know you can never be bothered to look things up before you make ignorant statements, but you should read the Falcon 9 payload integration document. I would have expected the crew would have had more control over it and would get far mroe feedback/telemetry from it. Why would you expect that? What is the crew going to do? NASA has already said that the vehicles for the commercial crew test flights are not the "long pole in the tent". At this point the certification "paperwork" is what will take the most time. Does this mean that SpaceX is physically ready to launch it with people in it, and it has concluded the design/build and testing of it ? It means just what it says. However, let me say a bit more. The first Crew Dragon capsule has completed testing and been delivered to the Cape. They're currently loading parachutes, fuel, test sensors, and other consumables, which I can't imagine would take very long if they needed it done right now. This capsule is the test article for DM-1, the unmanned orbital test flight. This puts us squarely in the position many of us feared. NASA is dragging its feet on the certification part while continuing to fly on Soyuz which is clearly not as safe as one would hope. Yesterday's event seems to point to it being safe. A slight malfunction detected, abort triggered automatically and crew are safe and sound. 'Safe' vehicles don't get in situations where big pieces (like the booster rocket) fail and they have to exercise their emergency systems. Besides, we all know how quickly Russia resumes flights after "incidents" like this. They're very quick to find what they think is the *one* cause, correct it, and start flying again. They will ignore all other "distractions" in the interest of time. NASA, on the other hand, identifies all possible issues with the spacecraft and/or vehicle and fixes all of them before they fly again. This tends to find *many* lingering issues that should have been fixed in the past but never were. Just look at what they did after Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia. How long did it take for NASA to find Columbia was damaed during launch due to falling foam? A couple of days, right? That was hardly the only thing they found. Go read the report. It seems to me that it spent months and months debating the management mentality that allowed this known problem to persist. The actual mechanical problem got circumscribed very quickly. How things seem to you is frequently not in exact 1:1 accord with our present reality. It seems to me that yesterday's failure was not "spectacular". No big explosions. Just an alarm and automated ejection and safe landing of crew. For all we know all was find with the stage but a faulty sensor caused the alarm. Well, perhaps that's all YOU know, but those of us who are paying attention know that there was a booster failure that caused the core stage to shut down. Preliminary reports indicate that one of the strap ons failed to separate cleanly and hit the core stage, damaging it. The question is why this happened and is it a single event failure or could it happen again? That's what they're investigating. I have one final thought. Russia is the only country on the planet still launching people on top of a launch vehicle which is *directly* derived from an ICBM. And solid rocket boosters for SLS arent directly derived from ICBMs? No more so than any solid or liquid rocket is. Isn't the whole point of mandating solids for SLS to help ATK continue to keep the ability to produce solids for ICBMs ? Yes, but you once again seem to not understand things. And out of curiosity, how does Soyuz's ICMB origins (as opposed to just being old) make it different from Falcon 8? Wouldn't the design have evolved over the years to make Soyus into its own rocket instead of an ICBM launcher? The first two stages (the strap ons and the core stage) aren't significantly different from the original R7 ICBM. Those lower stages on the Soyuz launch vehicle, which appear to have failed to separate cleanly on this launch, are pretty much the same as the first ICBM from the USSR. The NASA astronaut at yesterday's press conference said the failure happened just after clean separation of the boosters. He was wrong. One of the four strap ons failed to separate cleanly and struck the core (second) stage, causing it to shut down. I doubt he said "clean separation" because he has no way to know that. necessarily the best thing to use on an orbital launch vehicle. For example, Falcon 9 was deliberately designed to use no pyrotechnics for its separation events. Pyros make things really hard to re-use. NASA used plenty of them on its Shuttle, didn't it ? I wouldn't say 'plenty' and most of them were for emergency systems. AND THIS JUST IN: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45842731 "Speaking in Moscow, Nasa head Jim Bridenstine said he expected a December mission to the International Space Station (ISS) to go ahead as planned." To me, this points to initial investigation pointing to either a sensor malfunction when everything was working well, ... Nope. You really need to avoid giving serious consideration to how things 'seem' to you or what you think facts might 'point' to. You are almost inevitably wrong. ... or they already identified what failed and know what to check on the new rocket before granting it right to fly. They know WHAT happened. What they don't know is WHY it happened. -- "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 |
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 |