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
  #51  
Old October 18th 18, 10:02 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 627
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...
No, it looks like 4 is the mandated max capacity, not what NASA actually
intends to use.


I don't think NASA plans to ever use more than 3 seats. That's why
Boeing applied for (and got) permission to sell 'spare' seats to
tourists.


Actually, NASA specified four seats on the crewed vehicles from the
beginning so that some time in the future they can increase the ISS crew
size from six to seven. One additional crew member would allow more
science experiments to be performed.


Yeah, I've seen a few references to increasing the crew size. And makes
sense to me.
Heck, if they can swing it, increase it to 8.

NASA ANNOUNCES NINE COMMERCIAL CREW FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS, MORE TO COME
FROM INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS
By Marcia Smith | Posted: August 3, 2018 2:39 pm ET | Last Updated:
August 3, 2018 2:39 pm ET
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/n...mmercial-crew-
flight-assignments-more-to-come-from-international-partners/

From above:

Once the commercial crew systems are operational, it will be
possible to increase the size of the crews who remain aboard
ISS for long-duration (4-6 month) missions from six to seven.
That was the original plan: three from Russia and four from
NASA and its European, Canadian and Japanese counterparts.

It's a bit odd though that both SpaceX and Boeing went beyond the
minimum requirement and both picked seven as the maximum number of crew
in each capsule design. Makes me wonder if that was coincidence or if
this was always some sort of unwritten requirement that was communicated
verbally.


I think it's more a set of other factors (especially in the case of Dragon)
just conspiring to make a capsule of "X" Size and realizing you can fit in 7
crew.

You figure, they're staying close to the original Apollo CM size (at least
in diameter) and Apollo could have fit 5 in a pinch. Make things a bit
bigger, free up some interior room and bing you've got 7.



Jeff


--
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/

Ads
  #52  
Old October 18th 18, 11:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,793
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Thu, 18 Oct 2018
14:18:51 -0400:

On 2018-10-18 00:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Your defective research skills are not my problem and they certainly
don't constitute a 'defense' of your ignorance.


Mo
http://tass.com/science/1025675


Had you been professional and posted the link in the first place instead
of just making accusations the newgroup would be far more interesting to
more people because poeple could learn instead of seeing you insult at
every opportunity you have.


'Professional' means 'paid'. When you're ready to start writing me
checks for my consulting rate you can start whining about things.
Until then, the one thing you SHOULD have learned by now is that when
you ask questions and someone who knows more than you gives you an
answer, YOU SHOULDN'T ARGUE WITH THE ANSWER.


You insult me, yet have no explanation why on October 15, Tass has an
article that says that Roscosmos won't confirm what happened. So in
essence retracting what was said on Oct 12.


I don't 'insult' you, Mayfly. I DESCRIBE you. And again, your
defective research skills are YOUR problem, not mine. If you want
explanations about what TASS does, you should ask them. And no, it
didn't "in essence retract" anything. Once again, your defective
research skills are YOUR problem, not mine.


But an article posted overnight but dated Oct 16 (it wasn't there
yesterday when I searched) now points to a signal failure.

http://tass.com/science/1026210

##
MOSCOW, October 16. /TASS/. Signal failure might have occurred at the
moment of separation of the first and second stages of the Soyuz-FG
rocket, which triggered the safety system that aborted the launch, the
Russian space corporation Roscosmosís executive director for manned
programs, Sergey Krikalyov, said on the RT television channel on Tuesday.

"As far as the cause is concerned, it is clear. In fact, there occurred
a collision of the first and second stages in the process of separation
of the first stage. The root cause, why it happened, is some end switch
failed to transmit a signal, or there occurred signal disruption in the
cable, which, in turn, might have been a result of various factors,"
Krikalyov said.
##


In other words, they are now at the point I was at a day or two ago
when I posted my 'guess' that the root cause was the failure of the
gas vent that is supposed to tip the top of the strap-on out away from
the core. That 'guess' was based on the video that you say wasn't of
sufficiently high resolution to see anything and which I claim is of
adequate resolution if you know what the **** you're looking at. The
opening of that vent is one of two things that the 'separation signal'
causes (the other is the firing of cable pyros on the bottom
attachment points).

I posited a 'guess' that the gas venting had failed, leading to a
collision between a strap-on and the core stage because the top of the
strap-on didn't tip out. I then went on to point out that there were
a number of reasons why that might have occurred: Bad valve,
insufficient remaining gas to vent, FAILURE TO GENERATE SEPARATION
SIGNAL OR FAILURE TO TRANSMIT IT TO THE VALVE, etc. The upper case
bit is now where Roscosmos is, which sort of validates my 'guess'.


What this does not state is whether "the first" state consists of only
one booster malfunctioning or all of them. Was it a signal failure to
only one, or to all of them?


Go back and find the description of how Soyuz strap-on separation
works that I posted. The 'separation signal' is a discrete for each
strap on. There is not some central control somewhere that sends
'separate' to all the strap-ons. The signal occurs for each strap on
as they start to 'lag' the rest of the vehicle because their thrust
goes down. So it is not a 'signal failure to the boosters'.


So your claim to know what happen is still premature. All we know is
that it is something to do with booster separation.


So you still don't understand the difference between WHAT and WHY.
You've also apparently forgotten (or didn't bother to read) my
explanation of how this separation works, which I posted in response
to an article by Jeff and which I specifically prefaced with a note
saying it was for YOUR benefit because Jeff probably already knew all
the stuff I was about to say. GO FIND THAT AND READ IT.


The fact that they are focusing on signals is still something which
doesn't help much. When you are looking at the next Soyuz rocket to
launch, are you looking at a single cable to a single booster, or are
you looking at some controller and cabling to/from it which sends
commands to all boosters? Knowing it was a single booster tends to
narrow the fault tree significantly. If it is just gneraic "booster
separation", you still have a fairly large fault tree.


Go find the description I posted of how strap-on separation works on
R-7 family rockets AND READ THE ****ING THING. Knowing they are
focusing on the separation signal helps immensely and tells you
exactly where they are in the investigation IF YOU KNOW HOW R-7
STRAP-ON SEPARATION WORKS. You SHOULD know that BECAUSE I BLOODY WELL
EXPLAINED IT FOR YOUR BENEFIT.

In fact, let me make it easy for you. Here's what I said back then in
response to Jeff:

===
[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.
===

Any of that sound familiar? Do you get it yet? My 'guess' back then
appears to be correct and is what Roscosmos is now investigating. YET
YOU'RE STILL ARGUING WITH ME.


So based on that info, you can't conclude yet that they know what happened.


No. They knew WHAT happened back on the 12th, the day after the
incident. In fact, YOU should have known it back on the 12th, because
that's when TASS published it. Now they are well into WHY it
happened. Either one of the strap-ons didn't generate a separation
signal (probable bad sensor at the upper ball attachment point or bad
signal transmitter) or else there was a bad pathway from the
transmitter to the gas valve (which they can perhaps determine by
seeing if the lower attachment point pyros fired).



You have no excuse and the information was available almost a week
ago. Learn to admit when you're wrong.


On the 15th, Roscosmoss announced they would not discuss causes. The
article datded the 16th was NOT posted on the TASS site yesterday,
almost right next to the article dated the 15th because I would have
seen it yesterday.


But the article DATED THE 12TH was. Stop ignoring that FACT. How the
**** do you think *I* knew about it so that I could tell you about it
SO THAT YOU COULD THEN ARGUE WITH ME ABOUT HOW IT DIDN'T HAPPEN? Your
defective research abilities are not a defense. Pretending the
article on the 12th never happened, even after having it pointed out
to you, is also not a defense. YOU SCREWED UP. You don't understand
how the booster works and you're so busy 'defending' your ill-informed
position that you adamantly refuse to acknowledge the facts or
understand the system.


You may be a russian spy and have access to the TASS stuff before it is
published in English. But don't accuse someone who doesn't have access
to it of not trying.


You're a ****ing idiot. IT WAS PUBLISHED IN ENGLISH ON THE 12TH.
You're so busy trying to justify your usual ****ed up understanding of
things that you refuse to admit that. This kind of **** is why I
inevitably get aggravated trying to explain things to you or answer
your questions. If you expended even 10% of the effort you expend
arguing with answers you're given in trying to understand what you're
told you would be a lot better off and not look nearly so thick.


--
"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

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 11:22 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.