The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames by Jim O

Great read!

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5412

Yikes! I want the ISS partnership to work, but jeez folks...why not let the
rocket scientists figure out what's wrong with the capsule?! This is
getting to be ridiculous. e.g. The Americans get blamed almost immediately
for a power surge during solar array construction...etc...then it turns out
it was in fact something else (Look...I'm not pointing fingers).

I listen to John Shannon on the MMT meeting briefs dissect dings in the
Shuttle TPM in full disclosure, then I read this article on the finger
pointing going on over there and it really concerns me. It seems like we're
at least trying to learn from our mistakes. I think our Russian partners
need to be a bit more objective.

The Soyuz vehicle is overall safe, but they need to let the scientist do to
science and get the damn politicians out of the loop. Uh...we all just want
it fixed...we're not trying to screw anyone here!

-- Lenny

Maybe so, but I think there are those who have it in for the Russians
whatever they do. As you say though, the engage mouth before brain of
certain Russian 'spokespersons' is playing right into said persons hands I
feel.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Space Balls" wrote in message
news:c_yRj.235$1m3.72@trndny02...
Great read!

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5412

Yikes! I want the ISS partnership to work, but jeez folks...why not let
the rocket scientists figure out what's wrong with the capsule?! This is
getting to be ridiculous. e.g. The Americans get blamed almost
immediately for a power surge during solar array construction...etc...then
it turns out it was in fact something else (Look...I'm not pointing
fingers).

I listen to John Shannon on the MMT meeting briefs dissect dings in the
Shuttle TPM in full disclosure, then I read this article on the finger
pointing going on over there and it really concerns me. It seems like
we're at least trying to learn from our mistakes. I think our Russian
partners need to be a bit more objective.

The Soyuz vehicle is overall safe, but they need to let the scientist do
to science and get the damn politicians out of the loop. Uh...we all just
want it fixed...we're not trying to screw anyone here!

-- Lenny

"Space Balls" wrote:

I listen to John Shannon on the MMT meeting briefs dissect dings in the
Shuttle TPM in full disclosure, then I read this article on the finger
pointing going on over there and it really concerns me. It seems like we're
at least trying to learn from our mistakes. I think our Russian partners
need to be a bit more objective.

'We' (presuming you mean NASA) aren't trying to learn from our
mistakes - but are engaged in covering up problems with Soyuz as we
have been for years.

The Soyuz vehicle is overall safe, but they need to let the scientist do to
science and get the damn politicians out of the loop. Uh...we all just want
it fixed...we're not trying to screw anyone here!

So do you think the Shuttle is safe?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

I read somewhere about the Rogers report, and particularly, Feyman's
"Appendix 12". He used a safety factor technique. I think it translates
that if a machine has 100,000 parts, and each part has a 1/100,000 chance of
failing, the machine will never work; is that about right?

So do you think the Shuttle is safe?

Did I say that? I just read back through my post and I can't seem to find
where I said the shuttle is a safe vehicle. My point was having the experts
go back and do the analysis is the correct course of action. Politicians
firing off comments in the media isn't helpful to anyone. That's All.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Space Balls" wrote:

I listen to John Shannon on the MMT meeting briefs dissect dings in the
Shuttle TPM in full disclosure, then I read this article on the finger
pointing going on over there and it really concerns me. It seems like
we're
at least trying to learn from our mistakes. I think our Russian partners
need to be a bit more objective.

'We' (presuming you mean NASA) aren't trying to learn from our
mistakes - but are engaged in covering up problems with Soyuz as we
have been for years.

The Soyuz vehicle is overall safe, but they need to let the scientist do
to
science and get the damn politicians out of the loop. Uh...we all just
want
it fixed...we're not trying to screw anyone here!

So do you think the Shuttle is safe?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Space Balls" wrote in message
news:sZGRj.2439$Yo2.2380@trndny01...
So do you think the Shuttle is safe?

Did I say that? I just read back through my post and I can't seem to find
where I said the shuttle is a safe vehicle. My point was having the
experts
go back and do the analysis is the correct course of action. Politicians
firing off comments in the media isn't helpful to anyone. That's All.

And quite a correct point it is too. The Russians still haven't learned how
to deal with the media.

"Alan Erskine" wrote:

I read somewhere about the Rogers report, and particularly, Feyman's
"Appendix 12". He used a safety factor technique. I think it translates
that if a machine has 100,000 parts, and each part has a 1/100,000 chance of
failing, the machine will never work; is that about right?

Sounds kinda like the 'proof' that a bumblebee cannot fly.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Space Balls" wrote:

So do you think the Shuttle is safe?

Did I say that? I just read back through my post and I can't seem to find
where I said the shuttle is a safe vehicle. My point was having the experts
go back and do the analysis is the correct course of action. Politicians
firing off comments in the media isn't helpful to anyone. That's All.

First off - it's considered very bad manners to hack up a message you
are replying to in that fashion, especially since you left the
original message intact below your (incorrectly) top posted reply.

Secondly - It's a simple question and derives directly from your
comment on Soyuz safety. If you comment is merely about politics, why
bring up safety? And if you do bring up safety, expect it to possibly
be discussed.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alan Erskine wrote:
| I read somewhere about the Rogers report, and particularly, Feyman's
| "Appendix 12". He used a safety factor technique. I think it translates
| that if a machine has 100,000 parts, and each part has a 1/100,000
chance of
| failing, the machine will never work; is that about right?
|

Well, high-school probability tells me that, given that a part
has a probability of 1/100000 of failing, and any one of 100000
parts failing causes the machine to "fail", the probability of
the machine failing is:

~ 1 - (1-1/100000) ** 100000 == approx 0.63, or 63%.

Beyond that, I think the failure/safety analysis of a real machine
is far more subtle then "if a part fails" and "machine has N parts."

- --
Steve Williams "The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
steve at icarus.com But I have promises to keep,
http://www.icarus.com and lines to code before I sleep,
http://www.picturel.com And lines to code before I sleep."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIF04yrPt1Sc2b3ikRAo32AJ4nhFrlpRkJo3sAmqOvQn 8t2y7+jQCgkN8O
XX2m5iChi5zHknqDUUUW4KI=
=xw7Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Space Balls wrote:

Great read!

Yeah, I agree.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5412

Yikes! I want the ISS partnership to work, but jeez folks...why not let
the
rocket scientists figure out what's wrong with the capsule?! This is
getting to be ridiculous.

lol, shows the Russians also have bad managers in charge, just like NASA.

e.g. The Americans get blamed almost
immediately for a power surge during solar array construction...etc...then
it turns out it was in fact something else (Look...I'm not pointing
fingers).

Old habits are hard to break. Blame the Americans, we'll also blame the
Cosmonauts. One of the articles I read had the Soyuz commander quickly
defending himself, stressing the fact that he followed procedures. He
wanted to make sure he didn't become the focus of the problem, like what
apparently happened on Dennis Tito's flight.

I listen to John Shannon on the MMT meeting briefs dissect dings in the
Shuttle TPM in full disclosure, then I read this article on the finger
pointing going on over there and it really concerns me. It seems like
we're
at least trying to learn from our mistakes. I think our Russian partners
need to be a bit more objective.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/5722676.html
....Apollo 15 was in use by the U.S. the last time there was a Soyuz
fatality...

No graveyard engineering going on in Russia, what is it? Over 30+ years now
without a fatality.

The Soyuz vehicle is overall safe, but they need to let the scientist do
to
science and get the damn politicians out of the loop. Uh...we all just
want it fixed...we're not trying to screw anyone here!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/5732136.html
....Griffin has said the normal 1-in-75 risk of having a fatal shuttle
accident would rise to 1-in-12 if the shuttle flew two missions a year for
five more years...

Wow, Griffin quotes reasonable risk numbers. So, the Shuttle if extended
would be around the same risk as the new Soyuz with no fix. Assuming the
new TMA Soyuz has a problem that was introduced with it's last upgrade that
was made to extend it's on-orbit design lifetime. They are up to TMA-12, if
the next one causes fatalities, it'll be 1-in-12.

So, if the TMA upgrade introduced the problem, I wonder what they did? More
insulation / debris protection? Tighter tolerances on various fittings? New
manufacturing techniques to make it cheaper to build?

Look at the last problem NASA had with the ET wiring problem, years to just
figure out that the swage (compression) fittings needed to be soldered.
Lots of extra, expensive, long lead time hardware changes just to debug
what was fairly obvious. A thermal problem, open circuit, only when cooled.

Maybe that's what's wrong with the Soyuz, fitting gets stuck when heated or
cooled? Wiring get loose when heated or cooled? Maybe all the ballistic
entry's occurred because of too much sunshine in the days leading up to the
entry? Or, the connectors being in the shadow too long?

There is still a lot of time to mitigate the risks of another occurrence
before the entry of the current Soyuz.

I totally disagree with Mr. Oberg's conclusion that...
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5412
....With future Soyuz flights becoming the sole crew access to the space
station for many years, NASA needs to be an integral part of every incident
investigation - not just be on the distribution list for executive
summaries, whenever they are ultimately issued. There is a window of
opportunity for NASA to press for this participation, due to the naming of
an outside expert to head the investigation...

NASA knowingly dug the hole they find themselves, they should quit digging
and hand the shovel to Private Enterprise. Going down this path to get a
budget increase from Congress, or permission to purchase more tickets to
ride the Soyuz, isn't the solution. And, trying to turn the Russians into
just another NASA contractor, most definitely isn't.

When Peggy Whitson flies home from Moscow, and she doesn't want to fly on a
Tupolev aircraft she shouldn't purchase a ticket from Aeroflot, or ask the
FAA to inspect Aeroflot to make sure they're Tupolev's are up to date.

Flying the Shuttle, or relying on one vehicle for Station access is a recipe
for disaster.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @