|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...
Soyuz TMA-11 with Yi So-yeon, Yuri Malenchenko and Peggy Whitson has
landed in Kazakhstan, 400 km from its intended landing spot. Was this another ballistic entry? I take it that horseshoes isn't a popular game in Russia Dale |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...
Errr, that "isn't" was meant to be an "is"- as in
"close enough only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" Being 400 km off with an intended landing at KSC would probably make the news, as well as quite a splash... Dale |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...
Dale Carlson wrote: Soyuz TMA-11 with Yi So-yeon, Yuri Malenchenko and Peggy Whitson has landed in Kazakhstan, 400 km from its intended landing spot. Was this another ballistic entry? Yup, that's two off-target landings in a row: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/04/19/skorea.soyuz/ Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...
On Apr 19, 8:39 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Dale Carlson wrote: Soyuz TMA-11 with Yi So-yeon, Yuri Malenchenko and Peggy Whitson has landed in Kazakhstan, 400 km from its intended landing spot. Was this another ballistic entry? Yup, that's two off-target landings in a row:http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/04/19/skorea.soyuz/ Pat According to Spaceflight Now and Space.com, it was an 10g ballistic reentry. If memory serves me correctly, this means there was a problem with the guidance system. This is the third time a Soyuz T spacecraft has come down in this manner. The first time it happened, the crew was so disabled from high g levels that they could not stand up and had to crawl on hands and knees after they got out of the reentry module. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...
On Apr 19, 5:59*am, Dale Carlson wrote:
Soyuz TMA-11 with Yi So-yeon, Yuri Malenchenko and Peggy Whitson has landed in Kazakhstan, 400 km from its intended landing spot. Was this another ballistic entry? I take it that horseshoes isn't a popular game in Russia Dale Tonight NBC news had some locals who had seen it come down and one said "the parachute was on fire". Discounting any possible confusion with "thump down"this is a whole other story. Could ballastic reentry have done this (if true)? Sort of reminds me of Komarov's reentry...................Doc |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...
On Apr 19, 4:58 pm, Dale Carlson wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:06:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Tonight NBC news had some locals who had seen it come down and one said "the parachute was on fire". Discounting any possible confusion with "thump down"this is a whole other story. Could ballastic reentry have done this (if true)? Sort of reminds me of Komarov's reentry...................Doc Were there reports that the parachute was on fire as it was coming down? What I read simply said the chute was on fire when the recovery team reached the capsule. Seems like that could have been caused by a brush fire or something ignited by the landing rockets. But either way, it wasn't a soft landing, as the capsule was embedded 30cm into the ground (unless, of course, it landed in a bog or something). I liked the comment by the official blaming the crew- saying that they overshot because they had selected a ballistic reentry without telling mission control. What a bunch of irresponsible thrillseekers Dale I saw a mention of fire in the Reuters report. But I would trust aerospace news media more for accurate information |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...
M wrote: Yup, that's two off-target landings in a row:http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/04/19/skorea.soyuz/ Pat According to Spaceflight Now and Space.com, it was an 10g ballistic reentry. If memory serves me correctly, this means there was a problem with the guidance system. It's designed to default to ballistic reentry if the guidance system does anything even slightly abnormal prior to or during reentry. The Russians consider a survivable high-G reentry much preferable to a abnormal one that results in the destruction of the capsule. I don't know if they've fixed this problem yet, but for a long time they'd been reusing guidance computers out of returned capsules due to a lack of a indigenous supply source for them after the USSR broke up. However, this many ballistic reentries shows a completely unacceptable level of reliability on the part of the guidance system. The Soyuz TMA presently uses the Argon 16 computer, a 70 kg analog type prehistoric monster of a thing dating from 1973. From TMA-13 (this was TMA-11) forward, this will be replaced with a improved one, the TsVM-101 Here's info on the two computer systems: http://www.computer-museum.ru/english/argon16.htm http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/soyuz.html The new one weighs less than 1/7 as much as the old one. BTW, this is interesting - a history of Soyuz control panel layouts: http://suzymchale.com/kosmonavtka/soyconsole.html Pat |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...
Dale Carlson wrote: Were there reports that the parachute was on fire as it was coming down? What I read simply said the chute was on fire when the recovery team reached the capsule. Seems like that could have been caused by a brush fire or something ignited by the landing rockets. But either way, it wasn't a soft landing, as the capsule was embedded 30cm into the ground (unless, of course, it landed in a bog or something). In calm wind conditions, the chute could come down directly over the capsule, and be ignited by a fire started by the landing rockets. Chute jettison is manual, and normally occurs a few seconds after landing. If the crew was stunned by the force of impact or the high G's of reentry, they may have delayed the jettison of the chute. (I've got a photo of a landed Soyuz that got dragged quite a ways through the snow before the crew could manage to jettison the chute.) But that's odd...if they did land in a bog, the landing motors shouldn't have started a fire. Generally, a hard landing means the landing motors didn't fire, so no burning chute in that situation either. This could point to a damaged chute causing higher-than-expected landing velocities I don't know if the crew can see the chute as they descend under it, as their side windows don't give them much of a view upwards, and the belly periscope is jettisoned prior to reentry. So unless they noted a abnormally high descent rate, chute damage may have gone undetected by the crew. Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Expedition 15/Spaceflight Participant Farewell & Soyuz Hatch Closure / Soyuz Undocking from ISS | John[_1_] | Space Station | 0 | October 21st 07 10:02 AM |
Soyuz TMA-10 | Roland | Space Station | 0 | April 8th 07 07:58 PM |
Twitty My Home is Your Home | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 0 | October 8th 06 07:03 PM |
Soyuz TMA-8 tle | Newfdog | Satellites | 3 | March 31st 06 07:21 PM |
US will NOT pay for Soyuz | Bob Haller | Space Shuttle | 13 | November 4th 05 09:59 AM |