A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 25th 18, 12:08 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight

As expected, Russia returned the Soyuz launch vehicle to flight in a
startlingly short amount of time.

Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight with Lotos-S1 mission
written by William Graham October 24, 2018
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...ight-lotos-s1-
mission/

From above:

Thursday's launch had originally been scheduled to take place
last week but slipped a few days in the immediate aftermath
of the MS-10 launch.

Naturally, this schedule slip of just a few days indicates how
thoroughly Russia investigated the failed crewed launch of Soyuz and how
diligently they inspected this Soyuz launch vehicle for any other
quality control problems. /s

Of course, NASA Spaceflight rarely paints less than a perfectly rosy
picture of anything that NASA does, so I didn't expect them to be openly
critical of Russia's launch operations. After all, NASA keeps telling
us that everything is fine and that we'll continue to fly NASA
astronauts on Soyuz. Nothing to see here, just move along.

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  
Old October 25th 18, 01:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rocket Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight

They're taking a calculated risk. On one hand, Soyuz has flown for half a
century with only a few mishaps. On the other hand, not flying means risking
the $100 ISS in case something goes wrong and there's no crew on board to
fix it.

So I believe the risk taking is justifiable.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
As expected, Russia returned the Soyuz launch vehicle to flight in a
startlingly short amount of time.

Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight with Lotos-S1 mission
written by William Graham October 24, 2018
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...ight-lotos-s1-
mission/

From above:

Thursday's launch had originally been scheduled to take place
last week but slipped a few days in the immediate aftermath
of the MS-10 launch.

Naturally, this schedule slip of just a few days indicates how
thoroughly Russia investigated the failed crewed launch of Soyuz and how
diligently they inspected this Soyuz launch vehicle for any other
quality control problems. /s

Of course, NASA Spaceflight rarely paints less than a perfectly rosy
picture of anything that NASA does, so I didn't expect them to be openly
critical of Russia's launch operations. After all, NASA keeps telling
us that everything is fine and that we'll continue to fly NASA
astronauts on Soyuz. Nothing to see here, just move along.

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.



  #4  
Old October 25th 18, 06:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight

Jeff Findley wrote on Thu, 25 Oct 2018
07:08:05 -0400:

As expected, Russia returned the Soyuz launch vehicle to flight in a
startlingly short amount of time.

Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight with Lotos-S1 mission
written by William Graham October 24, 2018
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...ight-lotos-s1-
mission/

From above:

Thursday's launch had originally been scheduled to take place
last week but slipped a few days in the immediate aftermath
of the MS-10 launch.


Note that this is not a manned launch, so it's a different model of
Soyuz (but has the classic R-7 Stage 1 and Stage 2 configuration).
This launch (and two others) are part of their mitigation strategy.
They want three successful launches before a return to manned service.


Naturally, this schedule slip of just a few days indicates how
thoroughly Russia investigated the failed crewed launch of Soyuz and how
diligently they inspected this Soyuz launch vehicle for any other
quality control problems. /s


Not a crewed launch. The next two won't be, either. Note that SpaceX
only did a four month pause to investigate a much more serious issue
that was, at least initially, much less understood.


Of course, NASA Spaceflight rarely paints less than a perfectly rosy
picture of anything that NASA does, so I didn't expect them to be openly
critical of Russia's launch operations. After all, NASA keeps telling
us that everything is fine and that we'll continue to fly NASA
astronauts on Soyuz. Nothing to see here, just move along.


They seem to have a pretty good handle on what happened and why and it
sounds like a 'one off' issue.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #5  
Old October 26th 18, 11:36 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight

In article ,
says...

Of course, NASA Spaceflight rarely paints less than a perfectly rosy
picture of anything that NASA does, so I didn't expect them to be openly
critical of Russia's launch operations. After all, NASA keeps telling
us that everything is fine and that we'll continue to fly NASA
astronauts on Soyuz. Nothing to see here, just move along.


They seem to have a pretty good handle on what happened and why and it
sounds like a 'one off' issue.


Look at the totality of the "one off" issues they've had in their launch
vehicles over the last 20 years. That looks a lot like a systemic
quality control problem to me. One of the reported causes of this
failure was that the crane crew installing the failed booster bent a
connecting pin on the top connection point. Instead of fixing the
issue, they used lubricant on it and forced the booster onto the launch
vehicle. If this proves to be the cause, it's looking like the Russian
"safety culture" is horribly flawed.

R-7 and Proton type vehicles have been flying since before I was born.
We really should not be seeing so many "one off" failures in such mature
designs. As much as I despise ULA for not innovating, their success
rate has been absolutely stellar over the very same time period.

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.
  #6  
Old October 26th 18, 12:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 26 Oct 2018
06:36:37 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Of course, NASA Spaceflight rarely paints less than a perfectly rosy
picture of anything that NASA does, so I didn't expect them to be openly
critical of Russia's launch operations. After all, NASA keeps telling
us that everything is fine and that we'll continue to fly NASA
astronauts on Soyuz. Nothing to see here, just move along.


They seem to have a pretty good handle on what happened and why and it
sounds like a 'one off' issue.


Look at the totality of the "one off" issues they've had in their launch
vehicles over the last 20 years. That looks a lot like a systemic
quality control problem to me. One of the reported causes of this
failure was that the crane crew installing the failed booster bent a
connecting pin on the top connection point. Instead of fixing the
issue, they used lubricant on it and forced the booster onto the launch
vehicle. If this proves to be the cause, it's looking like the Russian
"safety culture" is horribly flawed.


Yeah, but we kind of know that and don't have a lot of choice but to
live with it. Should I point out to Mayfly that this lines up exactly
with my 'guess' that he was trying to excoriate me for?


R-7 and Proton type vehicles have been flying since before I was born.
We really should not be seeing so many "one off" failures in such mature
designs. As much as I despise ULA for not innovating, their success
rate has been absolutely stellar over the very same time period.


Yeah, but then you wind up with silliness like the year slide in the
Vulcan schedule out to April of 2021. I knew they wouldn't be able to
meet their original schedule when it took them so long to select an
engine.

I'll just note that on this year's launches there has been one R-7
failure and one Ariane 5 failure. It looks like they've been running
one R-7 failure a year for the last several years.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #7  
Old October 27th 18, 12:57 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Russia returns Soyuz rocket to flight

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 26 Oct 2018
06:36:37 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Of course, NASA Spaceflight rarely paints less than a perfectly rosy
picture of anything that NASA does, so I didn't expect them to be openly
critical of Russia's launch operations. After all, NASA keeps telling
us that everything is fine and that we'll continue to fly NASA
astronauts on Soyuz. Nothing to see here, just move along.


They seem to have a pretty good handle on what happened and why and it
sounds like a 'one off' issue.


Look at the totality of the "one off" issues they've had in their launch
vehicles over the last 20 years. That looks a lot like a systemic
quality control problem to me. One of the reported causes of this
failure was that the crane crew installing the failed booster bent a
connecting pin on the top connection point. Instead of fixing the
issue, they used lubricant on it and forced the booster onto the launch
vehicle. If this proves to be the cause, it's looking like the Russian
"safety culture" is horribly flawed.


Yeah, but we kind of know that and don't have a lot of choice but to
live with it. Should I point out to Mayfly that this lines up exactly
with my 'guess' that he was trying to excoriate me for?


R-7 and Proton type vehicles have been flying since before I was born.
We really should not be seeing so many "one off" failures in such mature
designs. As much as I despise ULA for not innovating, their success
rate has been absolutely stellar over the very same time period.


Yeah, but then you wind up with silliness like the year slide in the
Vulcan schedule out to April of 2021. I knew they wouldn't be able to
meet their original schedule when it took them so long to select an
engine.


Vulcan is a different story. ULA didn't design Atlas V or Delta IV.
They were designed by the parent companies before ULA was formed. So
ULA, as a company, has zero experience designing a new launch vehicle.
Now, they should have at least some the people to do so (engineers which
came from the parent companies who did help design Atlas V and Delta
IV), but it's also been a very long time since those two vehicles were
developed. So, it's going to be interesting to see how successful
Vulcan is from a reliability point of view. I'd hate for them to have a
"Soyuz 2" type of reliability.

I'll just note that on this year's launches there has been one R-7
failure and one Ariane 5 failure. It looks like they've been running
one R-7 failure a year for the last several years.


True. Unfortunately, the Russians have continued to have "random"
failures of both R-7 type launch vehicles and Proton launch vehicles
year after year.

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 Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz! Jeff Findley[_6_] Policy 51 October 18th 18 11:53 PM
After 44 years and 787 launches, Russia to Retire World's LongestServing Soyuz-U Rocket Jonathan Policy 2 February 25th 17 10:26 PM
What does Russia do with Soyuz that returns to Kazakhstan autonut843 History 9 October 14th 05 03:17 AM
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight Rusty B Space Shuttle 1 May 14th 04 08:46 AM
Private Rocket SpaceShipOne Makes Third Rocket-Powered Flight Rusty B Policy 1 May 14th 04 08:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.