"Explosive" spacewalk: preventing the Soyuz separation/reentry problem

[docm]

<p>MSNBC Link....</p><p align="left"><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/4/0/24e70ed2-2ded-4a92-a0cd-469ca628f4c5.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br />This schematic shows the two parts of the Soyuz spacecraft, the propulsion module at left and the crew capsule at right. Russian space officials have told NASA that during the past two Soyuz descents, one of the connections between the two modules did not initially break away, as shown in the schematic. Next month's spacewalk is aimed at heading off a repeat scenario.</p><p align="left"><strong>Quote:</strong></p><p><strong>Next spacewalk will have an explosive twist</strong></p><p><strong><em>Cosmonauts to remove suspect pyrotechnic device from Soyuz craft</em></strong></p><p class="textBodyBlack">HOUSTON - Two Russian cosmonauts on the international space station practiced Thursday for a dramatic spacewalk planned next month, which will involve taking an explosive bolt from the exterior of a docked Soyuz spacecraft and bringing it into the station itself.</p><p class="textBodyBlack">The risky operation is aimed at figuring out why similar bolts on earlier Soyuz spaceships misfired, leading to two rugged, off-course landings over the past year. The cosmonauts hope to avoid similar problems when they use the currently docked Soyuz to return to Earth at the end of their mission in October.</p><p class="textBodyBlack">One of the most delicate aspects of the July 10 spacewalk will be handling the bolt, which sources say packs twice the explosive force of an M-80 firecracker when ignited.</p><p class="textBodyBlack">The explosive bolts are designed to break the connections between the spacecraft's crew capsule and its propulsion module during descent. Russian space engineers say the bolts at one particular location failed to work properly during each of the two previous Soyuz landings, in October 2007 and then again this April. As a result, in each case the landing capsule was twisted out of proper orientation</p><p class="textBodyBlack">and underwent excess heating on unshielded surfaces before tearing loose from the propulsion module and falling to Earth.</p><p class="textBodyBlack">Next month's spacewalk is aimed at avoiding a misfire during the next descent.</p><p class="textBodyBlack"><strong><strong>Advance word of plans</strong></strong></p><p class="textBodyBlack">NASA will describe the plans for the six-hour spacewalk at a yet-to-be-scheduled news briefing, but some details already have emerged in the space agency's routine status reports. Space engineers in Houston revealed additional details during private discussions and in e-mails. They declined to be identified because they weren't officially authorized to discuss the plans.</p><p class="textBodyBlack">The plans call for station commander Sergey Volkov and flight engineer Oleg Konenenko to venture outside the space station at about noon ET on July 10. Konenenko will perform the manual work while Volkov holds him in position at the end of a telescoping boom.</p><p class="textBodyBlack">At the work site, Konenenko will place protective shrouds over the Soyuz's small steering thrusters, to prevent any accidental firing from damaging his spacesuit. Next, he will peel back insulation blankets over the particular section where the target bolt is located.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MSNBC Link....This schematic shows the two parts of the Soyuz spacecraft, the propulsion module at left and the crew capsule at right. Russian space officials have told NASA that during the past two Soyuz descents, one of the connections between the two modules did not initially break away, as shown in the schematic. Next month's spacewalk is aimed at heading off a repeat scenario.Quote:Next spacewalk will have an explosive twistCosmonauts to remove suspect pyrotechnic device from Soyuz craftHOUSTON - Two Russian cosmonauts on the international space station practiced Thursday for a dramatic spacewalk planned next month, which will involve taking an explosive bolt from the exterior of a docked Soyuz spacecraft and bringing it into the station itself.The risky operation is aimed at figuring out why similar bolts on earlier Soyuz spaceships misfired, leading to two rugged, off-course landings over the past year. The cosmonauts hope to avoid similar problems when they use the currently docked Soyuz to return to Earth at the end of their mission in October.One of the most delicate aspects of the July 10 spacewalk will be handling the bolt, which sources say packs twice the explosive force of an M-80 firecracker when ignited.The explosive bolts are designed to break the connections between the spacecraft's crew capsule and its propulsion module during descent. Russian space engineers say the bolts at one particular location failed to work properly during each of the two previous Soyuz landings, in October 2007 and then again this April. As a result, in each case the landing capsule was twisted out of proper orientationand underwent excess heating on unshielded surfaces before tearing loose from the propulsion module and falling to Earth.Next month's spacewalk is aimed at avoiding a misfire during the next descent.Advance word of plansNASA will describe the plans for the six-hour spacewalk at a yet-to-be-scheduled news briefing, but some details already have emerged in the space agency's routine status reports. Space engineers in Houston revealed additional details during private discussions and in e-mails. They declined to be identified because they weren't officially authorized to discuss the plans.The plans call for station commander Sergey Volkov and flight engineer Oleg Konenenko to venture outside the space station at about noon ET on July 10. Konenenko will perform the manual work while Volkov holds him in position at the end of a telescoping boom.At the work site, Konenenko will place protective shrouds over the Soyuz's small steering thrusters, to prevent any accidental firing from damaging his spacesuit. Next, he will peel back insulation blankets over the particular section where the target bolt is located. <br />Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>That is a very disturbing story.&nbsp; For several reasons:</p><p>1.&nbsp; They acknowledge problems with these specific explosive bolts in the recent past.&nbsp; Yet only after two serious incidents are steps apparently being taken to seriously diagnose the problem.&nbsp; And they already offer up the potential of "random chance" as an explanation.&nbsp; This is not an unheard-of response from the Russian aerospace segment.&nbsp; But parts that are made with adequate process control, do not fail from "random chance".&nbsp; They fail from either inherent design flaws or from lack of proper control during the manufacturing processes.</p><p>2.&nbsp; The need to recover one bolt from an in-orbit piece of equipment to provide a sample to diagnose a problem that apparently plagues a group of parts indicates a lack of both manufacturing and inspection data and a lack of availability of similar parts.&nbsp; Since most of the bolts have apparently functioned properly that one bolt is likely to provide no useful data whatever, and if that is all the data that is to be forthcoming is is likely that no conclusion will result.</p><p>3.&nbsp; Flying without one fastener is questionable practice.&nbsp; That fastener is there for a purpose, perhaps only for safety margin, but safety margins are maintained for&nbsp;a purpose also.&nbsp; Removing it is potentially hazardous, though with proper procedures that hazard should be minimal.&nbsp; But with proper procedures in manufacturing there ought not be an issue at this time.&nbsp; There seems to be little payoff for the risk taken.&nbsp; But if that things blows and tears a spacesuit during the EVA, the downside is tragedy.</p><p>4.&nbsp; Saying that on the earlier flight the bold that did not fire eventually broke as designed is at best disingenuous.&nbsp; It failed to fire, and that is not per design.&nbsp; It then failed structurally under out-of-design-limits loads and that is not per design either.&nbsp; The first failure should have been treated as a serious incident.&nbsp; The very fact that it took multiple incidents to engender any meaningful action is damning.</p><p>5.&nbsp; Explosive bolts may be a poor design solution.&nbsp; They do not have a great reliability reputation, and one ough to be very careful about selecting for use in a critical application.&nbsp; If they are selected, then very rigorous quality control is indicated.&nbsp; Apparently these did not receive an appropriate level.</p><p>&nbsp;This is starting&nbsp; to sound like the "Keystone Cops do Aerospace".</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...At the work site, Konenenko will place protective shrouds over the Soyuz's small steering thrusters, to prevent any accidental firing from damaging his spacesuit. Next, he will peel back insulation blankets over the particular section where the target bolt is located. Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>Uh, I understand all about workplace safety and hazardous environments.&nbsp; There are multiple redundancies for personnel safety in such situations.&nbsp; There are checklists that have all sorts of seemingly absurd, yet necessary, requirements.&nbsp; However...&nbsp;</p><p>How do you "accidentally" fire a steering thruster?&nbsp; </p><p>Do they just have a habit of "going off" without anyone knowing?&nbsp; I guess I can see something like a control thruster that is slaved to automatically keep the craft aligned properly.&nbsp; But, if you turn it off, it should be off.. period.&nbsp; Right?</p><p>Not bashing on the Soviets.&nbsp; If anyone can duct-tape a microwave into&nbsp; AK-47 it's those guys.&nbsp; But, saying "accidentally" and "steering thruster" in the same sentence doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

<p>"3.&nbsp; Flying without one fastener is questionable practice.&nbsp; That fastener is there for a purpose, perhaps only for safety margin, but safety margins are maintained for&nbsp;a purpose also.&nbsp; "</p><p>There are 5 bolts and&nbsp;most of the loads they experience is at launch.&nbsp; Should be no impact to&nbsp;remove one/&nbsp;</p><p>"4.&nbsp; Saying that on the earlier flight the bold that did not fire eventually broke as designed is at best disingenuous.&nbsp; It failed to fire, and that is not per design.&nbsp; "</p><p>&nbsp;Actually they don't know.&nbsp; Did it fire and something else jammed the latch?&nbsp; Did it not fire?</p><p>"5.&nbsp; Explosive bolts may be a poor design solution.&nbsp; They do not have a great reliability reputation, and one ough to be very careful about selecting for use in a critical application.&nbsp; If they are selected, then very rigorous quality control is indicated.&nbsp; Apparently these did not receive an appropriate level."</p><p>Can't conclude that.&nbsp; Since we have no idea what failed you can't conclude anything about the bolts.</p>

 

[erioladastra]

<p>"Not bashing on the Soviets.&nbsp; If anyone can duct-tape a microwave into&nbsp; AK-47 it's those guys.&nbsp; But, saying "accidentally" and "steering thruster" in the same sentence doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.. "</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Actually that is Oberg's mistake - the purpose of the covers is to prevent contamination to the suits or debris from teh MLI to get in.&nbsp; The thrusters are deactivated.&nbsp; Unless someone goes postal, the thrustes are not going to go off.&nbsp; He should have known better.&nbsp; Besides, flight rules would forbid you to be that close to an active thruster.</p>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... Besides, flight rules would forbid you to be that close to an active thruster. Posted by erioladastra</DIV></p><p>LOL</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.&nbsp; The need to recover one bolt from an in-orbit piece of equipment to provide a sample to diagnose a problem that apparently plagues a group of parts indicates a lack of both manufacturing and inspection data and a lack of availability of similar parts.&nbsp; Since most of the bolts have apparently functioned properly that one bolt is likely to provide no useful data whatever, and if that is all the data that is to be forthcoming is is likely that no conclusion will result.</p><p>Posted by <strong>DrRocket</strong></DIV><br /></p><p>This sounds odd to me as well but their thinking must be that if 2 bolts in that loacation have failed, then there might be something about the environment of that location that causing it. Presumably they're checked the circuitry and wiring from the recovered capsules and found nothing bad hence the focus shifts to the bolts themselves. I'd wonder if there wasn't some mechanical issue (as a result of launch stresses/shock)&nbsp;other than the bolt itself that's leads to a binding and resultant hangup. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

The main thing that comes to mind for me is that I would not like to be handling an explosive bolt while on an EVA.&nbsp; I know the odds of it going off accidentally are extremely slim, but it would still be creepy.&nbsp; And then bringing it inside would be creepy too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[sprockit]

As I mentioned in a previous post, malfunctioning bolts or sep mechanism not only adds risk to re-entry, but must significantly compromise the integrity of the launch escape system.&nbsp; While speculative, that means that on two successive Soyuz launches, there was a high probability that the LES would not work reliably.&nbsp; I do not know if the bolts are designed to shear at a certain load that would be within the thrust profile of the escape rockets, but an asymmetric sep would certainly affect the trajectory of the abort.

 

[DrRocket]

<p>[QUOTE...5.&nbsp; Explosive bolts may be a poor design solution.&nbsp; They do not have a great reliability reputation, and one ough to be very careful about selecting for use in a critical application.&nbsp; If they are selected, then very rigorous quality control is indicated.&nbsp; Apparently these did not receive an appropriate level."Can't conclude that.&nbsp; Since we have no idea what failed you can't conclude anything about the bolts. <br />Posted by erioladastra[/QUOTE]</p><p>You may not be able to conclude that from the data available for the Russian flights.&nbsp; But I can conclude that explosive bolts are often a poor design solution based on a lot more pyrotechnic and industry data for explosive bolts in general as design solutions.&nbsp; Explosive bolts have failed in other applications.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p>I' thankful that they found the problem and are working on it to this degree.</p><p>After 50 years this problem just starting to come up, well that's a pretty good track record for exploding bolts.&nbsp; So something has changed recently and they have to track down the source.</p><p>Doesn't sound like Keystone cops at&nbsp; all to me.&nbsp; Sounds like some honest investigation. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Also its great that RSA came out with this publicly. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...5.&nbsp; Explosive bolts may be a poor design solution.&nbsp; They do not have a great reliability reputation, and one ough to be very careful about selecting for use in a critical application.&nbsp; If they are selected, then very rigorous quality control is indicated.&nbsp; Apparently these did not receive an appropriate level."Can't conclude that.&nbsp; Since we have no idea what failed you can't conclude anything about the bolts. Posted by erioladastra</DIV>You may not be able to conclude that from the data available for the Russian flights.&nbsp; But I can conclude that explosive bolts are often a poor design solution based on a lot more pyrotechnic and industry data for explosive bolts in general as design solutions.&nbsp; Explosive bolts have failed in other applications.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Hmm it seems to me that Russians are known for rugged designes albeit less refine.&nbsp; I'm sure Russian design explosding bolts are different than US desinged exploding bolts.&nbsp; Probably more reliable.&nbsp; In the computer field they were slow in using solid state chips so they kept on developing tubes and surpassed us in that specific technology.&nbsp; Though chips proved to be better and faster ad lighter and use less power.</p><p>So to say it was a poor design with many years working and no knowledge of that countries technology, is a bit silly. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if the problem was that they changed suppliers of exploding bolts so they end up with unreliable American exploding bolts? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp; I'm sure Russian design explosding bolts are different than US desinged exploding bolts.&nbsp; Probably more reliable.&nbsp; In the computer field they were slow in using solid state chips so they kept on developing tubes and surpassed us in that specific technology.&nbsp; Though chips proved to be better and faster ad lighter and use less power.So to say it was a poor design with many years working and no knowledge of that countries technology, is a bit silly. &nbsp;Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if the problem was that they changed suppliers of exploding bolts so they end up with unreliable American exploding bolts? <br />Posted by holmec</DIV></p><p>Or perhaps I have seen more of the Russian aerospace and explosives technology than have you.&nbsp; And perhaps a bit more of general ordnance design.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Or perhaps I have seen more of the Russian aerospace and explosives technology than have you.&nbsp; And perhaps a bit more of general ordnance design.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well I hope so, I haven't seen any and this is not about me.&nbsp; Its about 50 years of success of those bolts suddenly failing. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[neuvik]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Well I hope so, I haven't seen any and this is not about me.&nbsp; Its about 50 years of success of those bolts suddenly failing. <br /> Posted by holmec</DIV></p><p>Well more like 37 years since Soyuz 11.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well more like 37 years since Soyuz 11.&nbsp; <br />Posted by neuvik</DIV></p><p>Maybe not even that.&nbsp; Here in the popular press is an article from 2004 talking about a Soyuz explosibe bolt problem with another example from 1969.&nbsp; <br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6010203/</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe not even that.&nbsp; Here in the popular press is an article from 2004 talking about a Soyuz explosibe bolt problem with another example from 1969.&nbsp; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6010203/ <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Excellent.&nbsp; Thanks for the link.&nbsp; A possibility of faulty ground equipment.&nbsp; That is a real possibility.&nbsp; And seems to fit the circumstances.&nbsp; That is cosidering its affecting flights consecutively. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[neuvik]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe not even that.&nbsp; Here in the popular press is an article from 2004 talking about a Soyuz explosibe bolt problem with another example from 1969.&nbsp; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6010203/ <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The Soyuz docked at the ISS for rescue purposes; when it detaches does it use those bolts?&nbsp; We should have built a dedicated rescue module, why would we leave that components to the Russian.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Soyuz docked at the ISS for rescue purposes; when it detaches does it use those bolts?&nbsp; We should have built a dedicated rescue module, why would we leave that components to the Russian.&nbsp; <br />Posted by neuvik</DIV><br /><br />No, pay attention. There are no explosive bolts involved in any docking/undocking at the ISS. The bolts in question separate the 3 modules of the soyuz spacecraft. Look at the pictures of the spacecraft.</p><p>Maybe you should do a little research before spouting off.</p><p>We don't need a dedicated rescue module, the Soyuz serves that purpose as well as transporting food, propellant,&nbsp;and supplies, and disposing of garbage. We leave it to them, since the port that it docks to is the one that they built. Remember, they are partners with us....it's not the US space station, it's the <strong>I</strong>nternational <strong>S</strong>pace <strong>S</strong>tation</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We don't need a dedicated rescue module, the Soyuz serves that purpose as well as transporting food, propellant,&nbsp;and supplies, and disposing of garbage. We leave it to them, since the port that it docks to is the one that they built. Remember, they are partners with us....it's not the US space station, it's the International Space Station <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I dunno; I would've liked to have seen the CRV (the original planned rescue module).&nbsp; The CRV actually triggered cancellation of plans to build Zarya, a large Russian vehicle, so we basically made the Russians cancel their rescue vehicle in favor of ours, which we then cancelled, forcing the Russians to double Soyuz production in order to meet this unexpected demand.&nbsp; (Soyuz seats three, so for a six-man crew we need two on station at all times.)&nbsp; Additionally, CRV would've accomodated seven, not six.&nbsp; Alas, that was not to be.</p><p>Someone mentioned Soyuz 11 earlier in this thread.&nbsp; The failure on Soyuz 11 was unrelated to this.&nbsp; The Soyuz 11 crew was killed by decompression when a pressure equalizatoin valve opened prematurely, possibly during undocking.&nbsp; You may be thinking of Soyuz 5, in which the service module failed to separate normally and the vehicle reentered hatch-first until the bolts finally sheared off and the descent module righted itself. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dunno; I would've liked to have seen the CRV (the original planned rescue module).&nbsp; The CRV actually triggered cancellation of plans to build Zarya, a large Russian vehicle, so we basically made the Russians cancel their rescue vehicle in favor of ours, which we then cancelled, forcing the Russians to double Soyuz production in order to meet this unexpected demand.&nbsp; (Soyuz seats three, so for a six-man crew we need two on station at all times.)&nbsp; Additionally, CRV would've accomodated seven, not six.&nbsp; Alas, that was not to be.Someone mentioned Soyuz 11 earlier in this thread.&nbsp; The failure on Soyuz 11 was unrelated to this.&nbsp; The Soyuz 11 crew was killed by decompression when a pressure equalizatoin valve opened prematurely, possibly during undocking.&nbsp; You may be thinking of Soyuz 5, in which the service module failed to separate normally and the vehicle reentered hatch-first until the bolts finally sheared off and the descent module righted itself. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Good point, Calli, the CRV was indeed a superb concept. A lot has occurred since then, though, so for now, Soyuz is what we've got. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Soyuz docked at the ISS for rescue purposes; when it detaches does it use those bolts?&nbsp; We should have built a dedicated rescue module, why would we leave that components to the Russian.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by neuvik</DIV></p><p>Well the issue of a dedicated rescue ship was addressed years before.&nbsp; On the US side, they were talking about a CXV for this purpose.&nbsp; t/Space got a contract to research such a craft.&nbsp; You can see that at t/Space's website. </p><p>In the talks between NASA and Congress CXV was discussed but the predecessor to the CEV was discussed as well.&nbsp; At the time, the thinking was along you lines, since we still had the shuttle.&nbsp; But in building the ISS, the operations have demanded that each person on the station has a seat on a docked ship.&nbsp; And that has worked well.</p><p>&nbsp;With the advent of the CEV Orion, that process will probalby continue.&nbsp; But I get the feeling that the future of the ISS is fluid at best.&nbsp; That is things could change.&nbsp; If SpaceX Dragon is successful, then NASA could contract them for any number of flights to the ISS for cargo, manned missions.&nbsp; If that becomes the case then Dragon could return crew and equipment back to earth, much like the Orion.</p><p>I wished t/Space's CXV got off the ground, its has such a sweet launch system.&nbsp; I wonder if the military is eyeing it.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Just to set the record straight.&nbsp; Most of the ISS trash is taken aboard Progress (unmanned cargo version of Soyuz) and gets burned up in the atmophere.&nbsp; ATV Jules Verne will perform that function as well. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What I think would be ideal is a cargo ship that has the optional capability of returning a crew to serve as a ad hoc rescue ship.&nbsp; But that is probably too expesive to buid. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>&nbsp;Just to set the record straight.&nbsp; Most of the ISS trash is taken aboard Progress (unmanned cargo version of Soyuz) and gets burned up in the atmophere.&nbsp; ATV Jules Verne will perform that function as well. <br />Posted by holmec</DIV><br /><br />Sorry, you are correct. My bad.</p><p>Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Good point, Calli, the CRV was indeed a superb concept. A lot has occurred since then, though, so for now, Soyuz is what we've got. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>So they were talking about the OSP with the CRV that later became the CEV with the CXV and we end up with Orion........<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif" border="0" alt="Foot in mouth" title="Foot in mouth" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Then CRV kinda evolved into the DreamChaser (being both lifting bodies) and the CXV research was kept by t/Space. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I remember some Congessman being irate at NASA for coming up with the CRV being a lifting body and so large and all.&nbsp; Told NASA to reconsider the design. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[neuvik]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, pay attention. There are no explosive bolts involved in any docking/undocking at the ISS. The bolts in question separate the 3 modules of the soyuz spacecraft. Look at the pictures of the spacecraft.Maybe you should do a little research before spouting off.We don't need a dedicated rescue module, the Soyuz serves that purpose as well as transporting food, propellant,&nbsp;and supplies, and disposing of garbage. We leave it to them, since the port that it docks to is the one that they built. Remember, they are partners with us....it's not the US space station, it's the International Space Station <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Easy there turbo, I asked it just as a question. &nbsp; When reading about Soyuz 11, their failure came when they undocked from one of the small soviet space stations and it was linked to the explosive bolts was it not?</p><p>Edit: maybe it was Soyuz 5, I thought I heard it about Soyuz 11, and the Soviets were trying to cover it up for PR reasons.&nbsp;</p><p> &nbsp; &nbsp; I understand the articles here are about the explosive bolts which break the connections between the spacecraft's crew capsule and its propulsion module during descent.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thanks for answearing my question about the docking though.&nbsp;&nbsp; My only education about Space and Rocketry come from the internet, so sometimes I get bad info; I do try to compare what I find to other articles. &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>