Russian Soyuz Launch Escape

[ascan1984]

I remember seeing about a launch in the mid 80's that during countdown something went wrong and they had to fire the Launch Escape System. I want to research this mission but I cannot remember what this mission was called. Help!!!

 

[drwayne]

Soyuz 10a?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

This guy:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_T-10-1<br /><br />? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[ascan1984]

Thankyou drwayne

 

[drwayne]

"The Soyuz crew can not fire the abort system manually."<br /><br />I was unaware of that for a long time...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[sorehed]

I can understand why it may have been that way in the sixties and seventies, but why haven't they modified the system to permit a crew initiated abort since then? Too complicated of a redesign to make it worthwhile relative to the risks?

 

[rybanis]

Dr, while reading that article, I came across this one:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_disaster<br /><br /><br />Sad, yet kind of interesting. I didn't know a guy fell to his death inside of the VAB.<br /><br />1964, was that before your time, SG? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

It's a philosophy thing. The design philosophy behind the American manned space program, going all the way back to Mercury, was "man in the loop". You put the human on board in case things go wrong with the automated systems and give that human full powers to take control of the vehicle. (Werner Von Braun, a huge proponent of this philosophy, said that a human being is the most sophisticated computer that can be built by unskilled labor.)<br /><br />The Soviet philosophy, on the other hand, was automation. Humans have slow reaction times and can be confused by g-forces and shifting frames of reference. They certainly can't process all the input fast enough to manage it effectively. (This is actually very true, and it's why Space Shuttle reentries are never done by hand. True to the American philosophy, the commander or pilot can seize control, but this is considered horribly risky and only something to be done in a dire emergency. Things just simply happen too fast in that flight regime.) So the Soviet philosophy is to keep the man as a backup, because there's definitely value to a human pilot, but prevent that human from accidentally affecting the spacecraft because of the tragic consequences that could result. The human pilot is only to be used as a last resort, or for relatively low-risk maneuvers that are difficult to automate, such as docking. The objective is to automate everything, so that the mission is not dependent on the skill or whim of the pilot.<br /><br />There are strengths to both approaches. American spacecraft are arguably somewhat safer because the crew can order an abort even if the ground doesn't realize how serious the situation is. But Russian spacecraft are generally superior in terms of automation. American spacecraft have yet to acheive an automatic docking, for instance, and Russian spacecraft do that routinely. American spacecraft cannot return to Earth automatically; Russian spacecraft always do, and in fact in one case even <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>

 

[sorehed]

I suspected it something like that, but I had hoped they had outgrown that philosophy. Admittedly, though, I'm looking at it from the Western perspective of the pilot having the ultimate authority to take actions he deems necessary. I guess if they are satisfied with it, that's all that matters.

 

[davf]

Keeping the astronaut in the loop wasn't part of the initial philosophy in Mercury. Initially the Mercury design embodied the same concept of automation as the Soviets did. Input from the Mercury 7 changed that, however.

 

[CalliArcale]

That is true. But it definitely permeated the rest of the American manned space program. I mean, there's no reason, technically, why the Shuttle shouldn't be able to land entirely autonomously. But the crew want to be neccesary. I can understand that. <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>

 

[mikejz]

I would of thought that Soyuz-T 10a would of changed the Russian approach to a ground-initiated abort: AFAIR the fire actually hindered the reception of the abort signal.

 

[sorehed]

It's a control thing. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[darkenfast]

General reply to thread. It's interesting to note the differences in makeup between the early cosmonauts and the early astronauts. Generally, the typical astronaut had a graduate degree (mostly), and was a test pilot. The cosmonaut was a fighter pilot, and had come from a much narrower educational system. The cosmonauts were considered to be more in the line of test subjects. Physical fitness, intelligence, psycological stability and political reliability were the main considerations. I wish to emphasize that this is in no way a criticism of the cosmonaut's bravery, competence or any other aspect of them as people. I've heard very little negative about any of them. It does; however, show a difference in philosophy between the US and the old USSR. This difference showed up repeatedly in comparisons between military personnel of both nations. Both astronauts and cosmonauts have changed over the years, and I find it rather silly that some of the critics of the ESAS program still go on about "fighter jocks" being the only people who will be allowed into space and on the Moon (because the stupid government is using a capsule).

 

[kurtwagner]

Interesting that Chuck Yeager wasn't invited to apply for Mercury but Alan Shepard was. They are the same age (Yeager DOB 2/13/1923, Shepard DOB 11/18/1923). Yeager clearly was the fighter jock's fighter jock, according to his Wikipedia entry. He did it all. All, except get a college degree, which Shepard did, according to his Wikipedia entry. So, based on what I've read (not just here but everywhere) I'd think that there was more going on than the desired military/political qualifications that the Soviets required. I think (my own opinion) was that the NASA approach was that the higher educated (even at the bachelor's degree level, which assumes a general ed fulfillment) provided more context in history, sociology, and psychology than afforded by a high school diploma. You might argue that this was unnecessary for Mercury. Maybe, but perhaps they thought that a man's understanding of the historical context of the risk he was taking was important to his dedication to success. Hard to isolate this single aspect of the race as having a lot of importance. I certainly agree that Gagarin, Titov, Leonov, Krikalev and their colleagues are certainly on a par with our brave men and women.<br /><br />Kurt

 

[kurtwagner]

I guess a lot of guys had the "monkey in a can" attitude as Mercury got going. It may be that it took a more far sighted individual to realize that Mercury was just a tiny first step. Shepard might have realized that fact, and that he wanted to walk on the moon, which, of course he did. I wonder if Yeager even wanted that, or knew that he'd not be allowed in and so trashed the concept as not befitting a real pilot. <br />Kurt

 

[drwayne]

And Yeager was a bit of a wild card in terms of what he said the people.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Yeager missed X-15 too, which was not "Spam in a can." There were probably other things going on at the time beyond a pilot's desires. "<br /><br />Tom Wolfe's book, "The Right Stuff", compares Neil Armstrong unfavorably to Yeager and uses the NF-104 crash to bolster the case for Yeager's heroism. Yet the more I hear about Armstrong and the more I hear about the NF-104 crash the less credible I find Wolfe's characterization of those men.<br /><br />Unlike Yeager, Armstrong was an X-15 pilot. And Armstrong managed to contain the near disaster of the Gemini 8 mission. Plus I've heard some nasty stories that the infamous NF-104 crash of Yeager was really due to Yeager screwing up. Maybe that's the real reason Yeager never flew the X-15.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The X-15 glory flights were well before the NF-104A crash, so that had no impact. [on Yeager flying the X-15]"<br /><br />Your timeline is wrong. The X-15 flew missions for almost five years after the Yeager NF-104 crash.<br /><br />The NF-104 crash was December 10, 1963, about two months after delivery of the first NF-104.<br /><br />http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/NF-104A_crash_site.htm<br /><br />Wheras the X-15..."The three X-15 aircraft were flown by twelve test pilots. There were 199 flights beginning June 8, 1959 and ending October 24, 1968. The initial eight flights were made by Scott Crossfield. Neil Armstrong flew seven times. "<br /><br />http://www.x15.com/program.html<br /><br />For anyone interested here is the site I found with the very very interesting story of the NF-104 crash...<br /><br />http://www.nf104.com/<br /><br />...cutting to the chase...<br /><br />http://www.nf104.com/stories/stories_13.html

 

[rocketman5000]

that recount of the 104 seems very biased, not to say it isn't truth, just that it probably doesn't have all the facts...

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Verying interesting links, thanks"<br /><br />You're welcome.

 

[davf]

There are some interesting comments regarding Yeager in 'First Man', Armstrong's autobiography. The claim is made that Yeager, while a superlative stick and rudder man was a horrible aerospace pilot (compared to the very skilled company at Edwards). The distinction arises due to the differing pilot techniques and feedback one gets when using aerodynamic controls versus reaction controls. The NF104 website has already been posted but it is also referred to in First Man for obvious reasons. <br /><br />In 'First Man', they go on to say that this is one of the places that Yeager's lack of education let him down: while Yeager was a better stick-and-rudder guy than Armstrong, Armstrong had the education and smarts to be able to think through the situation he was in and find a solution. This approach much better suited 'aerospace' research flying. I suspect that Shepard was better suited for the space program for similar reasons. <br /><br />Incidentally, First Man mentions a couple of incidences with Yeager and Armstrong flying where Yeager made poor judgement calls (such as essentially demanding that they put down on a not-so-dry lakebed where they ended up getting stuck). A bit of he-said/he-said, perhaps, since Yeager certainly took a few jabs at Neil in his book... but it does seem to fit a pattern.

 

[gunsandrockets]

I missed the distinction you made about 'glory years'. I was just making a WAG about Yeager's lack of X-15 participation in any case.

 

[drwayne]

I remember the lake bed story being told the other way around in one of Yeager's books - a story Yeager filed under "You can't tell him anything" - in which he states that is was Armstrong who insisted on setting down on the lake....<br /><br />I love history!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Thanks for confirming that memory sir. I lost that book years ago....<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>