Soyuz; abnormal reentry/landing.

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

newsartist

Guest
<p>It now seems possible that the current Soyuz mission, not only made a ballistic return, but for part of the reentry was 'hatch down'. (This happened once before.)</p><p>Since this story will be with us for a while, as investigations are ongoing, this thread will be easier for people to find. </p><p>Previous mission comments, including the landing undershoot are still on the original "Soyuz&nbsp;launch" thread.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

fractionofadot

Guest
<p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but...</p><p>These failures (counting from 2003) - all have a common link, they are an upgraded version of the Soyuz. That ballistic landing in 2003 was the first flight of the new type Soyuz module. </p><p>I have read that NASA put pressure on Russia to "upgrade" the internal avionics systems with CRT/LCD type monitors instead of the old dials.</p><p>Why fix what's not broken?</p><p>What advantages is this new Soyuz type meant to have over the tried and tested versions? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

newsartist

Guest
<p>We are still only seeing UNCONFIRMED media reports, but if it does prove to be that the Service Module failed to detach properly, there is no similar event with the history of the 'new' Soyuz.</p><p>Soyuz 5, 1n 1969 is the only other similar event that I am aware of.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#3366ff">We are still only seeing UNCONFIRMED media reports, but if it does prove to be that the Service Module failed to detach properly, there is no similar event with the history of the 'new' Soyuz.&nbsp; <br /></font><strong>Posted by newsartist</strong></DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I thought I read somewhere that TMA-10 also had a problem at Module separation?&nbsp; I'm shocked to hear about this "hatch down" possibility.&nbsp;&nbsp;Malenchenko and&nbsp;Whitson would have surely been aware of what was going on under this scenario and must have been extremely concerned for their welfare.</p><p>I'm sure the Russians must have considered this scenario at some point during the design and long operational life of Soyuz.&nbsp; There's the example cited by news of course.&nbsp; It's a testament to the robustness of Soyuz that they can (possibly) have a scenario like this play out, and still get a crew down in one piece.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SK&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/11/cc2f9197-755d-41eb-abb1-7d25c3c7ada7.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
P

pathfinder_01

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It now seems possible that the current Soyuz mission, not only made a ballistic return, but for part of the reentry was 'hatch down'. (This happened once before.)Since this story will be with us for a while, as investigations are ongoing, this thread will be easier for people to find. Previous mission comments, including the landing undershoot are still on the original "Soyuz&nbsp;launch" thread.&nbsp; <br />Posted by newsartist</DIV><br /><br /><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><span>&nbsp;</span>The advantage of the current version of Soyuz is the three man crew. The original Soyuz had a three man crew, but a depressurization disaster that killed the crew caused a requirement that the crew wear spacesuits during launch and landing. This requirement forced the reduction of crew size from 3 to 2.Since they were unable to fit a third space suited person in. <span>&nbsp;</span>The upgrades allowed the Soyuz to fit a three person crew in again. </font></font></p>
 
F

fractionofadot

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The advantage of the current version of Soyuz is the three man crew. The original Soyuz had a three man crew, but a depressurization disaster that killed the crew caused a requirement that the crew wear spacesuits during launch and landing. This requirement forced the reduction of crew size from 3 to 2.Since they were unable to fit a third space suited person in. &nbsp;The upgrades allowed the Soyuz to fit a three person crew in again. <br /> Posted by pathfinder_01</DIV></p><p>I think you possibly were replying to my question.</p><p>The Soyuz has been able to take 3 fully suited crew men since at least the Soyuz T, which first appeared in the late 1970's. </p><p>The Soyuz TMA which has suffered three re-entry "anomalies" since appearing in 2003 was put into service after pressure from NASA. It features a modern glass cockpit, and I'm theorizing that perhaps, this may have something to do with recent failures - specifically that there's a flaw in the computers running the show. </p><p>A three crew Soyuz is nothing new. Yes they did go back to a two man crew after the Soyuz 11 disaster, but by the end of the 1970's a three crew flight was the norm again. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JimL

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It now seems possible that the current Soyuz mission, not only made a ballistic return, but for part of the reentry was 'hatch down'. (This happened once before.)Since this story will be with us for a while, as investigations are ongoing, this thread will be easier for people to find. Previous mission comments, including the landing undershoot are still on the original "Soyuz&nbsp;launch" thread.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by newsartist</DIV></p><p>Where can we find some real information about this faulty re-entry.&nbsp; How can a module like the Soyuz reentry module make anything BUT a ballistic reentry?&nbsp; Doesn't a lifting reentry require something remotely resembling wings? </p>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you possibly were replying to my question.The Soyuz has been able to take 3 fully suited crew men since at least the Soyuz T, which first appeared in the late 1970's. The Soyuz TMA which has suffered three re-entry "anomalies" since appearing in 2003 was put into service after pressure from NASA. It features a modern glass cockpit, and I'm theorizing that perhaps, this may have something to do with recent failures - specifically that there's a flaw in the computers running the show. A three crew Soyuz is nothing new. Yes they did go back to a two man crew after the Soyuz 11 disaster, but by the end of the 1970's a three crew flight was the norm again. <br /> Posted by fractionofadot</DIV></p><p>The Soyuz TMA-10 analysis suggested a frayed wire was to blame.&nbsp; Soyuz TMA-11 was inspected on orbit and found to be free of this defect, so they thought it was just a one-time-only thing.&nbsp; Evidently they were wrong (or, potentially more alarming, there may be multiple problems that could trigger this situation).</p><p>To clarify a bit about the Soyuz TMA,&nbsp; NASA's main problem with Soyuz TM was that it could not accommodate much of the US astronaut corps -- NASA's allows taller astronauts than the Russians do.&nbsp; (One could insert a joke here about chubby Americans, even though astronauts are not chubby due to the health and fitness requirements.)&nbsp; Going to glass cockpit allowed them to squeeze a little bit more habitable volume into the descent module.&nbsp; It also reduced weight and power consumption and also improved reusability.&nbsp; Soyuz may not be a reusable spacecraft, but it's parts are another matter.&nbsp; Descent modules are routinely cannibalized, and those glass cockpits doubtless fly more than once.</p><p>There was one American astronaut (don't remember which) aboard Mir who nearly had a problem because he was at the upper height limit for cosmonauts.&nbsp; He never flew on Soyuz, but as Soyuz was the lifeboat, he had to be able to ride one in the event of an emergency.&nbsp; There was some concern after he was delivered on Shuttle because he stretched out and expanded a bit in weightlessness (a common condition) and was barely able to squeeze into his Sokol suit.&nbsp; There were worries that if things went seriously wrong, he'd have to violate regulations and return without a suit, putting him at risk of decompression if things went badly (a la Soyuz 11) and causing him to be jostled around a lot more since the custom Soyuz seat-liner is designed to fit the *suited* cosmonaut.&nbsp; But it didn't come to that. </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>
 
T

trailrider

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Where can we find some real information about this faulty re-entry.&nbsp; How can a module like the Soyuz reentry module make anything BUT a ballistic reentry?&nbsp; Doesn't a lifting reentry require something remotely resembling wings? <br />Posted by JimL</DIV></p><p>Soyuz spacecraft, like Gemini and Apollo, have their center-of-mass ("center-of-gravity" or "CG") offset from the physical center axis of the spacecraft.&nbsp; As a result, the vehicle does not point in the same direction as the velocity vector.&nbsp; In other words, it is flying at a skewed angle.&nbsp; The result is that the blunt end tends to develop a lift component.&nbsp; If the lift component is up relative to the direction of flight, the spacecraft tends to extend its range, if held in that attitude.&nbsp; If the vehicle is rolled so the lift vector is pointed toward the Earth, the range will be decreased dramatically.&nbsp; If the lift vector points to the right relative the flight path, the spacecraft will curve to the right, and similarly to the left. Now you can guide the vehicle by rolling the spacecraft one direction or the other.&nbsp; If you roll continuously, the spacecraft will effectively "corkscrew" around its long axis, enough so it goes into a pure ballistic re-entry path.&nbsp; Apparently, the Soyuz guidance system is programmed to go into the continuous roll as a default if things aren't going according to plan.&nbsp; Recall what Peggy Whitson said about it rolling continuously.</p><p>So far as finding out what caused the anomaly is concerned, that will have to come from the Russians. It's their "bird". As I've posted elsewhere, it may be something as "simple" as a quality control issue with the explosive bolts.&nbsp; Too hard a heat treatment on the bolt's steel might raise the tensile strength of the bolt, making the charge insufficient to break it.&nbsp; On the other hand, it could be something involving multiple conditions that caused the separation to not be clean.&nbsp; As much as I, too, am very curious, we'll just have to wait for the reports.</p><p>&nbsp;Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!</p>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
<p>I'm all for investigation into the recent anomalous (but survived) re-entries of Soyuz craft. However, I think we all (and NASA and the media as well) need to be certain of the robust and reliable nature of Soyuz craft over the last 40+ years.</p><p>Personally, I'd rather come back to Earth in a Soyuz than a Shuttle, all things considered. Answers will be found and issues will be resolved. I have that much faith in the Russians. It's more than simple pride that's led them to excel in human space flight in the last 50 years.</p><p>If something's wrong, they'll fix it. And it's comforting to know that even under less than nominal re-entry conditions that they can bring men and women home and alive.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
K

Kosmonavtka

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Correct me if I'm wrong, but...These failures (counting from 2003) - all have a common link, they are an upgraded version of the Soyuz. That ballistic landing in 2003 was the first flight of the new type Soyuz module. I have read that NASA put pressure on Russia to "upgrade" the internal avionics systems with CRT/LCD type monitors instead of the old dials.Why fix what's not broken?What advantages is this new Soyuz type meant to have over the tried and tested versions? <br /> Posted by fractionofadot</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Soyuz-TMA &ndash; Improvements to the Russian Spacecraft, James Oberg.com</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>James Oberg has an article up at NASASpaceflight.com: The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames <br />Posted by Kosmonavtka</DIV></p><p>Typical Oberg piece.&nbsp; Mixture of great insights and&nbsp;usupported opinion.&nbsp; Twelve years down the track he is still pushing his line that mars 96 came down in Boliva despite the fact that evetone else says it came down in the Pacific. His accuation of the Russians of "naked chauvinism" is fairly ironic since he himself seems to be pushing an ever increasingly strident anti-Russian agenda.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts