Soyuz launch of Expedition 16

[rocketwatcher2001]

It must be tough to go through zero-G for 6 months, followed by a few minutes of 9-G's. Those Astonauts and Cosmonauts are very tough people, it's sad that 99 percent of the people in either the U.S. or Russia ( I think ) couldn't name any of them that returned on that difficult trip. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Zipi]

I guess this is a correct thread to comment the landing of expedition 16 crew and Soyuz TMA-11. So a little bump because the landing should happen&nbsp;in next&nbsp;few days... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess this is a correct thread to comment the landing of expedition 16 crew and Soyuz TMA-11. So a little bump because the landing should happen&nbsp;in next&nbsp;few days... <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV><br /><br />I'm guessing along with you, Zipi.</p><p>The Expedition 16 crew is down. Apparently, they came down ballistic and landed about 475km short of the landing zone. Everyone's fine and the recovery crew&nbsp;is on the scene.</p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>SpaceflightNow.com report</strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#3366ff">The Expedition 16 crew is down. Apparently, they came down ballistic and landed about 475km short of the landing zone.<br /></font><strong>Posted by Swampcat</strong></DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Another ballistic descent, do the Russians have a problem here.&nbsp; Is that 3 of the last 4 that have had a ballistic trajectory, I can't immediately recall?&nbsp; Does seem like they might need to have a re-think about software controlling re-entry of the Soyuz.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SK&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/7/2d0f0192-4892-4960-b70f-6baa53dee152.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>

 

[Zipi]

<p>Here is the link to the SPACE.COM article:</p><p>http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080419-expedition16-landing-day.html</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Another ballistic descent, do the Russians have a problem here.&nbsp; Is that 3 of the last 4 that have had a ballistic trajectory, I can't immediately recall?&nbsp; Does seem like they might need to have a re-think about software controlling re-entry of the Soyuz.&nbsp;SK&nbsp; <br /> Posted by SpaceKiwi</DIV>'</p><p>Assuming it's a software problem, of course.&nbsp; Naturally, as a software engineer myself, I must point out that it is often the hardware's fault.&nbsp; So there.&nbsp; </p><p>On a more serious note, it's good news if it's a software fault -- that's generally easier to correct.</p><p>If I'm not mistaken, the last ballistic reentry was almost five years ago (not long after Columbia, eerily enough).&nbsp; So it's not correct that 3 of the last 4 had a ballistic reentry.&nbsp; Mind you, I'm going off of recollection here. </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>

 

[Swampcat]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I'm not mistaken, the last ballistic reentry was almost five years ago (not long after Columbia, eerily enough).&nbsp; So it's not correct that 3 of the last 4 had a ballistic reentry.&nbsp; Mind you, I'm going off of recollection here. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />According to <font color="#339966"><strong>AviationWeek.com</strong></font> , this is the second ballistic re-entry in a row. The last previous to that was in 2003 according to <font color="#339966"><strong>SpaceflightNow.com</strong></font>&nbsp;. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[phaze]

I've heard the term "backup trajectory" used a few times?&nbsp; Was there anything "backup" about this?&nbsp; Sounds to me like the capsule just went the way it was going to go and everyone held on to their hats and hoped for the best.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#3366ff">Naturally, as a software engineer myself, I must point out that it is often the hardware's fault.&nbsp; So there.&nbsp; <br /></font><strong>Posted by CalliArcale</strong></DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Calli, had you been the engineer in charge of the Soyuz code, I'm sure the Russians would have been able to paint a big red target on the ground and land their helo's in a circle around that ahead of the landing.&nbsp; The air crews could then pull out the deck-chairs and sit there, drinking their vodka-strengthened coffee and hot chocolate, while they watched TMA-11 hit the mark.</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>More seriously, this makes 3 out of 11 ballistic entries since the change from the Soyuz TM to TMA revision.&nbsp; I guess that isn't quite as bad as I had initially thought, though two in a row is obviously raising some flags.&nbsp; I wonder if the way they pack the cargo returning with the crew into the capsule has any impact on the flight profile, though surely that would be statistically negligible in the greater scheme of things.&nbsp; From the SDC article it sounds like they have a couple of prime candidates to be the culprit.&nbsp; I hope they can conclusively fault-tree it down to one of them anyway.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SK&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/12/79d0b69e-db86-40e3-bc37-30c4aaa6d607.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>

 

[Zipi]

<p>Might be some speculation, but Finnish news paper Iltalehti claims that some professional have said that Soyuz TMA-11 entered to atmosphere at backwards:</p><p>http://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/200804227557388_ul.shtml<br />Sorry, article is in finnish! If I find similar in english I'll post it here.</p><p>The professional person had said that the Soyuz was in real danger to be destroyed by that manouvere. If it really entered to atmosphere at backwards it actually explains why it landed too steep angle... The backside is not near as aerodynamic as the front of it and that's why the speed decreased too quickly. If someone of you knows these things better or have a better article of this, please post your comments. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p>SpaceflightNow.com has a longer article on the topic.</p><p>http://spaceflightnow.com/station/exp16/080422descent.html</p><p>I didn't realize that this happened on the Soyuz TMA-10 entry as well.&nbsp; Not good. </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>

 

[Zipi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpaceflightNow.com has a longer article on the topic.http://spaceflightnow.com/station/exp16/080422descent.htmlI didn't realize that this happened on the Soyuz TMA-10 entry as well.&nbsp; Not good. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />SPACE.COM article suggests that there were some problems of separating prop module:</p><p>http://www.space.com/news/080422-nasa-russia-soyuz-update.html</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newsartist]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SPACE.COM article suggests that there were some problems of separating prop module:http://www.space.com/news/080422-nasa-russia-soyuz-update.html <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Media are now citing that Soyuz entered "hatch first".</p><p>This has happened to a lone Cosmonaut many years ago, and crew reports do sound similar to that event.</p><p>He was face-down until the still-attached service module burned away.</p><p>&nbsp;Do to this becoming a major topic of its own, and the fact that people looking at this board for the first time might miss this thread, I will start a "Soyuz reentry" thread...</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>