Soyuz launch to ISS

[newsartist]

The Soyuz booster has been moved to the pad in preparation for this week's mission to the International Space Station.

NASA-TV will provide live coverage of the launch. See their website for coverage information for your time zone.

 

[astronaut23]

I watched it this morning. Pretty amazing operation they got putting all the sections together, rolling it down to the pad horizontal with a train, and then raising it up. When you compare it to shuttle and how long it sits out at the pad being prepared for a mission, those guys got a good system going.

 

[CalliArcale]

I watched it this morning. Pretty amazing operation they got putting all the sections together, rolling it down to the pad horizontal with a train, and then raising it up. When you compare it to shuttle and how long it sits out at the pad being prepared for a mission, those guys got a good system going.

The word "venerable" comes to mind. Soyuz has been refined for a long time, and the rapid rollout capability is a heritage of their early ICBM program. Soyuz belongs to the R-7 family, which indeed started out as a missile. It's been superceded as an ICBM, though, by other rockets which use storable propellants and which can be loaded into missile silos for very rapid response (i.e. launch within minutes). R-7 response time was meant to give the ability to launch missiles within only two days. For faster response, they still needed bombers, which flew in orbits around the North Pole just as our bombers of the period did, or shorter-range missiles positioned closer to the targets (eg. Cuba).

As far as I know, here in America we never had a good answer to the R-7, except for bombers. Our equivalent vehicle, Atlas, was never able to rollout and launch in just two days, and different design decisions early on in the missile programs meant that American rockets tended towards vertical integration while Soviet ones tended towards horizontal integration. (Two different solutions to the same problem; I'm not sure if either solution is really better -- just different, with different pros and cons.) Once we developed Titan, that wasn't true anymore, but Titan didn't just equal R-7 -- it surpassed it, at least in the sense of missile response time. Titan uses storable propellants, so you can have it sitting on the pad, tanked up and ready to go, for months, permitting a very rapid response time. The Soviets also developed a rocket like that, the R-19. (Tragically, in early testing, it was at the heart of the worst disaster in rocketry, nicknamed the Nedelin Catastrophe, when one exploded on the pad while hundreds of personnel were around it.) Eventually, these rockets moved into missile silos, and eventually were themselves superceded, often by solid-propellant rockets which need even less maintenance while in ready-to-launch condition.

But the older ICBMs stuck around for satellite launch, and evolved onwards into the workhorses of today. R-7s got bigger, more capable, and more reliable, and that's where we get the Soyuz rocket today.

I'd love to watch one of those launch, especially if it was at dawn. The pictures I've seen of Baikonur look quite beautiful at that time of day, if you like wide open spaces. Sort of like the Dakotas, or eastern Montana.

 

[astronaut23]

Not to mention they don't have to check out the heatshield a billion times.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Then again, it's a capsule, not an "aircraft".

 

[astronaut23]

Whats wrong with a capsule? If it works and its reliable? Spacecraft don't need wings and wheels. If anything its just a waste of weight to launch wings and wheels and all that other crap into orbit. Put cargo on seperate rockets from crew thats the way to go.

 

[CalliArcale]

Whats wrong with a capsule? If it works and its reliable? Spacecraft don't need wings and wheels. If anything its just a waste of weight to launch wings and wheels and all that other crap into orbit. Put cargo on seperate rockets from crew thats the way to go.

There's nothing wrong with a capsule. Nothing wrong with a spaceplane either, in principle. Different solutions to the same problem, with different pros and cons. I tend to think that the Space Shuttle was a bit ahead of its time, both in terms of the technology and the actual need. But there is so much that we could not have learned any other way, and it made possible some really extraordinary stuff. It's the only currently-available vehicle that could lift the roomier modules of the ISS. (Zarya and Zvezda were of course lifted by Proton, but that meant they had to fit in its payload shroud, and that they had to carry their own propulsion, navigation, and command-and-control systems.) The "space truck" is useful. But expensive.

But hey, if you like Soyuz, check this out:
Big Picture: Baikonur Cosmodrome

 

[MeteorWayne]

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Just stating the facts.

 

[astronaut23]

The space shuttle just has some bad design. No aborts during the solid motor firing. I've always thought that was stupid to have on a manned vehicle. No way to shut them down.

Strapped right to the side of a fuel tank with no launch escape tower to yank the crew away from the booster if something should go wrong like a capsule design. Seems dangerous.

Another thing is the shuttle on the side of the tank where all that foam and debris falls on it during launch destroying tiles. All other types of manned vehicles are on the top of the rockets where there is no debris falling on it.

Also the heat shield is exposed during the whole mission. Unlike capsules where they are attached to a service module which also protects the heat shield.



You take all the above safety factors and both accidents were still avoidable. Mismanagement of the shuttle program is the whole cause. I mean cmon, you have to be a complete idiot to launch in freezing temps. Most people thought the thing would blow launching in that kind of weather. The people who were responsible for the Challenger launch descision should be in jail for murder.

 

[CalliArcale]

*mod hat on*

I think we're probably getting a bit off topic from the Soyuz TMA-14 launch if we start discussing Columbia and Challenger. You've touched on several topics -- whether capsules or spaceplanes are "better", how culpable NASA engineers/managers/etc are for the two big accidents -- which in past have been big enough for at least a thread apiece. So if you want to discuss those, I suggest either looking for existing threads on the topics, or starting a new thread.

*mod hat off*

 

[Zipi]

Beautiful launch, all went by the book.

 

[CalliArcale]

Beautiful launch, all went by the book.

Beautiful indeed! Those angled-in strap-on boosters are so nice looking, and so unlike anything on any other launch vehicle family (at least visually).

Charles Simonyi is now officially the world's second two-time space tourist. ;-) Man, it'd be nice to have that kind of money! I guess developing the world's dominant word processing and spreadsheet software is good for something. I will look skyward today as I curse out Microsoft Word for being annoying. Of course, it is not his fault that Word 2007 has moved all of the stuff that I'd finally gotten used to in Word 2003. But I will enjoy cursing skywards anyway. ;-) Kidding aside, I hope he has a good trip, and that the Expedition 19 crew get settled in quickly this weekend.

 

[astronaut23]

Does anyone know where I can find a video of the launch. I missed it live.

 

[Zipi]

Does anyone know where I can find a video of the launch. I missed it live.

Youtube search gives:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_t ... aunch&aq=f

As seen NasaTV live:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9ZmjV2dB4A

Replays from different angles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiGbuP8u0_8

 

[astronaut23]

Does the core stage light up before liftoff along with the 4 boosters on the first stage or is it ignited at staging when the four boosters are dropped?

That thing has a lot of motors going at liftoff. When they were rolling it down on the train I counted four on each booster and four on the core stage for a total of 20 motors. Also it looks like there are two smaller steering motors on each booster and four on the cores stage. Am I right. It uses small motors for steering rather than gimbaling of the main engines?

 

[Zipi]

Does the core stage light up before liftoff along with the 4 boosters on the first stage or is it ignited at staging when the four boosters are dropped?

That thing has a lot of motors going at liftoff. When they were rolling it down on the train I counted four on each booster and four on the core stage for a total of 20 motors. Also it looks like there are two smaller steering motors on each booster and four on the cores stage. Am I right. It uses small motors for steering rather than gimbaling of the main engines?

The Souyuz rocket engines are running quite long time until the rocket is released for liftoff. This is a normal Souyuz launch procedure.

More info about Souyuz lauch vehicle for example in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_launch_vehicle

And if you are intrested of the capsule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_spacecraft

 

[CalliArcale]

Another good source is the excellent Russian Space Web, maintained by Anatoly Zak. Encyclopedia Astronautica is also good, but more difficult to navigate. (Has a much larger collection of articles, though.)

One thing you need to know about Russia rockets is that you can't always count engines by combustion chambers (the bells). Multiple chambers are more common in Russian rockets than in American ones (although the Atlas V has a two-chamber engine, which it is worth pointing out is actually a Russian design). I believe the Soyuz engines actually have four chambers apiece, so you're actually only seeing five engines. I'm going to look that up in a bit, because now I'm curious too. ;-)

(You've got me re-reading a bunch of stuff that I haven't looked at in a while, and it's exciting. Thank you!)

 

[CalliArcale]

Okay, I've confirmed that there is one engine in each stage and one engine in each strap-on booster, with multiple chambers. The strap-ons use the RD-107. Core stage uses RD-108. Second stage uses RD-0110. All of these have four chambers.

I also confirmed that you're right -- vernier thrusters are used for flight control. ;-) (Those are the little nozzles you see on the "business end" of the Soyuz rocket.)

 

[Zipi]

I also confirmed that you're right -- vernier thrusters are used for flight control. ;-) (Those are the little nozzles you see on the "business end" of the Soyuz rocket.)

I think they also have to adjust the angle of Souyuz rocket prior the launch to match the orbit they wish to get it in to. Of course they do this when the rocket is erected not just prior the launch, but the point is that the rocket is not at 90 degree angle when launched (of course it is not very much off from 90 degrees either, but slightly still). Hopefully somebody corrects me if I'm wrong with this...

 

[MeteorWayne]

Soyuz will dock in about 1/2 hour, now in view and live on NASA TV right now.

 

[Zipi]

Soyuz will dock in about 1/2 hour, now in view and live on NASA TV right now.

Souyuz TMA-14 is in 150 meters from ISS and closing.

 

[Zipi]

Docking confirmed.

 

[Zipi]

Docking probe fully retracted. Hooks and latches are now enganing to form the hard mate.

 

[Zipi]

Hooks and latches are now closed. Hard mate confirmed. Hatch opening after the leak checks have been completed.

 

[MarkStanaway]

Okay, I've confirmed that there is one engine in each stage and one engine in each strap-on booster, with multiple chambers. The strap-ons use the RD-107. Core stage uses RD-108. Second stage uses RD-0110. All of these have four chambers.

I also confirmed that you're right -- vernier thrusters are used for flight control. ;-) (Those are the little nozzles you see on the "business end" of the Soyuz rocket.)

When Valentin Glushko designed the RD-107 and RD-108 back in the 50's he ingeniously split the combustion chamber into four sections to avoid the problems of combustion instability which would be encountered if a single chamber was used for the engine to deliver the required thrust. This was the kind of problem that the US had to overcome when they were designing the huge single combustion chamber of the F-1 engine for the Saturn V.

Soviet and later Russian engineers affectionately refer to the R-7 as 'Semerka' or 'Old Number Seven' and well they might given the remarkable record of this venerable workhorse!