What happens if whe have a Soyuz spacecraft failure?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PistolPete

Guest
<p>With three ballistic re-entries within the past five years, two of them in a row, I am forced to ponder what happens if the unthinkable occurs?</p><p>It seems so unthinkable because there hasn't been a fatal failure with the Soyuz spacecraft since Soyuz 11 back in 1971.&nbsp; Yet this belies the fact that the Soviet and Russian space agencies have had so many close calls that their luck is bound to run out.</p><p>So what will happen if we loose a Soyuz?&nbsp; Obviously, this means that production of Soyuz spacecraft would have to be put on hold.&nbsp; This means no ISS lifeboat.&nbsp; This prospect is even worse than after the loss of Columbia, because even without STS, the ISS could still function in "survival mode" on a two-man crew while the shuttle came back online.&nbsp; There is no such option with the Soyuz.&nbsp; If that gets grounded, then the ISS will have to be abandoned, at least for a time, until they came back online or until the Dragon or Orion capsules became operational.&nbsp; The last space shuttle flight was only 13 days long and that pushed the Shuttle's spaceflight endurance to the limit.&nbsp; There is no way that this could be used for a backup.</p><p>This also might have implications for the space tourist industry as the Soyuz is, by default, the only operational spacecraft that can take "spaceflight-participants."&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>Soyuz is an extremely robust and reliable spacecraft with safe failure modes, as we have just seen.&nbsp; The worst possible case scenario is a failure that shows that there is a major undiscovered flaw in the basic design.&nbsp; This is extremely unlikely, after more than 100 flights over&nbsp;the past&nbsp;42 years.&nbsp; An indivudal Soyuz becomes inoperable or suspect?&nbsp; Send a replacement unmanned.&nbsp; It's been done before (see Soyuz 32-33-34).</p><p>Jon</p><p>&nbsp;</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>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
<p>There is also Chinese Shenzhou space craft which is at least by my understanding able to dock with ISS by using APAS.</p><p>Here is some Wikipedia's articles: </p><p><u><font color="#800080">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_spacecraft</font></u><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_program<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_System</p><p>If everything goes totally wrong with Souyuz I guess China is pretty willing to offer their services....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is also Chinese Shenzhou space craft which is at least by my understanding able to dock with ISS by using APAS.Here is some Wikipedia's articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_spacecrafthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_programhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_SystemIf everything goes totally wrong with Souyuz I guess China is pretty willing to offer their services.... <br /> Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>I seriously doubt that the Shenzhou will be ready any sooner than Dragon or Orion will.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I seriously doubt that the Shenzhou will be ready any sooner than Dragon or Orion will.&nbsp; <br />Posted by PistolPete</DIV><br /><br />Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have understood that Shenzou is already completed and have flown few successfull missions.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

brandbll

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With three ballistic re-entries within the past five years, two of them in a row, I am forced to ponder what happens if the unthinkable occurs?It seems so unthinkable because there hasn't been a fatal failure with the Soyuz spacecraft since Soyuz 11 back in 1971.&nbsp; Yet this belies the fact that the Soviet and Russian space agencies have had so many close calls that their luck is bound to run out.So what will happen if we loose a Soyuz?&nbsp; Obviously, this means that production of Soyuz spacecraft would have to be put on hold.&nbsp; This means no ISS lifeboat.&nbsp; This prospect is even worse than after the loss of Columbia, because even without STS, the ISS could still function in "survival mode" on a two-man crew while the shuttle came back online.&nbsp; There is no such option with the Soyuz.&nbsp; If that gets grounded, then the ISS will have to be abandoned, at least for a time, until they came back online or until the Dragon or Orion capsules became operational.&nbsp; The last space shuttle flight was only 13 days long and that pushed the Shuttle's spaceflight endurance to the limit.&nbsp; There is no way that this could be used for a backup.This also might have implications for the space tourist industry as the Soyuz is, by default, the only operational spacecraft that can take "spaceflight-participants."&nbsp; <br />Posted by PistolPete</DIV></p><p>Dust off that old Saturn V i saw at KSC?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
T

trailrider

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With three ballistic re-entries within the past five years, two of them in a row, I am forced to ponder what happens if the unthinkable occurs?It seems so unthinkable because there hasn't been a fatal failure with the Soyuz spacecraft since Soyuz 11 back in 1971.&nbsp; Yet this belies the fact that the Soviet and Russian space agencies have had so many close calls that their luck is bound to run out.So what will happen if we loose a Soyuz?&nbsp; Obviously, this means that production of Soyuz spacecraft would have to be put on hold.&nbsp; This means no ISS lifeboat.&nbsp; This prospect is even worse than after the loss of Columbia, because even without STS, the ISS could still function in "survival mode" on a two-man crew while the shuttle came back online.&nbsp; There is no such option with the Soyuz.&nbsp; If that gets grounded, then the ISS will have to be abandoned, at least for a time, until they came back online or until the Dragon or Orion capsules became operational.&nbsp; The last space shuttle flight was only 13 days long and that pushed the Shuttle's spaceflight endurance to the limit.&nbsp; There is no way that this could be used for a backup.This also might have implications for the space tourist industry as the Soyuz is, by default, the only operational spacecraft that can take "spaceflight-participants."&nbsp; <br />Posted by PistolPete</DIV></p><p>Taking the your last point first, I believe the Russians have indicated they may discontinue "tourist" flights in the near future! :(</p><p>Of more critical concern is the fact that the U.S. has been paying for the Soyuz spacecraft and launch vehicles, and even were we not in an election year, Congress might be reluctant, if not totally opposed to continue appropriating money.&nbsp; Add to that is the fact that the waiver to the ITAR ban on dealing with countries that trade with Iran expires shortly, and Congress must renew the waiver or the Russians are out of business...unless they are able to fund it themselves.&nbsp; Should Congress fail to renew the waiver, even if there are <em>no</em> failures of Soyuz, the money runs out about 2013!&nbsp; Since it is likely that Constellation-class launches will not attain IOC (Initial Operational Capability) until 2015, there could be a two-plus year gap in access to the ISS anyway!</p><p>Also, we are going to have to wait to see who will be the next President, and even if it is a person who believes in and is willing to push for continuation of the effort to get us back to the Moon, there is no guarantee Congress will go along! </p><p>A disaster involving <em>either </em>Soyuz or a Shuttle is goint to just about kill our crewed space program.&nbsp; Heck, if&nbsp;a Shuttle orbiter&nbsp;should so much as blow a tire on landing and do damage to the vehicle, without so much as mussing the hair of the crew, there might be a hue and cry to ground the whole crewed space program.&nbsp; We would then be forced to wait until such time as commercial enterprises can attain the capability to reach orbit and return.</p><p>It may be that the Soyuz problem is a quality one, and that certain components are creating the problem with the explosive bolts, etc.&nbsp; If there are problems with certain component lots, it could result in grounding of the Soyuz "fleet" for awhile, which would leave ISS without the necessary lifeboats for continued operation.&nbsp; We will just have to wait and see...</p><p>I hate to sound like a&nbsp;Cassandra, but that's how I see it.&nbsp;<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!</p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>Soyuz TMA-11 landed safety, the crew are unharmed, and the mission was a success. We don't know what happened, let alone the cause, apart from hysteria on some blogs and tabloid speculation.</p><p>It may well simply a problem with the individual spacecraft.&nbsp;There is no issue for the current ISS crew&nbsp;while&nbsp;steps are&nbsp;be taken to avoid the problem in future. Remember that TMA-12 will not be used as a lifeboat unless the ISS is actually irretirivally lost.&nbsp; In such circumstances</p><p>If it turns out there is a potential problem with TMA-12, then once TMA-13 has been checked out it an be flown umanned and TMA-12 returned unmanned, leaving TMAA-13 for the crew before.&nbsp; Such a swap has been done before, with Soyuz 32 and 34 after the problems with Soyuz 33 (29 years ago).&nbsp; Going on past experience it will only take a few months to identify and fix the problem.</p><p>Jon</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>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Soyuz TMA-11 landed safety, the crew are unharmed, and the mission was a success. We don't know what happened, let alone the cause, apart from hysteria on some blogs and tabloid speculation.It may well simply a problem with the individual spacecraft.&nbsp;There is no issue for the current ISS crew&nbsp;while&nbsp;steps are&nbsp;be taken to avoid the problem in future. Remember that TMA-12 will not be used as a lifeboat unless the ISS is actually irretirivally lost.&nbsp; In such circumstancesIf it turns out there is a potential problem with TMA-12, then once TMA-13 has been checked out it an be flown umanned and TMA-12 returned unmanned, leaving TMAA-13 for the crew before.&nbsp; Such a swap has been done before, with Soyuz 32 and 34 after the problems with Soyuz 33 (29 years ago).&nbsp; Going on past experience it will only take a few months to identify and fix the problem.JonThere is <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>It sounds to me like Soyus is pretty well figured out and even pretty resilient. I would be more worried on the way up then down myself. That the same problem seems to keep happening with a mature vehicle does make you wonder though, the beauty of the Soyus is it is about as simple as it can get, the problem seems to be more in separating the lander from the support section, which should be pretty straight forward, which seems to be where the problem is. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

KosmicHero

Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Space is dangerous.&nbsp; I think that it is unfortunate that we have become so risk averse.&nbsp; I know that it isn't the astronauts/cosmonauts but the PR people have ruined an otherwise exciting endeavor.&nbsp; The odds of dying hiking Mt. Everest is greater than traveling to space.&nbsp; </p><p>Soyuz is an incredible spacecraft.&nbsp; Everyone made fun of the Chinese for building Shenzhou (a Soyuz clone)... yet Orion is a soyuz clone too (not an Apollo clone as its naysayers would have you believe).&nbsp; We have finally wisened up to realize that simple is better.&nbsp; The most complicated device ever conceived (shuttle) was an incredible bird and we learned a lot, but now we're moving to something that works.&nbsp; </p><p>And if you believe Elon Musk there isn't going to be a gap when the shuttle retires. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;yet Orion is a soyuz clone too (not an Apollo clone as its naysayers would have you believe).&nbsp; We have finally wisened up to realize that simple is better.</DIV></p><p>A Soyuz clone, and "simple"?</p><p>Surely you jest <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

KosmicHero

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A Soyuz clone, and "simple"?Surely you jest <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />I doubt we will ever have the simple ethos that the Russians had.&nbsp; They were forced to by other constraints.&nbsp; Orion is not a step backwards as many claim; it is a recognition that we asked too much and expected too much from the shuttle.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
<p>Orion may be simple compared to the Shuttle, but it's still hell and gone more complex than Soyuz.&nbsp; That said it's been my opinion since the STS design was published it was a bad idea to mix crew and cargo sidesaddle, especially with a fragile TPS.&nbsp; First time I watched "Hail Columbia!" and saw all the debris&nbsp;it confirmed&nbsp;that first blush opinion.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vgorelik

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Orion may be simple compared to the Shuttle, but it's still hell and gone more complex than Soyuz.&nbsp; That said it's been my opinion since the STS design was published it was a bad idea to mix crew and cargo sidesaddle, especially with a fragile TPS.&nbsp; First time I watched "Hail Columbia!" and saw all the debris&nbsp;it confirmed&nbsp;that first blush opinion. <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br /><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#606060">Let me express my humble opinion:</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#606060">The purpose of Soyuz is to get people UP and DOWN as safe and as cheep as possible!</font></p><p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#606060">That&rsquo;s it! Period!</font></p><span style="font-size:10pt;color:#606060;font-family:'TimesNewRoman'">Any extra complexity above and beyond that would introduce unnecessary risks and extra costs </span>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A Soyuz clone, and "simple"?Surely you jest <br /> Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>It is worth pointing out that Soyuz is not a simple spacecraft at all.&nbsp; Perhaps it is simpler than Shuttle, but that's not saying much.&nbsp; It is, for instance, much more complex than Apollo -- a fact which probably contributed to the Soviets losing the moon race.&nbsp;&nbsp; They lost not because of inferior technology but because of an excess of ambition.&nbsp; When I look at their plans, it takes my breath away to see what they envisioned.&nbsp; Though there is a stereotype of Russian's going for simplicity while Americans go for complexity (typified by the space pen urban legend), the truth is usually the reverse.&nbsp; Perhaps most notable, and quite fundamental to Soyuz, is the philosophy that spacecraft should be automated, with humans only present as a backup.&nbsp; American spacecraft have been built on the opposite philosophy, with automation only considered for emergencies, for tasks which exceed human capability (such as the Shuttle's reentry profile), or to relieve the pilot of the most banal of tasks, such as attitude control. </p><p>Of course, today we are reaping the benefits of that Russian ambition.&nbsp; They didn't make it to the Moon, but Soyuz was so advanced and sophisticated that it remains in operation today, forty years later.&nbsp; At the same time, there is a bittersweet quality to the cast aside relics of their space program, especially the N1.&nbsp; An aft dome from the N1's first stage now serves as the roof of a picnic shelter in Tyuratam.&nbsp; Probably the cleverest, most powerful rocket ever designed.&nbsp; Never flew successfully.&nbsp; Soviet ambition outstripped capability.&nbsp; Oh, they could've made it work, but it would've taken more time, and that was a luxury the engineers were seldom given. </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>
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have understood that Shenzou is already completed and have flown few successfull missions.... <br /> Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>It's in the test flight phase that virtually every manned aircraft and spacecraft has to go through to determine if it performs to specs.&nbsp; It's kind of like the Death Star in RotJ, it's not yet "completely operational."<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>Besides, it will take time to make the Shenzou compatible with ISS systems.</p><p>What may take even longer are the diplomatic negotiations that would have to take place for such a conversion to occur.&nbsp; That alone may take years.&nbsp; In the end, it may be just simpler to wait for the Dragon or Orion programs to reach operational status. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Soyuz TMA-11 landed safety, the crew are unharmed, and the mission was a success. We don't know what happened, let alone the cause, apart from hysteria on some blogs and tabloid speculation.It may well simply a problem with the individual spacecraft.&nbsp;There is no issue for the current ISS crew&nbsp;while&nbsp;steps are&nbsp;be taken to avoid the problem in future. Remember that TMA-12 will not be used as a lifeboat unless the ISS is actually irretirivally lost.&nbsp; In such circumstancesIf it turns out there is a potential problem with TMA-12, then once TMA-13 has been checked out it an be flown umanned and TMA-12 returned unmanned, leaving TMAA-13 for the crew before.&nbsp; Such a swap has been done before, with Soyuz 32 and 34 after the problems with Soyuz 33 (29 years ago).&nbsp; Going on past experience it will only take a few months to identify and fix the problem.Jon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>I'm just postulating a "what if."&nbsp; I'm not saying that Soyuzs will start dropping out of the sky any second now. </p><p>Besides, while it is statistically possible that these recent troubles may be just technical "anomalies" that any system will inevitably experience, it is highly unlikely.&nbsp; It may be possible that a whole bunch of unconnected problems could arise within close proximity of each other, but in reality this is usually indicative of a problem with the system itself; either with the fundamental mechanics of the system (unlikely, considering the maturity of the system), or it is a problem with quality control (much, much more likely, especially considering the history of Soviet/Russian quality control, or the lack thereof). </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
J

johns805

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With three ballistic re-entries within the past five years, two of them in a row, I am forced to ponder what happens if the unthinkable occurs?It seems so unthinkable because there hasn't been a fatal failure with the Soyuz spacecraft since Soyuz 11 back in 1971.&nbsp; Yet this belies the fact that the Soviet and Russian space agencies have had so many close calls that their luck is bound to run out.So what will happen if we loose a Soyuz?&nbsp; Obviously, this means that production of Soyuz spacecraft would have to be put on hold.&nbsp; This means no ISS lifeboat.&nbsp; This prospect is even worse than after the loss of Columbia, because even without STS, the ISS could still function in "survival mode" on a two-man crew while the shuttle came back online.&nbsp; There is no such option with the Soyuz.&nbsp; If that gets grounded, then the ISS will have to be abandoned, at least for a time, until they came back online or until the Dragon or Orion capsules became operational.&nbsp; The last space shuttle flight was only 13 days long and that pushed the Shuttle's spaceflight endurance to the limit.&nbsp; There is no way that this could be used for a backup.This also might have implications for the space tourist industry as the Soyuz is, by default, the only operational spacecraft that can take "spaceflight-participants."&nbsp; <br />Posted by PistolPete</DIV><br /><br />The answer to the subject question is, the people on it may certainly die.&nbsp; There are no guarantees.&nbsp; We hope it doesn't happen.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, I think there are common sense, national security, safety and other status quo reasons to support Rep. Weldon's (Rep.-Fla) &nbsp;"Space Act" (HR 4837) to extend the shuttle program for ISS access only as long as it is necessary..
 
V

vogon13

Guest
<p>From Universe Today:&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Today, even more revelations have been reported. According to an unnamed Russian space official, the capsule had entered the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner. Rather than the capsule's heat shield taking the frictional re-entry burn, the escape hatch became exposed and bore the brunt of the high temperatures outside. The hatch sustained substantial damage. The antenna was also exposed to the heat, completely burning it up, explaining why the crew were unable to communicate with the ground. A valve that equalizes cabin with atmospheric pressure was also damaged.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/4/25204680-2eff-43f0-b46f-cd1104b64b59.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>My take on this:</p><p>Damn&nbsp; close to another Columbia.&nbsp; Superheated re-entry gases nearly barbecued the crew.&nbsp; Anyone that thinks this is no big deal is crazy.&nbsp; This was a very serious, nearly unsurvivable accident.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You don't get many warnings this clear and present that somebody needs to get a clue before they kill the crew.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
After all these articles, I'm really amazed that parachutes and retro rocket really worked when they needed. Had to say that even with this type of serious problem the Soyuz landed safely and the crew is alive which means the Soyuz is really good spacecraft after all. I cannot imagine any other spacecraft which would have survieved of this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From Universe Today:&nbsp;&nbsp;Today, even more revelations have been reported. According to an unnamed Russian space official, the capsule had entered the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner. </DIV><br /><br />Same thing happened with the last Soyuz.&nbsp; The parachutes were nearly destroyed.&nbsp; Kept pushing the Russians (I personally did not buy their explanation) and they insisted it was all nothing.&nbsp; The problem is - it is a pattern.&nbsp; I am surpirsed they havent tried to say it was NASA's fault yet!
 
B

brandbll

Guest
Is the shuttle bay big enough to carry a Soyuz module in it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
T

ThereIWas2

Guest
What saved them was that the Soyuz reentry module is a lot more solidly built than the Shuttle Orbiter, being basically a steel ball with no wings to tear off, etc.&nbsp; I wonder how hot it got in there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What saved them was that the Soyuz reentry module is a lot more solidly built than the Shuttle Orbiter, being basically a steel ball with no wings to tear off, etc.&nbsp; I wonder how hot it got in there. <br />Posted by ThereIWas2</DIV></p><p>No what saved them is that the prop module finally broke off and the descent module could finally orient with the heat shield into the velocity vector.&nbsp; A little more time and wings or not, it wouldn't matter.&nbsp; Essentially the same thing happened with Columbia - it survived pretty good but just couldn't handle it all.</p>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>After all these articles, I'm really amazed that parachutes and retro rocket really worked when they needed.<br /> Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>I thought it was interesting that in her post-landing comments, Peggy Whitson made specific mention of the nominal chute deploy. After the wrong side of the capsule got toasted for a bit, it would appear that the crew was watching with some interest to see whether the chute deployed properly.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts