What happens if whe have a Soyuz spacecraft failure?

[sprockit]

<p>What I find interesting is that everyone is focused on reentry survivability.&nbsp; If there is a systemic problem with the module seperation system what implications does this have for the launch escape system (LES)?&nbsp; If decent/orbital modules cannot seperate from the propulsion module, the LES is useless.&nbsp; I sent Bill Harwood a question on this last week.&nbsp; He was going to ask around, but I have not heard back yet.</p>

 

[j05h]

<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.<br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /></p><p>Not just that but the pilot (Malenchenko?) said in a report issued right after landing that the crew had "changed plans" right before decent. That makes it seem much like crew error or delibrately doing a ballistic decent to "see what it's like". Speculation for sure, but more likely than the freak-out over teh Dangerous Soyuooooz.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Josh </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What I find interesting is that everyone is focused on reentry survivability.&nbsp; If there is a systemic problem with the module seperation system what implications does this have for the launch escape system (LES)?&nbsp; If decent/orbital modules cannot seperate from the propulsion module, the LES is useless.&nbsp; I sent Bill Harwood a question on this last week.&nbsp; He was going to ask around, but I have not heard back yet. <br /> Posted by sprockit</DIV></p><p>You are correct -- the separation has to work for any landing after liftoff.&nbsp; The LES was used once on the Soyuz program, and separation occured correctly on that occasion.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is a great deal that has to go exactly right for a spacecraft return to be survivable, on any system.</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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not just that but the pilot (Malenchenko?) said in a report issued right after landing that the crew had "changed plans" right before decent. That makes it seem much like crew error or delibrately doing a ballistic decent to "see what it's like". Speculation for sure, but more likely than the freak-out over teh Dangerous Soyuooooz.&nbsp;&nbsp;Josh <br /> Posted by j05h</DIV></p><p>I don't think so.&nbsp; As I understand it, Malenchenko was referring to the system switching over from nominal to ballistic descent profiles. &nbsp; It's important to point out that the Soyuz return is generally done by a computer, not by a pilot.&nbsp; The Russian philosophy has always emphasized automation over man-in-the-loop (and generally in preference to man-in-the-loop).&nbsp; THis is to eliminate pilot error.&nbsp; Of course, that just substitutes mechanical or computer error for pilot error, but it's a topic of constant debate as to which is preferrable.</p><p>There's an interesting transcript of a <u>CBS interview with Whitson </u>at spaceflightnow.com. </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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's an interesting transcript of a CBS interview with Whitson at spaceflightnow.com. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Great interview Calli, Thanx. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<p>Should this prove to be a module separation problem, my understanding (from an SDC article IIRC) is that the Russians already have a good handle on it.&nbsp; They traced the problem with the TMA-10 re-entry to a faulty cable and/or faulty explosive bolts connecting the modules.&nbsp; As I understood it, this outcome was concluded after TMA-11 was already on ISS.&nbsp; They changed the cable out on TMA-11 during the Expedition 16 increment, and actually considered an EVA to inspect the explosive bolts on the Soyuz.</p><p>A cost-benefit analysis determined it was more risky to schedule an EVA than leave it be and take their chances.&nbsp; It may transpire that they were wrong to do so (assuming faulty bolts are found to be the problem).&nbsp; In that aspect, it seems most similar to Columbia to me (in that they could have remotely inspected Columbia but chose not to do so).&nbsp; In any event, my understanding is that they checked TMA-12 for this problem prior to launch so that, at least, has been ruled out for the next re-entry. (should all this supposition prove correct!)</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SK&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/1/1c8fd0ac-caef-42c1-8181-26b56f6c184c.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>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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; <br />Posted by lampblack</DIV></p><p>I am certain that <strong>all</strong> Soyuz crews take a great interest in verifying good parachute deploy! That comment was not significant at all.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not just that but the pilot (Malenchenko?) said in a report issued right after landing that the crew had "changed plans" right before decent. That makes it seem much like crew error or delibrately doing a ballistic decent to "see what it's like". Speculation for sure, but more likely than the freak-out over teh Dangerous Soyuooooz.&nbsp;&nbsp;Josh <br />Posted by j05h</DIV><br /><br />You are very, very confused.&nbsp; The crew would not change the plan just to see what it is like.&nbsp; First of all, increasing your risk of death is not a wise idea on purpose.&nbsp; Second, the Russian lose pay if there is a crew error.&nbsp; Third, it is just stupid as heck to think the crew would just change things on the fly like that.&nbsp; What I think you are thinking of is him noting that the preprogrammed plan in the computer was changing to balistic mode.

 

[erioladastra]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Should this prove to be a module separation problem, my understanding (from an SDC article IIRC) is that the Russians already have a good handle on it.&nbsp; They traced the problem with the TMA-10 re-entry to a faulty cable and/or faulty explosive bolts connecting the modules.&nbsp; As I understood it, this outcome was concluded after TMA-11 was already on ISS.&nbsp; They changed the cable out on TMA-11 during the Expedition 16 increment, and actually considered an EVA to inspect the explosive bolts on the Soyuz.A cost-benefit analysis determined it was more risky to schedule an EVA than leave it be and take their chances.&nbsp; It may transpire that they were wrong to do so (assuming faulty bolts are found to be the problem).&nbsp; In that aspect, it seems most similar to Columbia to me (in that they could have remotely inspected Columbia but chose not to do so).&nbsp; In any event, my understanding is that they checked TMA-12 for this problem prior to launch so that, at least, has been ruled out for the next re-entry. (should all this supposition prove correct!)&nbsp;SK&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpaceKiwi</DIV></p><p>Already have a good handle on it?&nbsp; Their official comission report said the ballistic descent was due to a faulty cable and that no way could the failure of the prop module to seperate could have caused this.&nbsp; So they changed out the bad cable.&nbsp; Clearly, they did not, and do not understand what really happened.&nbsp; Rest are then unfounded assumptions.</p>

 

[ronatu]

<p>According to some intelligence data released this is what happened: <br /><br />Modules instrumentation and descent (IM+ DM) are not separated. <br />Automatics has translated descent modulus (DM) in the regime of Ballistic Landing (BL) 55 seconds after entering the atmosphere and formed the "targeting error" signal. <br />After about 100 seconds after entering the atmosphere IM separated from DM. <br />DM + floppy IM flew to the separation mostly forward hatch. <br />More precisely not hatch, a little bit barrels. <br /><br />Because of this eventually tangazhny engine was burn through. Most likely it is through tangazhny engine smoke infiltrated the interior of DM (I understand that it is hapened in the final phase of descent&hellip. This engine has two nozzles - up and down and not fastened to the surface of DM, but to the hole through the gasket - which is it seems to be burned. <br /><br />Integrity of hatch was not broken, no burns through, although he darkened stronger than usual. <br />(Design of hatch is multi-leyered. The foundation - a strong thick disc with bar-flange made of the same heavy metal. Outside hatch covered with fairly thick layer of rigid foam. Foams covered with a thin metal casing.) <br /><br />Actually this is interesting point: during "Soyuz" descend the intense fire starts earlier intensive braking. <br /><br />That is, at the beginning of descent should be a time when the temperature rises already, but significant pressure of air flow still has not. This period, most likely very short - however enough to burn a hatch when abnormal orientation happened, but not completely becaus transision to normal configuration will comes first. Newertheless, all antennas, solar panels and other elements of IM will. Well or weakening them to such a state that those heaps at the first sign of air flux. <br /><br />Likely reasons for this failure is pirotechnique equipment. <br />The second reason may be overloading power systems, which led to insufficient level of current for ignition of pirotechnique. <br /><br />What fire the steppe at place of landing? In this case, could be the starboard side and/or DM. Judging from the photo sheathing heat up much. <br /><br />Summing up: <br />The DM flying forward hatch at the beginning, and therefore burnt up (hatch, a lighthouse, tangazhny engine) is stronger than usual, then turned and flew as expected. <br />Body of DM intact, integrity of hatch has not being broken, nor even seal only became black. <br />In DM all equipment is working. <br /><br />Actually - thanks to the "Soyuz TMA" design.</p><p>FROM:</p><p>http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6531&start=766</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/8/2e0a5b94-6a58-4e07-8809-8e4b5b1726e3.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

[ronatu]

<span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="2">What is happens if (got forbid!) the space ship crashed and space crew dies?</font></span><span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="2">The same when airplane crashed and all passengers ... do not survive&hellip;</font></span><span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="2">Investigation, eliminating of new/old defects and go ahead again...</font></span><span style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Verdana"><font size="2">The Soyuz - is just another transportation system. Period.</font></span> <p>&nbsp;</p>