Implications of Soyuz MS-10 launch failure on ISS, crew rotation,Commercial Crew

[hop]

Might certain voices start insisting loudly that it only comes back in a commercial manner, at a time when that is implausible?

I don't think so, at least not for the kind of down time that would be plausible in this case. Congress is broadly supportive of NASA and ISS, and assuming the current increment goes to December, 3-6 months de-crewed would be an exceptionally long Soyuz RTF.  If it somehow stretched to years, it might be another story, but that seems extremely unlikely and commercial crew should actually be up at that point.

[Asteroza]

Jim says the HTV external battery carrier can't be removed, then added ad hoc to the next visiting cargo Dragon. Is removing the carrier and stowing on the truss for reattachment to another visiting HTV or other cargo vehicle reasonable? Or will they forego the carrier removal, and keep the delivered battery package as is on the truss awaiting installation? Would that imply that another cargo vehicle will have to launch with an empty battery carrier to handle disposal of the old batteries after replacement?

[BigRedCat]

Jim says the HTV external battery carrier can't be removed, then added ad hoc to the next visiting cargo Dragon. Is removing the carrier and stowing on the truss for reattachment to another visiting HTV or other cargo vehicle reasonable? Or will they forego the carrier removal, and keep the delivered battery package as is on the truss awaiting installation? Would that imply that another cargo vehicle will have to launch with an empty battery carrier to handle disposal of the old batteries after replacement?

The HTV exposed pallet with the replacement batteries has already been removed from HTV and installed on the truss via the Canadian Mobile Base System. It is unique to the HTV, so can only be returned to that vehicle, not to Dragon.  Current options being looked at are to keep the EP on ISS after HTV leaves to complete the battery changeouts, then jettison the EP loaded with the old batteries using the SSRMS. HTV only flies once a year, and HTV-8 is already manifested with another full load of batteries, so it's far too costly to fly it half empty just to load it with dead batteries.

[andy_l]

Correct. Decrewing ISS for a single crew launch cycle would not pose any danger to the ISS.

This is clearly not accurate. There are well known failure modes which are recoverable by crew, but likely to result in loss of vehicle if crew were not present (i.e. the Big 14). The odds may be low enough to not be a big deal as woods170 put it, but they are clearly not zero and it's something that NASA has gone to significant effort to avoid in the past.

This of course does not mean harebrained schemes to rush other vehicles into service would be a better idea.

edit:
 Corrected unintentional 20% undervaluation of woods170

Out of curiosity, what are the 'Big 14'?

[catdlr]

Out of curiosity, what are the 'Big 14'?

See Here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16584.msg624830#msg624830

[JohnFornaro]

The worst that can happen is that ISS will be unmanned for a few months. According to NASA that is no big deal.

Correct. Decrewing ISS for a single crew launch cycle would not pose any danger to the ISS. It would be unfortunate for the science experiments that are aboard. But that would be the only real casualty. Experiments can be reconstituted and restarted. ISS will still be there waiting for the crew and it will be fine.

The real fear, however is that one launch cycle could become two cycles, then maybe three.

[andy_l]

Out of curiosity, what are the 'Big 14'?

See Here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16584.msg624830#msg624830

Thanks, much appreciated.

[Comga]

Apparently the official, NASA answer is none.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said he believes launches of crewed Soyuz spacecraft will resume “on schedule” after last week’s launch failure, avoiding the possibility of leaving the International Space Station without a crew.

[Patchouli]

I have a problem with the assumption that a massively bloated testing and development program is the only key to safety, versus fast and smart iteration. Eventually you have to fly it,and when you do you'll get much better data than reams of paperwork and simulations. It  is much more likely to create paralysis by analysis with little performance gain, and it does nothing to fix the problem of unknown unknowns.

Fast and smart iteration got us to the moon in a decade, and reusable boosters.

Paralysis by analysis got us SLS, and commercial crew 4 years later than it should have been.

One reason I think things can be sped up if some testing was allowed to go in parallel.
Such as go ahead and send up the first uncrewed Dragon V2 and Starliner before their max Q abort tests.
Maybe even buy another Delta IV Heavy and launch the first full up Orion to ISS on it's first all up test.

[edzieba]

Such as go ahead and send up the first uncrewed Dragon V2 and Starliner before their max Q abort tests.

DM-1 is already scheduled to occur before the in-flight abort test. Starliner is not going to perform an in-flight abort test at all.

[A_M_Swallow]

Such as go ahead and send up the first uncrewed Dragon V2 and Starliner before their max Q abort tests.

DM-1 is already scheduled to occur before the in-flight abort test. Starliner is not going to perform an in-flight abort test at all.

The CCtCap contract allows NASA to add additional milestones so Boeing could be paid to perform an in-flight abort test on a Starliner.

[woods170]

Such as go ahead and send up the first uncrewed Dragon V2 and Starliner before their max Q abort tests.

DM-1 is already scheduled to occur before the in-flight abort test. Starliner is not going to perform an in-flight abort test at all.

The CCtCap contract allows NASA to add additional milestones so Boeing could be paid to perform an in-flight abort test on a Starliner.

Not so fast. It is correct that the CCtCAP contract allows NASA to add additional milestones. However, the same provision also stated that those additional milestones can only be added when previously agreed upon by both NASA and the contractor.

In other words: if Boeing says "No", there will be no additional milestone for an in-flight abort test.

[Zed_Noir]

Such as go ahead and send up the first uncrewed Dragon V2 and Starliner before their max Q abort tests.

DM-1 is already scheduled to occur before the in-flight abort test. Starliner is not going to perform an in-flight abort test at all.

The CCtCap contract allows NASA to add additional milestones so Boeing could be paid to perform an in-flight abort test on a Starliner.

Not so fast. It is correct that the CCtCAP contract allows NASA to add additional milestones. However, the same provision also stated that those additional milestones can only be added when previously agreed upon by both NASA and the contractor.

In other words: if Boeing says "No", there will be no additional milestone for an in-flight abort test.

Boeing turning down more money.   Unlikely.

[Chris Bergin]

So many threads. Should have added this here also:

https://twitter.com/TGMetsFan98/status/1052965095117078533

[clongton]

You know Chris that picture looks like the failed Stage-1 pod LOX vent at the top didn't open so unlike the other 3 the top wasn't pushed away. Instead the aerodynamic forces on the bottom turned the top inward, striking stage 2. I know it's just a picture but it's a good illustration of what might have happened.

[Phillip Clark]

So many threads.

Have you considered rationalising the threads?   There is a great deal of duplication.

[DreamyPickle]

So what's most likely to happen regarding crew rotation? Top options seem to be:

1) MS-11 flies without crew and current expedition is extended
2) Investigation completes soon and MS-11 flies with new crew
3) MS-9 returns and leaves ISS uncrewed

[speedevil]

2) Investigation completes soon and MS-11 flies with new crew

If they have actually nailed the failure - and it seems they think they have, with damage to the nose of the booster being the issue, then that's at least the proximal cause found.
Any further investigation can't be productive unless it goes well beyond a result of 'be really careful this time'.

This would go into a deep dive into QC and practices in the whole system, and could take many months to reasonably complete, with no real guarantee of anything productive coming out of this.

'Be really careful this time' (with additional threats) seem the most likely outcome, and that'd lead to a prompt launch, because there is no real point in delay as you've found, and can trivially eliminate the proximal cause.

[bad_astra]

Apparently the official, NASA answer is none.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said he believes launches of crewed Soyuz spacecraft will resume “on schedule” after last week’s launch failure, avoiding the possibility of leaving the International Space Station without a crew.

If it were an American vehicle, they wouldn't be rubber stamping before the cause of failure was even know. Why does putting Americans on a Soyuz get that kind of pass?

[woods170]

Apparently the official, NASA answer is none.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said he believes launches of crewed Soyuz spacecraft will resume “on schedule” after last week’s launch failure, avoiding the possibility of leaving the International Space Station without a crew.

If it were an American vehicle, they wouldn't be rubber stamping before the cause of failure was even know. Why does putting Americans on a Soyuz get that kind of pass?

Because Soyuz is currently the only way to get US astronauts to and from the station.