Soyuz MS-22 & Progress MS-21 coolant leaks : Dec 2022 & Feb 2023

[zubenelgenubi]

Montalbano: USOS EVA underway, on-time vs. timeline.  SpX-26 Crew-5 returns January 9.

Krikalev: Not Geminid meteorite--impact from different direction.  (Krikalev's phone connection is poor.)  Analysis in Moscow and Houston.

Sounds like to me that Krikalev is talking down emergency launch of Soyuz MS-23, but still under consideration.

Is ISS still a safe haven?  I think Krikalev says yes.

Both: Leak spray in aft-starboard direction, not towards any portion of ISS, determined no concern about ISS contamination.  Montalbano: More imagery needed, especially re: single spot source.

Partial recapitulation of timeline.  Krikalev: No Russian OS alarm.

Air cooling Soyuz.  How much will temperature rise when Soyuz equipment reactivated?

Montalbano: Roskosmos could send Soyuz MS-23 2-3 weeks early, if decided so.  They would return it unmanned for recovery and study.

Montalbano: If MMOD impact, then it was too small for ground detection and tracking.

NASA will distribute a teleconference transcript of all participants.

Noting NOBODY, NASA, Roskosmos, or reporters, mentioned the Russian ASAT test debris.

[Josh_from_Canada]

Montalbano: Crew-5 returns January 9.

That's the planned return date for SpX-26, Crew-5 comes home in February

[gdelottle]

I work in a high-technology field, but with my feet planted firmly on the ground, and I know that critical decisions must be taken officially in large project following procedures, meeting, discussions, investigations, etc.

Fine.

However, I kind ask to the experts here if it is really possible for MS-22 to be declared viable for a safe crew return to Earth after such evident damages and given the limited investigation and repair options realistically possible in space.

To me it seems really hard to imagine. Am I wrong?

[Lee Jay]

I work in a high-technology field, but with my feet planted firmly on the ground, and I know that critical decisions must be taken officially in large project following procedures, meeting, discussions, investigations, etc.

Fine.

However, I kind ask to the experts here if it is really possible for MS-22 to be declared viable for a safe crew return to Earth after such evident damages and given the limited investigation and repair options realistically possible in space.

To me it seems really hard to imagine. Am I wrong?

That depends of whether or not whatever is broken or destroyed is needed for safe entry and landing.

[gdelottle]

That depends of whether or not whatever is broken or destroyed is needed for safe entry and landing.

For me, but, again, I am no expert in the field, it is really hard to imagine that something not needed later stays in orbit, operating continuously, all this time.

This without considering that there are inherent uncertainties in the actual assessment of damage

[litton4]

Was anything said about releasing the SSRMS pictures of the suspected damage site?
...or would they be (C) Roscosmos?

[russianhalo117]

Was anything said about releasing the SSRMS pictures of the suspected damage site?
...or would they be (C) Roscosmos?

Earliest they would be released would be when the investigation report is released barring they do not redact anything  in it.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/katlinegrey/status/1607396873865682947

The final decision on the fate of #SoyuzMS22 will not be made on December 27, reported TASS referring to Roscosmos.

Edit to add:

twitter.com/katlinegrey/status/1607400984120008707

Sergey Krikalev said, the final decision will be made next year. There will be a meeting tomorrow where reports of technical specialists will be made, and it will be decided what to do next and how to change the flight program.

https://twitter.com/katlinegrey/status/1607401633616646149

Sergey Krikalev also said that the decision on the next cross-flight (seat exchange between NASA and Roscosmos) will be made depending on the fate of #SoyuzMS22.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1608120779530444801

New - NASA asked SpaceX if Crew Dragon could potentially serve as an alternative ride home for the space station's three Soyuz MS-22 crew members, seeking an additional backup plan as Russia's probe into its ship's coolant leak takes a bit longer.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/nasa-mulls-spacex-backup-plan-crew-russias-leaky-soyuz-ship-2022-12-28/

[DanClemmensen]

New - NASA asked SpaceX if Crew Dragon could potentially serve as an alternative ride home for the space station's three Soyuz MS-22 crew members, seeking an additional backup plan as Russia's probe into its ship's coolant leak takes a bit longer.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/nasa-mulls-spacex-backup-plan-crew-russias-leaky-soyuz-ship-2022-12-28/

Two obvious issues:
Minor: Only two dragons can be docked to ISS at one time. This means the rescue Dragon cannot stay docked for an extended period without disrupting ISS operations, so the rescue is just a simple up-and-back with little value beyond the rescue itself.

Less minor: IVA suits. The Soyuz suits cannot be used in Dragon, so the rescue will require the Dragon to carry suits for the three crew. Suits are typically custom-tailored for each crew member. For a rescue, they may be able to re-use some available suits that are close enough to the right size. If not, then they will need to produce new suits to send.

What other issues need to be studied?

[litton4]

New - NASA asked SpaceX if Crew Dragon could potentially serve as an alternative ride home for the space station's three Soyuz MS-22 crew members, seeking an additional backup plan as Russia's probe into its ship's coolant leak takes a bit longer.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/nasa-mulls-spacex-backup-plan-crew-russias-leaky-soyuz-ship-2022-12-28/

Two obvious issues:
Minor: Only two dragons can be docked to ISS at one time. This means the rescue Dragon cannot stay docked for an extended period without disrupting ISS operations, so the rescue is just a simple up-and-back with little value beyond the rescue itself.

Less minor: IVA suits. The Soyuz suits cannot be used in Dragon, so the rescue will require the Dragon to carry suits for the three crew. Suits are typically custom-tailored for each crew member. For a rescue, they may be able to re-use some available suits that are close enough to the right size. If not, then they will need to produce new suits to send.

What other issues need to be studied?

Presumably, they would send the Dragon up with 1 US commander, leaving 3 spare seats for the returnees.
They could bring cargo up and some back, so not a complete waste.
Depends how quickly SpaceX could supply an additional Dragon mission without missing up their regular schedules (They're already doing double duty, remember)

[kevinof]

New - NASA asked SpaceX if Crew Dragon could potentially serve as an alternative ride home for the space station's three Soyuz MS-22 crew members, seeking an additional backup plan as Russia's probe into its ship's coolant leak takes a bit longer.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/nasa-mulls-spacex-backup-plan-crew-russias-leaky-soyuz-ship-2022-12-28/

Two obvious issues:
Minor: Only two dragons can be docked to ISS at one time. This means the rescue Dragon cannot stay docked for an extended period without disrupting ISS operations, so the rescue is just a simple up-and-back with little value beyond the rescue itself.

Less minor: IVA suits. The Soyuz suits cannot be used in Dragon, so the rescue will require the Dragon to carry suits for the three crew. Suits are typically custom-tailored for each crew member. For a rescue, they may be able to re-use some available suits that are close enough to the right size. If not, then they will need to produce new suits to send.

What other issues need to be studied?

Presumably, they would send the Dragon up with 1 US commander, leaving 3 spare seats for the returnees.
They could bring cargo up and some back, so not a complete waste.
Depends how quickly SpaceX could supply an additional Dragon mission without missing up their regular schedules (They're already doing double duty, remember)

No need to send any crew up - it’s 100% automated so they would just be extra baggage.

[guckyfan]

No need to send any crew up - it’s 100% automated so they would just be extra baggage.

Yes and no. Technically no pilot is needed. But NASA wants a trained pilot on every crew flight. So better bring one up for the rescue flight.

[eric z]

 Two-thirds of the way thru the program and we are still not sure how certain emergency or contingency operations can be carried out? Are you kidding me? My better half has a PhD in public policy and when I mentioned some of this stuff to her she could not believe that the different manned vehicles were not ready from the start to accommodate bringing extra people home in a emergency. [Her dad worked on HST, BTW].   
 The ISS has been "Penny-wise and pound-foolish" on many occasions, or do I have it backwards? Now we are heading off to the moon again with, from what I can tell, very little safety back-up. After Columbia in-orbit rescue became a dominant focus; where is that emphasis for lunar operations?
 Happy New Year to everyone!

[DanClemmensen]

Depends how quickly SpaceX could supply an additional Dragon mission without missing up their regular schedules (They're already doing double duty, remember)

It looks like they need less than six months from splashdown to the next launch of a capsule. They have four active capsules and are building another. To a first approximation, CCP flights consume less than one Dragon-year per flight (six months on station and <six months refurbishment), so they have at least another two Dragon-years per year to play with.

Here is an armchair analysis, just playing with published numbers:
It looks like at worst case (i.e., an actual emergency) they could launch 206.4, which is currently scheduled to launch CRS-6 on February 19. I have no idea if they could pull this in. They could then use 207.3 for CRS-6 assuming the emergency did not force abandonment of ISS. This would bump Polaris-Dawn, but presumably those other two capsules would easily allow them to catch up.

[Comga]

What's the best bet for an emergency Soyuz crewmember evacuation right now?

I don't think so.
But what's going to cost them the least?
What can they get by doing nothing?

Sending up an empty Soyuz will cost them a lot of their already squeezed budget.
They can (claim to) continue the technical evaluation for another few weeks, long enough, or almost long enough, to ready their next Soyuz, and THEN declare an early deorbit.
They can concoct some argument that MS-22 is still safe to use, but needs to come down based on the reduced redundancy.
Shorten one rotation, lengthen the next. 
Leave Kakina in charge of their section for any resulting gap.
Very low cost to them.

What would be interesting would be NASA's response.
They refrained from disputing some questionable Russian actions when the ISS was soley responsible for crew transport to the ISS.
That higher risk posture was understandable.
It continued after the debut of Crew Dragon, in cases like the hole drilled in the Soyuz descent module.
The question would be if NASA accepts the Russian plan at face value, or if they find another way to bring down Rubio, which could be as simple as leaving a seat empty on the Crew 6 launch or as "McGuyver" as bringing him down in a jerry rigged Cargo Dragon. (That's not a serious suggestion.)

People suggeting an additional Dragon flight to replace their lifeboat need to suggest who will pay for it and how.
The Russians are not going to pay NASA directly, and they wouldn't have much if anyghing to trade for it.
And why would NASA pay for replaicng the damaged Soyuz?

[kevinof]

No need to send any crew up - it’s 100% automated so they would just be extra baggage.

Yes and no. Technically no pilot is needed. But NASA wants a trained pilot on every crew flight. So better bring one up for the rescue flight.

My understanding is that requirement is nothing to do with the vehicle capabilities but instead NASA not wanting 4 independents on a flight (and not having one of their own in charge).

Edit: let me add I don’t think this flight will happen. The headline would be “Russian astronauts rescued by U.S!”! Can’t see that.

[DanClemmensen]

People suggeting an additional Dragon flight to replace their lifeboat need to suggest who will pay for it and how.
The Russians are not going to pay NASA directly, and they wouldn't have much if anyghing to trade for it.
And why would NASA pay for replaicng the damaged Soyuz?

I don't think it will happen. I think they will just go ahead and use the damaged Soyuz. However we are discussing the Tweet that states that NASA has asked SpaceX to evaluate this. I assume it's a contingency plan. In a true emergency involving the life of a US astronaut (and the two Russian crew) NASA will worry about the mission first and the accounting later.

[eric z]

 What's to stop SpaceX from offering a more or less ready-to-go rescue option for anybody that needs it? Maybe under the Polaris auspices? Call it the Poseidon rescue Service. Or view it as a space AAA.

[freddo411]

What's the best bet for an emergency Soyuz crewmember evacuation right now?

I don't think so.
But what's going to cost them the least?
What can they get by doing nothing?

Sending up an empty Soyuz will cost them a lot of their already squeezed budget.
They can (claim to) continue the technical evaluation for another few weeks, long enough, or almost long enough, to ready their next Soyuz, and THEN declare an early deorbit.
They can concoct some argument that MS-22 is still safe to use, but needs to come down based on the reduced redundancy.
Shorten one rotation, lengthen the next. 
Leave Kakina in charge of their section for any resulting gap.
Very low cost to them.

What would be interesting would be NASA's response.
They refrained from disputing some questionable Russian actions when the ISS was soley responsible for crew transport to the ISS.
That higher risk posture was understandable.
It continued after the debut of Crew Dragon, in cases like the hole drilled in the Soyuz descent module.
The question would be if NASA accepts the Russian plan at face value, or if they find another way to bring down Rubio, which could be as simple as leaving a seat empty on the Crew 6 launch or as "McGuyver" as bringing him down in a jerry rigged Cargo Dragon. (That's not a serious suggestion.)

People suggeting an additional Dragon flight to replace their lifeboat need to suggest who will pay for it and how.
The Russians are not going to pay NASA directly, and they wouldn't have much if anyghing to trade for it.
And why would NASA pay for replaicng the damaged Soyuz?

I think you got it all right.

Russia isn't going to fly additional flights.   They would fly sooner.   They will fly MS-22 down if at all possible.

NASA needs to decide if one of there astros will fly down on Soyuz.   There are other (somewhat complex) options involving existing crew dragon flights.

Seems very unlikely additional flights (or either soyuz or dragon) are necessary or will happen.