-
The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 Apr, 2008 21:06
-
-
#1
by
psloss
on 27 Apr, 2008 21:10
-
Cool. Is this Jim's first piece for NSF?
-
#2
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 Apr, 2008 21:18
-
psloss - 27/4/2008 10:10 PM
Cool. Is this Jim's first piece for NSF?
No, we've been lucky enough to have a previous from him.
-
#3
by
Lee Jay
on 27 Apr, 2008 21:45
-
First impression after two paragraphs: This isn't Chris' style.
Second impression after a few more paragraphs: I've seen this style before.
Third impression: Why didn't I read the by-line in the first place!
Good article. The Russians are certainly technically capable of getting this sorted out. I hope that management allows that to happen.
-
#4
by
Gary
on 27 Apr, 2008 22:37
-
Fascinating read, a great piece of news and very scary. Sounds like the whole USA/Russia partnership is in something of a mess and very worrying if Russia bury their collective heads in the sand over a serious flaw in the current construction of the Soyuz. I think this is going to have very serious consequences for that partnership further down the line.
-
#5
by
Shadow Spork
on 27 Apr, 2008 23:04
-
That was a great read. A definite eye opener!
-
#6
by
marsavian
on 27 Apr, 2008 23:32
-
Nice piece. It's obvious that the Russians are taking the same attitude NASA did about the foam before it downed Columbia, playing Russian Roulette as it were. Now it maybe that the design can carry on doing ballistic entries like this indefinitely but if it can't what happens to the ISS in case of fatalities ? The Shuttle really can't be retired before a working US replacement is in place if the ISS is not to be put in jeopardy of early demise because of potential future Soyez failures. The President, Congress and NASA need to draw the proper due diligence conclusions from this incident
and act accordingly. The Moon is just a pipedream now but the ISS is a reality which needs proper maintainance after it's built and the current plan looks like it's based more on lots of hope than any cast-iron realities.
-
#7
by
meiza
on 27 Apr, 2008 23:37
-
Soyuz is a good design since it can tolerate some drastic failures and still bring the crew back in a healthy shape.
But a more open and honest policy would sure help finding and fixing the problems better.
Reality does not care about politics or public relations, the problems will not go away if you silence talking about them.
The longer you delay and hide, the worse the effects are and the stupider you look in the end. This was true with Francis Gary Powers' U-2 flight as well as Chernobyl accident.
-
#8
by
simonbp
on 27 Apr, 2008 23:43
-
Gary - 27/4/2008 4:37 PM
I think this is going to have very serious consequences for that partnership further down the line.
I think it already has. Since the VSE was announced, NASA has been blunt that they have the resources (which they do) and the will (white house dependent) to go it alone in space. The next president may change this, but almost definately not in the Russian direction; the Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians are all much more friendly and open...
EDIT: Forgot the Indians, Brazilians, and South Koreans. Point is, US-Russian space is giving way to US-led multinational space (a better reflection of the real world)...
Simon
-
#9
by
Bubbinski
on 27 Apr, 2008 23:44
-
Great article, Jim Oberg. Yes, it's an eye-opener. The ISS badly needs a second crew launch/lifeboat/assured crew return option.
-
#10
by
psloss
on 28 Apr, 2008 00:32
-
This is a fairly well established pattern of response (as viewed from the outside) and doesn't seem like much of an eye opener to me. The focus should be on the problem rather whether it's a well-known problem or not. It is also perhaps an argument for crew return alternatives, but would need to be grouped with several other arguments to overcome the same old problem of finding money for alternatives.
-
#11
by
brihath
on 28 Apr, 2008 01:03
-
It is disturbing to me that there has been a pattern of Soviet/Russian coverups of spaceflight related incidents and accidents for decades, and it looks like old habits die hard. Jim Oberg's insight into the actions and history of our Russian partners also goes back decades and ought be read by every NASA official, Senator and Congressman who seem willing to blithely go along with relying on Russia as our SOLE means of ISS access for 5+ years.
I only hope that the "business as usual" approach that got us into trouble with Shuttle is not allowed to happen with the Russians. I can just imagine the hue and cry we would have had in the US if we had two incidents of this magnitude with Shuttle. There is no way we would still be flying.
We should insist that the root cause of this problem be determined before any more Astronauts ride the Soyuz, and that a replacement Soyuz cleared of the potential for this problem be flown unmanned to ISS to replace TMA-12.
-
#12
by
A_M_Swallow
on 28 Apr, 2008 01:52
-
"Our Germans are better than their Germans. "
The excuses about the equipment failures make it sound like the people in charge are Russians not Germans.
-
#13
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 28 Apr, 2008 01:54
-
This has all the hallmarks of what happened with Challenger and Columbia. Knowing that there is a problem and ignoring it. What needs to be done are that all Soyuz flights are suspended until the problem has been found and fixed. If the Soyuz at ISS has the problem, a new Soyuz with the problem fixed should be flown and the existing Soyuz dumped. If this takes longer than six months, then the crew at ISS should come home on the Space Shuttle, and ISS be left in robotic mode until a fixed Soyuz can be launched.
-
#14
by
nathan.moeller
on 28 Apr, 2008 02:02
-
Steven Pietrobon - 27/4/2008 8:54 PM
This has all the hallmarks of what happened with Challenger and Columbia. Knowing that there is a problem and ignoring it. What needs to be done are that all Soyuz flights are suspended until the problem has been found and fixed. If the Soyuz at ISS has the problem, a new Soyuz with the problem fixed should be flown and the existing Soyuz dumped. If this takes longer than six months, then the crew at ISS should come home on the Space Shuttle, and ISS be left in robotic mode until a fixed Soyuz can be launched.
Agree whole-heartedly. ISS can be de-crewed for a while in any case. Heck, they planned on bringing home Expedition 10 in 2004 because they almost ran out of food. If there's a real safety issue, Russia needs to take a look before it results in the loss of three precious astronaut/cosmonaut lives.
-
#15
by
madscientist197
on 28 Apr, 2008 02:06
-
Might be some interesting lessons for the Orion designers in this - I wonder whether Orion could handle a service module separation failure.
-
#16
by
Bubbinski
on 28 Apr, 2008 02:12
-
How's this for an argument for crew return alternatives:
If a future Soyuz were to meet a bad end - there are no guarantees that it won't happen, and it nearly happened in April 2008 - the International Space Station, a program supported by the taxpayers of the United States, many European nations, Canada, Russia, and Japan, an asset that has cost many billions of dollars to launch and to build, an asset with much scientific potential, humanity's only permanent presence in space, would have no means of transporting crews to and from the station until Soyuz were fixed. This could jeopardize the International Space Station's continued existence and would end most research aboard the station once the ISS is de-crewed. There are no guarantees as to how long the situation would last and the signature human spaceflight effort of the world community would be put at great risk.
-
#17
by
A_M_Swallow
on 28 Apr, 2008 02:24
-
madscientist197 - 28/4/2008 3:06 AM
Might be some interesting lessons for the Orion designers in this - I wonder whether Orion could handle a service module separation failure.
The Soyuz had separation problems, so did the Reliant Robin dummy Shuttle and the 1km space tether experiment.
http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11836&feedId=online-news_rss20This sounds like a low reliability area. Is triple redundancy needed?
-
#18
by
vt_hokie
on 28 Apr, 2008 02:45
-
-
#19
by
daj24
on 28 Apr, 2008 03:12
-
Jim, an excellent article. It's late here and I am now off to bed. I am looking forward to reading it again in the morning when I am fresh. Seems like a typical closed society response. The only part that surprised me (well not really) was the blaming the Americans for certain failures. We can only hope that our elected officials take note of this and act accordingly. The TMA spacecraft are obviously very robust to be able to survive these types of failures (assuming that the described failure modes are accurate). But no one's luck can hold out forever.
