The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames

• #100 by Blackstar on 29 Apr, 2008 01:17
• Quote

  eeergo - 28/4/2008  5:24 AM
  Also, as little as I like the man, I have to agree with Perminov in saying that some American nationalistic elements are very interested in troubling or breaking the existing cooperative partnership between Russia and the US. Note I am not in any way saying Jim is, or is supporting, any of these elements, but articles like this from space experts, as I say, can reinforce biased points of view.

  
  I think you misread this.  What the article says is this:
  
  "'People who are interested in destabilization of our relations with the American partners are fuelling the situation,' he told reporters. 'If we rush into panic and write what did not take place, this is wrong, and this will not come to anything good.'"
  
  I interpreted that to mean that Perimov is claiming that some _Russian_ people want to destabilize "relations with the American partners."
  
  I read just about everything that I can in the space press and I don't know about any efforts to "destabilize relations" with the Russian ISS partners (unless we want to include Jim Oberg's articles in that category).  Indeed, there has been stronger anti-American rhetoric coming out of Russia for the past couple of years than there was "anti-Russian" rhetoric coming out of the United States.  I've found that most American conservatives and liberals tend to ignore Russia completely.  If they complain at all about a big foreign power, it is about China.
  
  I think that there is another dimension to this that people are ignoring: Russian unhappiness with the American dominance of the ISS program.  I assumed that Perimov is responding to that.
• #101 by pm1823 on 29 Apr, 2008 05:27
• Blackstar has a good point, about "....that Perimov is claiming that some Russian...". Perminov now under strong fire from the domestic critics. He lost "GLONASS case" in the last year, even his boss - Ivanov had to hit him on this field, and now those two Soyuz ballistic mode incidents... I don't think that US was in focus.
  On the second raised point, about "American dominance of the ISS program", we haven't so clear answer,
  Russians considered not about "dominace" itseft, but uncertainty which it bring to the ISS program. RSA have much less money in the budget, so they are in the situation, when they already now should stretch their money on the years. And without full certainty, that ISS after 2015 still be supported by US, they can't ask big money from the Government for the new modules. This makes them very nervous.
• #102 by janmb on 29 Apr, 2008 08:02
• Quote

  OV-106 - 28/4/2008  5:30 PM
  There is a problem.  Two ballistic entries in a row.

  
  Ballistic entry is a very-close-to-nominal mode, not in terms of how it behaves and what it subjects the astronauts to, but in terms of qualifications and expectations.
  
  The real worry here is obviously the separation issue, not the ballistic entries themselves.
  
  
• #103 by janmb on 29 Apr, 2008 08:19
• Quote

  Stowbridge - 28/4/2008  8:17 PM
  He did!
  
  "By James Oberg - special to NASASpaceflight.com:"
  
  There's three people who's nerves it's hit and notably, from their posts, they didn't read it properly, or thought Chris wrote it.

  
  
  Two people, not three
  
  I have no criticism about Chris running the article, nor could it ever been more clear who wrote it.
  
  My points were regarding the article itself, not regarding the article being posted on this site. As I said in my first post - the article is clearly well educated and bring up plenty disturbing facts (not just opinions).
  
  My criticism was entirely related to the tone used, lack of tact, and that in MY opinion, it can never serve the purpose it deems necessary - if anything the opposite.
• #104 by dsky on 29 Apr, 2008 08:29
• Quote

  janmb - 29/4/2008  10:02 AM
  
  

  Quote

  OV-106 - 28/4/2008  5:30 PM
  There is a problem.  Two ballistic entries in a row.

  
  Ballistic entry is a very-close-to-nominal mode, not in terms of how it behaves and what it subjects the astronauts to, but in terms of qualifications and expectations.
  
  The real worry here is obviously the separation issue, not the ballistic entries themselves.
  
  

  
  Absolutely right. Many times "ballistic descent" has been referred to as a "bad word". It is a nominal Motion Control System (GNC in the US) mode.
  
  
• #105 by clongton on 29 Apr, 2008 11:21
• Quote

  janmb - 29/4/2008  10:02 AM
  
  

  Quote

  OV-106 - 28/4/2008  5:30 PM
  There is a problem.  Two ballistic entries in a row.

  
  Ballistic entry is a very-close-to-nominal mode, not in terms of how it behaves and what it subjects the astronauts to, but in terms of qualifications and expectations.
  
  The real worry here is obviously the separation issue, not the ballistic entries themselves.

  Correct. Too much is being made of the ballistic re-entry itself. The re-entry isn't the problem because, as I said earlier, this *is* the backup mode to bring the crew home safely. The problem is that by happening twice in a row, it inticates to me that there definately is a problem with the primary system; it failed twice in a row. And it's not the 'design' of the primary, because it has worked flawlessly hundreds of times. It's somewhere in the manufacturing run of Soyuz, and imho, somewhere in the quality control procedures that allows something substandard to either go unnoticed or to allow acceptance of a substandard component. My opinion, fwiw.
• #106 by daj24 on 29 Apr, 2008 12:10

• Alan Boyle who writes "Cosmic Log" (MSNBC/MSN) has an interesting take the subject.  He also has a quote from James Oberg's piece ""Oberg takes a closer look at the blame game this week in an in-depth analysis for NASASpaceflight.com. ""  As others above have pointed out we really do not have hard evidence on what happened yet and should wait for facts to come out (and of course that is the concern if our partners are not forth coming on them) before overreacting. The "Cosmic Log" article points out that the event already has begun people wanting movement towards  

  1) faster Ares/Orion developemint

  2) keep Shuttle flying longer

  3) faster COTS

  4)all of the above

• #107 by JimO on 29 Apr, 2008 12:15
• Just gotta say -- I really appreciate the response and the kind words, the honest criticisms and helpful suggestions on the essay's tone, scope, and content. This is healthy and helpful, and maybe it sets an example for other groups assessing the same problems, elsewhere. This is an amazingly broad and deep team of discussants, I'm flattered to have elicited such a response. There's more quality content on any single page on this thread than on a week's worth of press releases, wire service output, or any other forum.
  
• #108 by DmitryP on 29 Apr, 2008 12:16
• I completely agree with the article's idea that investigation should be thorough and objective and share the view that the reaction to the incidents by Russian top space (and not only space) officials is awful. I actually hate the way they do it.
  
  But the article's overall tone is making more harm then good in solving any issues and I was surprised to find it at this site which was always exceptionally sound on all technical issues. And the article is manipulating with limited set of facts rather then disclosing any reasonable information.
  
  For example, one of the main blame towards the way investigations are made is the blame of senior official who with their remarks pre-judge the results of investigation. But the text itself give an example of the contrary with solar arrays vs. control computer issues. Bosses were blaming the Americans, technical investigation determined it was the cable! There is no understanding of cultural differences in the article, not a single attempt to analyze how different is mentality of US and Russian engineers. From the start of the space industry it was completely closed society and people working in it (as I understand) prefer to resolve their issues on their own. I do not like this approach but that is how they were trained and brought-up, as I understand. But that does not mean AT ALL that they would not find a real issue regardless of big bosses words. As many space engineers were writing at Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum it is quite common that there is a "safe" official reason in the report and then a real work to correct the real mistake made. Again,  being a Russian tax payer I do not like such attitude but have respect to people who are used to this style.
  
  Another problem with the report is that being able to read the Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum where the whole thing is discussed in details the article is not giving the full picture. The whole story about the burnt grass was all explained in details with clear explanation of the fire caused most probably by pyro devices used to detach the chutes. Similar pictures were observed on several landings, especially with strong wind.
  
  Article is talking about "separation bolts failed to fire" as a fact, which is not confirmed. It was explained that there is a special back-up device at Soyuz which activate pyro-devices separating the modules in case of high temperature of off-nominal descent are measured.
  
  Article is pretending the TMA-10 and TMA-11 incidents are similar though time of shift from normal mode to ballistic descent was very different on two flights. So it may or may not be the same and one has to wait until the results of investigation.
  
  And the article has a lot of words which whether the author (and the whole NSF) like it or not would be considered as blames without any prove. Even the use of word failure related to ballistic mode is a blame - it is a standard authorized procedure. But Jim goes much further - "But that mainly seems to be so because the Russian engineers can't figure out a way to link them causally, one to the other or both to s single independent cause" - this is a direct blame of incompetence of those who did an investigation without any documentary prove. It is really bad that no report of TMA-10 accident is published but then the bosses should be blamed for not releasing it not engineers not being able to find a reason for failure.
  
  Basically, after such report I can easily understand why some senior officials blame journalists and Americans for all their troubles. It is a pity such article is on the technically competent politically neutral site.
• #109 by janmb on 29 Apr, 2008 12:34
• Quote

  clongton - 29/4/2008  12:21 PM
  The problem is that by happening twice in a row, it inticates to me that there definately is a problem with the primary system; it failed twice in a row.

  
  Especially if it's indeed the same root cause - but it's clearly premature to assume that just yet.
  
  In either case it's clearly cause for a thorough investigation that in no way should keep a huge partner and paying customer out of the loop - no argument there.
• #110 by Blackstar on 29 Apr, 2008 12:49
• Quote

  clongton - 29/4/2008  6:21 AM
  Correct. Too much is being made of the ballistic re-entry itself. The re-entry isn't the problem because, as I said earlier, this *is* the backup mode to bring the crew home safely.

  
  Is that really true?  The problem is that ballistic reentry, although "normal," is not ideal.  The Soyuz is bringing back people who have been in space a long time and are therefore fragile.  Because of this, a gentler reentry is important.  So subjecting them to high-gees poses a health risk.
• #111 by Jim on 29 Apr, 2008 12:58
• "Even the use of word failure related to ballistic mode is a blame - it is a standard authorized procedure"
  
  It doesn't matter that ballistic mode is a standard authorized procedure, there still was a failure which lead to it being used.  That is the issue.
  
  
  "But the article's overall tone is making more harm then good in solving any issues"
  
  What is the matter with the "tone"?  It is asking questions and raising some issue wrong?  Can't the Russian space program can't handle a little criticism?    Especially since there were two failures in a row, 3 since the introduction of a new vehicle.   Just because the crew is safe doesn't mean everything is ok
  
  "It is a pity such article is on the technically competent politically neutral site."
  
  you are very wrong here.   American space policy and the NASA administrator are criticized all the time on this site
  
  I would like for those who disagree with the article to point out the errors
  
  
• #112 by Jim on 29 Apr, 2008 13:04
• Quote

  Blackstar - 29/4/2008  8:49 AM
  
  

  Quote

  clongton - 29/4/2008  6:21 AM
  Correct. Too much is being made of the ballistic re-entry itself. The re-entry isn't the problem because, as I said earlier, this *is* the backup mode to bring the crew home safely.

  
  Is that really true?  The problem is that ballistic reentry, although "normal," is not ideal.  The Soyuz is bringing back people who have been in space a long time and are therefore fragile.  Because of this, a gentler reentry is important.  So subjecting them to high-gees poses a health risk.

  
  2 engine aircraft can fly safely on one engine but that doesn't mean that nothing is wrong.  Some went wrong for the aircraft to fly on one engine.
• #113 by DmitryP on 29 Apr, 2008 13:30
• To Jim.
  
  The use of the word failure regarding the problems with separation is quite correct, but not to ballistic mode. It actually is a mode which saved the crew after the real failure and everything I read on this indicates that it went absolutely up to the books (books of ballistic mode). But the article (and many other press reports) is using failure to both separation issue and ballistic mode which is making officials crazy in Russia.
  
  Tone is phrases like "Moscow space officials prejudged the results of the incident investigation" though investigation is not yet complete and such statement could only be true if its results would really coincide with the declaration of officials. Words in the form of bland denials and nasty insinuations of sinister motives is a tone, since it refers to the words of press officer who denied earlier rumors. The article says that the fact that as a result of excessive thermal overload the hatch was significantly burnt is enhancing the credibility of the source. But that is not true according to the reports and pictures from the ground, hatch is fine and thermal overload was in different sections of the capsule. So press officer had a quite legitimate ground to deny at least that. "Naked chauvinism" for Perminov's words is a tone, since he was very critical in his earlier comments on Energya and their review of the previous incident. And Energya is a Russian company so how can chauvinist, especially naked, criticize it? This wasn't the first case that patriotic judgments had threatened the integrity of accident investigation in Moscow (in relation to the computers on ISS) is a wrong tone because none of this patriotic judgments ever threatened the integrity, as article itself states (the proper root cause different from the one identified by bosses was discovered and repaired). And in general I do not think that the words "Russian paranoia" is a good tone.
  
  The more criticism is of Russian space program the better. But it has to be a justified technical criticism, otherwise officials will not consider it as reasonable and would simply neglect it. It is a pity that overall tone at Novosti Kosmonavtiki is "well, another opus from Oberg" and good thoughts (issue with separation, need for NASA to participate in investigation, need for better disclosure of results of investigation) are neglected. That is why I think the article is doing more harm then good.
  
  Politically neutral for me does not mean not criticizing politicians. That means criticizing them with good arguments and not simple acquisitions. And articles on the site (at least for the last year) were very accurate in their wording until this one.  
  
• #114 by clongton on 29 Apr, 2008 14:09
• Quote

  Blackstar - 29/4/2008  8:49 AM
  
  

  Quote

  clongton - 29/4/2008  6:21 AM
  Correct. Too much is being made of the ballistic re-entry itself. The re-entry isn't the problem because, as I said earlier, this *is* the backup mode to bring the crew home safely.

  
  Is that really true?  The problem is that ballistic reentry, although "normal," is not ideal.  The Soyuz is bringing back people who have been in space a long time and are therefore fragile.  Because of this, a gentler reentry is important.  So subjecting them to high-gees poses a health risk.

  Yes, that really is true. The ballistic re-entry is the backup. Nominal re-entry is much easier on the human occupants, but also requires considerably more control during re-entry. In the event of loss of that control, for whatever reason, that more benign re-entry can become very dangerous. That's why the flight computer switched to the ballistic re-entry. It is an uncomfortable ride, with higher g-loads, but not an especially dangerous ride. The spacecraft is spin stabilized and brought in. It is not designed for crew comfort. It is designed for crew survival. If the choice is disintegration in a comfortable re-entry, or survival in an uncomfortable one, there is only one sane choice. The flight computer recognized the loss of proper control for the nominal re-entry, and switched to the backup ballistic mode to get the crew home. It worked. They are home safe.
  
  Let's put this uncomfortable backup re-entry into perspective. Uncomfortable or not, Shuttle does not have a backup re-entry mode, a source of extreme sadness to us all.
• #115 by Blackstar on 29 Apr, 2008 14:17
• Quote

  clongton - 29/4/2008  9:09 AM
  Yes, that really is true. The ballistic re-entry is the backup. Nominal re-entry is much easier on the human occupants, but also requires considerably more control during re-entry. In the event of loss of that control, for whatever reason, that more benign re-entry can become very dangerous.

  
  We're talking semantics here.  My point is that saying that ballistic reentry is an "acceptable" failure mode is misleading--ballistic mode subjects the crew to higher stresses during reentry.  Considering that they have suffered bone and muscle loss during flight, this increases their danger.
  
  I agree with Jim's analogy to a two-engined aircraft losing an engine and landing safely--the fact that the plane landed safely is not the issue, it's that they were placed at greater risk flying with only one engine.
• #116 by clongton on 29 Apr, 2008 14:23
• Quote

  Blackstar - 29/4/2008  10:17 AM
  
  We're talking semantics here.  My point is that saying that ballistic reentry is an "acceptable" failure mode is misleading

  I never said that ballistic re-entry is an acceptable failure mode. There is no such thing as an "acceptable" failure mode. Failure is not an option. But it does happen, and the ballistic re-entry kept them alive. That is what it was designed to do, and it worked. When a system failure happens, for whatever reason, all other considerations become moot. Survival is the only goal.
• #117 by Namechange User on 29 Apr, 2008 14:30
• For those thinking that ballistic mode is ok, would you want to ride it?  
  
  If someone said to you, "there is a good probablity that your spacecraft will not function correctly leaving the service module attached.  Don't be concerned because after a few minutes of reentering the atmosphere at the wrong attitude and hopefully not breaching the hull the spacecraft should be violently ripped apart along the modules.  Your decent module should then hopefully right itself before breaking apart and then subjecting you to a nearly 10 g decent.  Hopefully the parachutes which were put in harms way by this approved back-up mode have not been damaged and will ultimately keep you from cratering into the ground.  But this is the approved back-up mode so enjoy your flight. "
• #118 by clongton on 29 Apr, 2008 14:36
• Quote

  OV-106 - 29/4/2008  10:30 AM
  
  For those thinking that ballistic mode is ok, would you want to ride it?  

  No, I would not want to ride it. But if it is a choice between life and death, I wouldn’t hesitate to. Not for even a nano-second. The crew of Columbia would have loved to have had this choice.
• #119 by Chris Bergin on 29 Apr, 2008 14:47
• Quote

  daj24 - 29/4/2008  1:10 PM
  
  

  Alan Boyle who writes "Cosmic Log" (MSNBC/MSN) has an interesting take the subject.  He also has a quote from James Oberg's piece ""Oberg takes a closer look at the blame game this week in an in-depth analysis for NASASpaceflight.com. ""  As others above have pointed out we really do not have hard evidence on what happened yet and should wait for facts to come out (and of course that is the concern if our partners are not forth coming on them) before overreacting. The "Cosmic Log" article points out that the event already has begun people wanting movement towards  

  1) faster Ares/Orion developemint

  2) keep Shuttle flying longer

  3) faster COTS

  4)all of the above

  
  Here's the link to that (folks, remember to cite with a link when possible please):
  
  http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/28/953554.aspx