The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames

• #120 by Namechange User on 29 Apr, 2008 14:49
• Quote

  clongton - 29/4/2008  9:36 AM
  
  

  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.

  
  Apples and oranges Chuck.  I'm not even sure why you bring that up.
• #121 by Blackstar on 29 Apr, 2008 14:55
• There's one more thing I would add here.
  
  Somebody referred to discussions on the Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum.  I'd also make reference to the NK magazine.  Although I don't read Russian, my colleagues who do note that NK has run a number of critical articles about the state of the Soviet space program, including critical comments from Russian officials themselves.  
  
  Oberg's articles tend to reference current media reports, presenting the impression that the Russians have not been frank and open about their problems.  
  
  But from what I've heard, they _have_ been frank and open about problems in the pages of NK.  Maybe not all of them, and not always in the way that Oberg would like, but by dragging out old examples like the Mars 96 failure (Jim tends to beat dead horses a lot--the gun on the Soyuz being another example), he creates a misleading impression of what is actually happening in the Russian space field and in Russian space journalism.
  
  As an example, see the comments by Pavel Vinogradov mentioned in this article:
  
  http://www.thespacereview.com/article/824/1
  
  (the article refers to an interview that appeared in the pages of NK)
• #122 by Jorge on 29 Apr, 2008 15:10
• Quote

  clongton - 29/4/2008  9:09 AM
  
  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.

  
  Incorrect. The shuttle has the BFS, and the primary system (PASS) is quad-redundant.
  
  It is true that the shuttle cannot survive an outright TPS breach during entry, but no other spacecraft can, either.
• #123 by Jorge on 29 Apr, 2008 15:11
• Quote

  OV-106 - 29/4/2008  9:49 AM
  
  

  Quote

  clongton - 29/4/2008  9:36 AM
  
  

  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.

  
  Apples and oranges Chuck.  I'm not even sure why you bring that up.

  
  Ballistic mode would not have saved the Columbia crew; the TPS breach was fatal regardless of the profile flown.
• #124 by clongton on 29 Apr, 2008 16:18
• Quote

  Jorge - 29/4/2008  11:11 AM
  
  

  Quote

  OV-106 - 29/4/2008  9:49 AM
  
  

  Quote

  clongton - 29/4/2008  9:36 AM
  
  

  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.

  
  Apples and oranges Chuck.  I'm not even sure why you bring that up.

  
  To score debate points, natch.
  
  Ballistic mode would not have saved the Columbia crew; the TPS breach was fatal regardless of the profile flown.

  Shuttle’s backup mode is still an ‘actively controlled’ re-entry. That’s not what I was referring to. Soyuz backup assumes that there is no longer the ability to actively control the descent and simply spin stabilizes the crew capsule and drops it home. That’s the kind of “get me the hell out of here” last-ditch safety net that Soyuz has that Shuttle does not. Either Soyuz or Shuttle re-entering the atmosphere without active control would kill the crew. At least Soyuz has a last-ditch ace in the hole to get them down. That’s what I was referring to. Originally, the Shuttle crew cabin would have been jettisonable in such a situation, but that got traded away in the design phase for payload capacity. It was designed to make the same kind of emergency ballistic re-entry that Soyuz does.
  
  I brought the whole thing up because the backup ballistic re-entry of Soyuz was being poo-pooed as not a good thing to do, in spite of the fact that Shuttle was originally designed to do the same thing. My comments were to the point that it was a survival thing to do. In that case who cares if it’s comfortable or not? I am grateful that Soyuz had the ability, as I’m sure the 6 people from the last 2 Soyuz re-entries are also. I have lamented for years the trade that cancelled the ballistic re-entry of a jettisoned Shuttle cabin, and my lament about Columbia was to that end. Soyuz has that ability. Shuttle was “supposed” to have that ability but payload proved to be more important. In hindsight, a very bad design trade.
  
  As to the "scoring of debate points" – that was a cheap shot and not worth the electrons it took to put it on the thread.
  
  
• #125 by Namechange User on 29 Apr, 2008 16:30
• Quote

  clongton - 29/4/2008  11:18 AM
  
  I brought the whole thing up because the backup ballistic re-entry of Soyuz was being poo-pooed as not a good thing to do
  

  
  It's NOT a good thing to do.  It's not the way it was designed to happen so writing it off as being ok is missing the forest for the trees.  
  
  If shuttle had that capability and it was executed would you then be arguing to not "poo-poo" on it or that the problem needs to be found and corrected?
• #126 by clongton on 29 Apr, 2008 16:42
• Quote

  OV-106 - 29/4/2008  12:30 PM
  
  

  Quote

  clongton - 29/4/2008  11:18 AM
  
  I brought the whole thing up because the backup ballistic re-entry of Soyuz was being poo-pooed as not a good thing to do
  

  
  It's NOT a good thing to do.  It's not the way it was designed to happen so writing it off as being ok is missing the forest for the trees.  
  
  If shuttle had that capability and it was executed would you then be arguing to not "poo-poo" on it or that the problem needs to be found and corrected?

  You left out the other half of what I said - completely changing it. "ballistic re-entry of Soyuz was being poo-pooed as not a good thing to do... in spite of the fact that Shuttle was originally designed to do the same thing."
  
  So your argument is that they should have stayed on the normal re-entry profile and been incinerated instead of going ballistic and surviving? I don't think that's what you meant, just like what you are implying is not what I meant.
  
  The ballistic re-entry is a last ditch survival mode. It's designed to save the crew when all else fails. It is NOT a good thing to HAVE to do, but it's a damn sight better than not being able to do it when it's the only way to stay alive.
  
  THAT'S what I was saying - nothing more.
• #127 by Jim on 29 Apr, 2008 16:48
• Either way, the shuttle coming back on BFS or Soyuz coming back in a ballistic mode means something went wrong and it needs to be investigated.   It doesn't matter that the crew is safe.  
  
  For those who think that the fact that Soyuz came back in a ballistic mode is no big issue, it is a issue since something went wrong to cause it.  It might or might not be related to the separation issue, but until proven that it isn't, it must be considered as different issue
• #128 by Spacenick on 29 Apr, 2008 16:54
• Well look at it this way:
  As a jet fighter pilot, your jet's engine might fail, then thats definitely a failure that needs to be addressed, however, if you have an ejector seat and that is executed, there is no point in lamenting that  landing on a parachute is not nominal, of cause it's not. But its a nominal _failure_ mode, don't blame the ejector seat for the loss of you engine. In the same way, you can't blame the ballistic mode for the separation failure, the only thing you can blame  the ballistic mode for is that nobody has to pay live assurances because the crew is alive.
  Ballistic entry is not a failure, it's the only way to survive the failure that had already happened and in this case there is no point in saying there might be a risk to it.
  Concerning the Shuttle comparison, I also think that it's a little bit like comparing apples and oranges, however, it's viable to note that a Soyuz definitely has a better history of bringing people back alive AFTER severe failures have occurred it siimply is more robust because it's less complex, the shuttle on the other hand is way to complex for the task of bringing people to space and back, simply because it was also designed to bring a lot of cargo into space and to be a technology demonstrator.
  That said, I'd definitely choose the Soyuz if I'd have to choose a ride to space and back.
• #129 by Shuttle Man on 29 Apr, 2008 17:01
• Quote

  Blackstar - 29/4/2008  9:55 AM
  He (Oberg) creates a misleading impression of what is actually happening in the Russian space field and in Russian space journalism.
  
  

  
  With respect Mr Dwayne Day, you're not winning any points by presenting your opinions as facts. I'm finding your tone to be condescending.
• #130 by Namechange User on 29 Apr, 2008 17:11
• Quote

  Spacenick - 29/4/2008  11:54 AM
  
  Well look at it this way:
  As a jet fighter pilot, your jet's engine might fail, then thats definitely a failure that needs to be addressed, however, if you have an ejector seat and that is executed, there is no point in lamenting that  landing on a parachute is not nominal, of cause it's not. But its a nominal _failure_ mode, don't blame the ejector seat for the loss of you engine. In the same way, you can't blame the ballistic mode for the separation failure, the only thing you can blame  the ballistic mode for is that nobody has to pay live assurances because the crew is alive.
  Ballistic entry is not a failure, it's the only way to survive the failure that had already happened and in this case there is no point in saying there might be a risk to it.
  Concerning the Shuttle comparison, I also think that it's a little bit like comparing apples and oranges, however, it's viable to note that a Soyuz definitely has a better history of bringing people back alive AFTER severe failures have occurred it siimply is more robust because it's less complex, the shuttle on the other hand is way to complex for the task of bringing people to space and back, simply because it was also designed to bring a lot of cargo into space and to be a technology demonstrator.
  That said, I'd definitely choose the Soyuz if I'd have to choose a ride to space and back.

  
  Exactly correct.  But I would choose the shuttle.
• #131 by clongton on 29 Apr, 2008 17:27
• Quote

  OV-106 - 29/4/2008  1:11 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Spacenick - 29/4/2008  11:54 AM
  
  Well look at it this way:
  As a jet fighter pilot, your jet's engine might fail, then thats definitely a failure that needs to be addressed, however, if you have an ejector seat and that is executed, there is no point in lamenting that  landing on a parachute is not nominal, of cause it's not. But its a nominal _failure_ mode, don't blame the ejector seat for the loss of you engine. In the same way, you can't blame the ballistic mode for the separation failure, the only thing you can blame  the ballistic mode for is that nobody has to pay live assurances because the crew is alive.
  Ballistic entry is not a failure, it's the only way to survive the failure that had already happened and in this case there is no point in saying there might be a risk to it.
  Concerning the Shuttle comparison, I also think that it's a little bit like comparing apples and oranges, however, it's viable to note that a Soyuz definitely has a better history of bringing people back alive AFTER severe failures have occurred it siimply is more robust because it's less complex, the shuttle on the other hand is way to complex for the task of bringing people to space and back, simply because it was also designed to bring a lot of cargo into space and to be a technology demonstrator.
  That said, I'd definitely choose the Soyuz if I'd have to choose a ride to space and back.

  
  Exactly correct.  But I would choose the shuttle.

  So would I. The two accidents with Shuttle were caused by flying with known, but uncorrected problems. If flown within the prescribed flight parameters, with all known issues actually retired, Shuttle is as safe as any spacecraft can be, in spite of the lack of a jettisonable cabin. I'd ride Shuttle in a heartbeat. I'd be more nervous about Soyuz because I don't know it as well.
  
  The Russians are not as open and forthcoming with information as we are used to in the west. That's a cultural condition, nothing more. It implies nothing against their ability or honesty and it is wrong to assume otherwise. But in light of the last two re-entries of Soyuz and the way information was withheld about TMA-10, it makes me nervous about what else I might not be allowed to know before I got on board. That's the source of my hesitation.
• #132 by on 29 Apr, 2008 17:45

• Quote

  Spacenick - 29/4/2008  11:54 AM  ... That said, I'd definitely choose the Soyuz if I'd have to choose a ride to space and back.

  Disagree. Rather ride the Shuttle. Say what you like about it or not, rather fly with the best funded, most resource filled program that isn't over taxed to meet its schedules.

  The problems the Russians face are internal that injure the Russian Soyuz. Unfortunately, they need to have external transparency in order to achieve it. The CAIB was a good attempt at that. But it was difficult for the pride of the US. Given the cultural/political/geopolitical context of Russia now, its a lot harder even for a much simpler system. More easy/cheap to sweep under the rug. Tremendous pressure to do just that.
  

  Which is why I'd rather fly Shuttle. Have been really pleased by post RTF missions. And have been enjoying the early success of ATV.

  Soyuz is a different story. When all of us understand the details of the failures, see all of the elements fitting together, and see the sensible redesign and careful proof, then it will improve. Russian engineering prowess is incredible when its allowed to take action. But it needs resources, support, and a context within to work.
  

• #133 by Blackstar on 29 Apr, 2008 17:48
• Quote

  Shuttle Man - 29/4/2008  12:01 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Blackstar - 29/4/2008  9:55 AM
  He (Oberg) creates a misleading impression of what is actually happening in the Russian space field and in Russian space journalism.
  
  

  
  With respect Mr Dwayne Day, you're not winning any points by presenting your opinions as facts. I'm finding your tone to be condescending.

  
  I know Jim personally.  I'm sure that if he has a problem with what I've written, he'll tell me so.
• #134 by Blackstar on 29 Apr, 2008 17:53
• Quote

  OV-106 - 29/4/2008  11:30 AM
  If shuttle had that capability and it was executed would you then be arguing to not "poo-poo" on it or that the problem needs to be found and corrected?

  
  I think it's "pooh-pooh," which is different than "poo-poo"...
  
  Which reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons:
  
  Editor: Hey listen, I just had a thought. We’re looking for a new food
  critic. Someone who doesn’t immediately pooh-pooh everything he eats.
  
  Homer: No, it usually takes a few hours.
  
  (now let's all snicker heartily!)
• #135 by MrTim on 29 Apr, 2008 17:54
• Quote

  Spacenick - 29/4/2008  9:54 AM
  (chop)Concerning the Shuttle comparison, I also think that it's a little bit like comparing apples and oranges, however, it's viable to note that a Soyuz definitely has a better history of bringing people back alive AFTER severe failures have occurred it siimply is more robust because it's less complex, the shuttle on the other hand is way to complex for the task of bringing people to space and back, simply because it was also designed to bring a lot of cargo into space and to be a technology demonstrator.(chop)

  It may not be popular, but I wish to defend the shuttles a bit here...
  1. Yes, we have lost two orbiters, BUT the Russians have lost at least two Soyuz crews so I am not inclined to see the old Soyuz as such a perfect vehicle. Yes, losing a bigger crew has more of a cultural impact perhaps and it certainly gets the headlines etc (like the difference between a small plane crash and a larger plane crash) but a loss is a loss when just counting LOC events.
  
  2. The shuttles DO have backup modes which some simply seem to gloss-over. When a Soyuz computer failure occurs, it may be that the acceptable failure mode is a ballistic entry; when an orbiter computer fails, the backup mode is... drum roll please... redundant computers with a nice normal runway landing. I'm sorry, but a ballistic entry failure mode should be viewed with as much alarm as a ballistic landing mode in a Cessna (it's a sign that very bad things happened, and NOBODY should be comforted if the occupants walk away from it owing their lives to chance and accidents of physics (like part of the vehicle burning off in time for the capsule to orient properly)) In my opinion, the better system would be sufficiently redundant that you never had a ballistic mode.
  
  3. While Soyuz is much simpler than an orbiter (and some like to equate simplicity with safety), Soyuz needs to throw-off parts of itself during the re-entry process for a nominal flight and the vehicles seem to be accumulating a worrisome trend of failures in very mature (and therefore supposedly reliable) hardware required for this function. When I see failures of cutting-edge stuff, I worry about the design BUT when I see failures of mature stuff I worry about manufacturing, quality control, operator attentiveness, etc.
  
  4. Neither the Challenger failure nor the Columbia failure would have been survived by a fall-back to a ballistic entry. Indeed, had the Soyuz suffered a hole in its TPS as large as the hole Columbia suffered, it would also have been destroyed.
  
  The two systems are completely different, and while I suspect some (still lingering on the losses of orbiters) look to the simplicity of the capsule and yearn for the crew safety it seems to promise, I will miss the elegance of the orbiters. After we lose a crew on some future Orion, perhaps people will gain a better perspective on this stuff: any time fragile, vulnerable, fallible humans play with the energy levels required to fly into space or return back to Earth there is the potential for death. No clever vehicle design will ever provide complete safety. I am not so certain that clinging to simple capsules is, in the long term, a better thing than working to increase the safety of other more complex and capable architectures.
  
• #136 by synchrotron on 29 Apr, 2008 18:00
• Quote

  MrTim - 29/4/2008  4:54 PM
  3. While Soyuz is much simpler than an orbiter (and some like to equate simplicity with safety), Soyuz needs to throw-off parts of itself during the re-entry process for a nominal flight and the vehicles seem to be accumulating a worrisome trend of failures in very mature (and therefore supposedly reliable) hardware required for this function. When I see failures of cutting-edge stuff, I worry about the design BUT when I see failures of mature stuff I worry about manufacturing, quality control, operator attentiveness, etc.
  

  
  Agreed.  But 'throwing off stuff' also has a specific function in this case.  Namely, protection of the TPS from launch- and orbit-based damage.  Columbia, lacking this kind of protection, was catastrophically damaged.  CEV and Dragon (should they come to fruition) will also jettison the equipment covering their TPS as late as possible before returning.
  
• #137 by JimO on 29 Apr, 2008 18:03
• Quote

  DmitryP - 29/4/2008  7:16 AM
  
  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.
  ....

  
  I stand well rebuked, and properly corrected (re chute pyros, etc), and hope to converge futher on accuracy as additional material comes into my email box hourly. DmitryP, I want to thank you for the serious effort you put into this message, and for your implicit trust in me that the effort will be productive. That is my intent.
  
  
• #138 by clongton on 29 Apr, 2008 18:14
• Quote

  MrTim - 29/4/2008  1:54 PM
  
  4. Neither the Challenger failure nor the Columbia failure would have been survived by a fall-back to a ballistic entry. Indeed, had the Soyuz suffered a hole in its TPS as large as the hole Columbia suffered, it would also have been destroyed.

  I agree about the Challenger, but disagree about Columbia.
  Of course it's academic at this point, but a jettisonable crew cabin, designed to withstand an emergency ballistic re-entry (like in one of the many original concept designs), would likely have survived the breakup of the orbiter in the upper atmosphere during re-entry. I am of the opinion that the crew could have survived, brused and shaken, but alive. The cabin would have landed intact in east-central Texas under a big parachute.
• #139 by JimO on 29 Apr, 2008 18:17
• Quote

  Blackstar - 29/4/2008  9:55 AM
  
  Oberg's articles tend to reference current media reports, presenting the impression that the Russians have not been frank and open about their problems.  
  
  But from what I've heard, they _have_ been frank and open about problems in the pages of NK.  Maybe not all of them, and not always in the way that Oberg would like, but by dragging out old examples like the Mars 96 failure (Jim tends to beat dead horses a lot--the gun on the Soyuz being another example), he creates a misleading impression of what is actually happening in the Russian space field and in Russian space journalism.
  
  

  
  I tried to focus my criticisms to comments by space officials, while giving praise to private Russian commentators and newsmen. In fact, I'd have to go even farther and express admiration for the tenacity and courage of independent Russian writers on these subjects, both those still active and those no longer with us.
  
  Dropping plutonium onto the Andes Mountains and then never looking for it or even warning the populace isn't a 'dead horse' issue or even a 'dead llama' issue -- it's a still-open question of responsibility and honesty. So there are lots of people who resent it when it doesn't stay conveniently forgotten. The human health issue has to do with Latin American experience with discovered hardware containing radioactive materials -- as in Goiania, Brazil.  Even in Russia, there's at least one case where a small RTG from a mid-winter launch abort was located by soldiers and then secretly kept as a hand warmer, potentially exposing them to lethal doses because of their repeated handling of it.
  
  As I wrote in New Scientist: "In 1994, the German police were very excited to confiscate 350 grams of plutonium from Russians trying to smuggle it through the country (This Week,
  20 August, 1994, p 5). By this token, the 200 grams in the probe would seem more
  than enough to inspire attempts to retrieve it. "