-
#20 by K8B on 28 Apr, 2008 03:33
-
Thank you to Jim for writing the article. I can't imagine what the current ISS crew must feel about this. I remember reading the landing thread - crew aboard the ISS were told it was time for them to go to sleep and yet they were clearly worried about the missing crew (no communication).
It must be very unsettling to know that you must take your chances in the capsule currently docked to the station, knowing full well that your capsule may have the same defect, and your crew may not be as lucky as TMA-11. It's already up there (with possible problems) and I doubt they could fix anything to assure they will have a nominal safe landing. Not to mention - the findings/truth may be swept under the rug.
I feel it's a real slap in the face to the brave cosmo/astronauts when there are cover-ups that jeopardize their safety. It's as if to say - Your life isn't worth the time or money for us to admit to problems & stop to fully investigate/fix them.
I would think (hope) that, if it were NASA, that all flights would be cancelled/postponed until full investigations were performed, all future flight capsules were gone over with fine toothed combs until they are sure they've found the problem, tested it many times, and proclaim it fixed, not just throw on a new serial cable & call it good. I guess this would take months to years, lost time the program cannot/will not take off in the name of safety.
-
#21 by Lee Jay on 28 Apr, 2008 03:48
-
Quote
Bubbinski - 27/4/2008 8:12 PM
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.
A question that should be asked of Mike Griffin right away, with special emphasis on "the gap" as presently planned.
Ideally, I'd like to see Orion, a crewed ATV (did that have a name?), and Soyuz all capable of servicing the ISS. Dreaming, I know. -
#22 by pm1823 on 28 Apr, 2008 03:50
-
Nothing new and tech-related in this article, just political speculations.
-
#23 by JimO on 28 Apr, 2008 03:53
-
Thanks for the kind words and helpful suggestions. Chris has created the environment for candid exchanges, corrections, and arguing -- the best such forum on the planet. If anything I write has any hopes of approaching reality, it's only due in large part to inputs posted here, openly or in private messages, or emailed to me care of my home page www.jamesoberg.com. Spasibo.
I think there's plenty of talent and dedication in Moscow and Houston dedicated to fixing this problem. 'Attitude adjustment' of some leaders might be part of the prescription for recovery, too.
Regarding openness, one specific question for NASA. We don't yet know how far out of attitude last week's landing got before module separation -- the investigation is just beginning.
But the investigation of the landing anomalies on the October 2007 mission is complete. I hope NASA can release those results -- or explain why the Russians will share the results with NASA officials but require them NOT to pass the information on to the American public. Specifically, how far out of attitude did the spacecraft get, and how long after nominal separation before the modules finally broke free?
-
#24 by simonbp on 28 Apr, 2008 04:49
-
Quote
Lee Jay - 27/4/2008 9:48 PM
Ideally, I'd like to see Orion, a crewed ATV (did that have a name?), and Soyuz all capable of servicing the ISS. Dreaming, I know.
Well, crewed ATV might never happen, but NASA is _already_ funding a Soyuz alternative, and it's called Dragon. (Yes, Jim, Cap D isn't formally funded, but the differences between the manned and unmanned versions are minimal). If both Dragon and Cygnus work out, NASA won't need to buy any Russian services during (or after) the gap...
Simon
-
#25 by Sphereion on 28 Apr, 2008 07:48
-
Has the contract to use Soyuz when Shuttle is not longer available already signed and paid for?
-
#26 by Terry Rocket on 28 Apr, 2008 08:46
-
Quality article! We know they are looking at a couple of more years with Shuttle (L2), but these issues must resonate more with the politicians.
By the way, the South Korean astronaut is still suffering from the re-entry,
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gau0xECd5wjaHloPQaF1jairaUaA -
#27 by janmb on 28 Apr, 2008 08:48
-
The criticism is most definitely warranted, lots of good factual data, but I can't help but feel it is a bit biased and seen through an exclusively american point of view itself.
It most certainly does nothing in the way of reconciling or encouraging the change it concludes as necessary (but that's clearly not the purpose of the article in the first place)
(edited for spelling)
-
#28 by David BAE on 28 Apr, 2008 09:10
-
It's an interesting article on many levels. The problem seems to be just like NASA's pre-Challenger, an inbuilt military level "don't ask questions, just do it" complacency almost. These military guys, such as Perminov, even some on the US side, aren't going to change. I don't think US/Russian tensions ever fully went away and if NASA doesn't get FULL access to the investigation, they should pull out their astronauts from flying on Soyuz with immediate affect.
The big question is of course, does the world's only remaining superpower really want to lose their manned access to space? I find it mind-boggling that a country like the US wants to remove a working vehicle, have a gap of five years plus, using a "former" enemy (see*) as relance of getting its astronauts to the ISS. I find it even more mind-boggling that so many Americans are willing to vote in Obama, who is upfront about his distain for NASA (and literally WANTS the US to be removed from being a superpower).
* http://video.news.sky.com/skynews/video/?&videoSourceID=1280810 Politics may change on the face of things, but people don't, least not military. -
#29 by meiza on 28 Apr, 2008 09:38
-
The problem with the private Dragon (or Cygnus but that's more just cargo) is that they could very well be wildly unreliable, especially early on. Just look at SpaceX's track record, or look at any manned spacecraft (perhaps except Apollo after the fire)...
Also, if ESA and the usual European industrial partners start working on a craft, it will take decades and cost many many billions, both to develop and to fly.
There is no easy fix to this problem.
I think this also can be seen as supporting evidence for a broad approach of space development. Instead of grand national prestige systems, you could have multiple more commercial and more modest operating capabilities. -
#30 by eeergo on 28 Apr, 2008 10:24
-
Quote
janmb - 28/4/2008 9:48 AM The criticism is most definitely warranted, lots of good factual data, but I can't help but feel it is a bit biased and seen through an exclusively american point of view itself. It most certainly does nothing in the way of reconciling or encouraging the change it concludes as necessary (but that's clearly not the purpose of the article in the first place) (edited for spelling)
I agree with this, the facts are hard and solid but are presented in a way that leads to the not-very-good-informed eye to conclude the Russian space program is a mess and the US shouldn't rely on them in anything important. That's not probably what Jim wants to transmit, but nevertheless it solely reflects America's problems with the Russian way of doing things, or just their fears.
While I agree some attitudes in the RSA should urgently change, as almost everyone agrees, I still don't think this type of articles are too useful. For the biased people, it gives arguments to bash Russians and reinforce their ideas, if they're pro-America, or just an excuse to say Americans are agressively accusing them of everything, for a pro-Russian. In my opinion, it should contain some counter-balance instead of focusing so much on every failure, listing them as an endless succession of near-disasters.
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.
-
#31 by janmb on 28 Apr, 2008 10:35
-
Quote
eeergo - 28/4/2008 11:24 AM
That's not probably what Jim wants to transmit, but nevertheless it solely reflects America's problems with the Russian way of doing things, or just their fears.While I agree some attitudes in the RSA should urgently change, as almost everyone agrees, I still don't think this type of articles are too useful. For the biased people, it gives arguments to bash Russians and reinforce their ideas, if they're pro-America, or just an excuse to say Americans are agressively accusing them of everything, for a pro-Russian.
My point precisely
-
#32 by William Barton on 28 Apr, 2008 11:16
-
Quote
meiza - 28/4/2008 5:38 AM
The problem with the private Dragon (or Cygnus but that's more just cargo) is that they could very well be wildly unreliable, especially early on. Just look at SpaceX's track record, or look at any manned spacecraft (perhaps except Apollo after the fire)...
Also, if ESA and the usual European industrial partners start working on a craft, it will take decades and cost many many billions, both to develop and to fly.
There is no easy fix to this problem.
I think this also can be seen as supporting evidence for a broad approach of space development. Instead of grand national prestige systems, you could have multiple more commercial and more modest operating capabilities.
I think the point should be, if we have multiple paths to ISS supply and crew rotation then, in the sad event one or more of them fails, one or more others will still be flying. Think back to 1967, when Apollo and Soyuz both killed crews. What if, in the wake of Columbia, a Soyuz had then gone down? I'd like to see an enhanced COTS program. I realize the problem is budget. -
#33 by Jim on 28 Apr, 2008 11:21
-
Quote
pm1823 - 27/4/2008 11:50 PM
Nothing new and tech-related in this article, just political speculations.
And what is the matter with that? Also I wouldn't call them "speculations"? -
#34 by meiza on 28 Apr, 2008 11:22
-
Well, on the other hand, would you rather have one system that is 98% reliable in not killing the crew or two independent systems which both are 96% reliable? You might get more dead people in the latter case, but can operate faster after crashes.
The ability to bring a crew safely back is needed just as much even when there are multiple systems. -
#35 by Quindar on 28 Apr, 2008 11:30
-
A great read, disturbing, Thanks to Jim Oberg. Makes the "GAP" seem even an even worse idea !
-
#36 by Jim on 28 Apr, 2008 11:31
-
Quote
simonbp - 28/4/2008 12:49 AM
Well, crewed ATV might never happen, but NASA is _already_ funding a Soyuz alternative, and it's called Dragon. (Yes, Jim, Cap D isn't formally funded, but the differences between the manned and unmanned versions are minimal). If both Dragon and Cygnus work out, NASA won't need to buy any Russian services during (or after) the gap...
Simon
No, NASA is not funded a Soyuz alternative. It is paying to see some demos of a cargo ship. It never imposed any manrating requirements on SpaceX for the launch vehicle or spacecraft, except for the minimal amount that allow it to dock with the ISS.
"but the differences between the manned and unmanned versions are minimal"
Incorrect. The cargo dragon is nothing but a pressure shell. It is doesn't have a life support system or any features for crew. There is no escape system nor a hatch for the crew to escape.
Also, in Spacex's infinite wisdom and grand scheme to make SLC-40 their own, they just destroyed the UT and MST which could have served to provide access to a manned Dragon. This will only make a manned Dragon later
-
#37 by clongton on 28 Apr, 2008 11:43
-
Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008 7:31 AM
Any early-up of Dragon (Option-D), will need to fly on an EELV.
Also, in Spacex's infinite wisdom and grand scheme to make SLC-40 their own, they just destroyed the UT and MST which could have served to provide access to a manned Dragon. This will only make a manned Dragon later
Please take any followup to the Soyuz Alternative thread. -
#38 by strangeluck on 28 Apr, 2008 13:50
-
Quote
From the article:
But if that were the case, the mystery remains as to why the rocket section eventually did detach itself, because it is constructed with attachment structures robust enough for coasting flight but fragile enough to teat apart once the aerodynamic stresses of entry begin.
The grammar here leaves me confused... was the module designed to separate by aerodynamic forces if the bolts failed or not? If so, then the designers should be applauded for having forseen such situation and successfully accommodated it. It's not a means of
returning you should rely on, so they should definitely put a lot of attention to fixing the separation problem. But I think this mishap demonstrates the robust design of Soyuz. -
#39 by brihath on 28 Apr, 2008 13:52
-
Quote
Jim - 28/4/2008 7:21 AM
Quotepm1823 - 27/4/2008 11:50 PM
Nothing new and tech-related in this article, just political speculations.
And what is the matter with that? Also I wouldn't call them "speculations"?
I agree with you, Jim. I am convinced that the knowledgable people on this site are looking at this from a safety of flight perspective, and there is action required before another crew flies on a Soyuz. Two incidents in a row are a valid cause for concern. This has nothing to do with Russia or NASA bashing.
