I was looking at (
www.spacefacts de/) and found these 2 photos of the Soyuz TM 29 landing in August 1999.
Upon landing, you can see the flames as the surrounding brush starts burning.
The second photo shows how burnt the module actually got.
Does anyone know what the "broken" ring in the foreground is?
It's a thermal protection cover for parachute strops channel which placed around the SA hatch.
Might be some interesting lessons for the Orion designers in this - I wonder whether Orion could handle a service module separation failure.
No. I tried to get this requirement in, but it was shot down. It wouldn't have even cost that much or weighed that much. Expose the sep mechanizms to the airstream and make the cabin out of titanium or stainless is about all it would take.
The Russians tend to build more robust systems than we do.
Danny
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_rss20
This sounds like a low reliability area. Is triple redundancy needed?
The pyros have redundancy, but one piece of metal in the wrong place can leave you stuck together. In a Soyuz, you get to live, in Orion, you will die.
Danny
snip
Aerodynamic-induced module separation may be a good backup, but once we begin to rely on the backup system in lieu of the primary system, it's time for a serious re-examination of the system as a whole.
Good point. Backups shouldn't be used two times in a row.
Danny
FYI - an update. The pyro returned from the Soyuz during the EVA last summer was detonated on the ground with no issues. Apparently fired just fine.
Suffradini says they filed it as an 'unexplained anomaly' and have moved on.
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_rss20
This sounds like a low reliability area. Is triple redundancy needed?
The pyros have redundancy, but one piece of metal in the wrong place can leave you stuck together. In a Soyuz, you get to live, in Orion, you will die.
Danny
Orion could be changed to a biconic, Discoverer or lifting body shape with a PICA nose and SIRCA side wall.
Then SM attached reentry would still have the TPS facing the reentry.
The blunt cone design also could be covered with SIRCA or LRSI/HRSI tiles on it's top side which should protect the capsule long enough for the SM attachments to burn through.
The biggest worry would be keeping the front hatch and parachutes from getting cooked.
Plus the added protection must not impact reusability of the capsule so nothing that will leave hard to remove deposits.
Though SM sep failure would be fatal on a lunar mission for any vehicle since a ballistic reentry at those speeds is not survivable.
On a side note I know of no instances of a SM separation failure on a US space vehicle I believe they use a very different method of attachment that lends it's self to redundancy.