The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames

• #40 by clongton on 28 Apr, 2008 14:00
• Quote

  brihath - 28/4/2008  9:52 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 28/4/2008  7:21 AM
  
  

  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"?

  
  I agree with you, Jim.  I am convinced that the knowledgeable 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.

  Two incidents in a row with a third currently docked at ISS as the crew's only way home. It most definitely is a cause for concern - from a purely technical point of view.
  
  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.
• #41 by TyMoore on 28 Apr, 2008 14:15
• With the apparent problems of a pyrotechnic based explosive bolt configuration (atleast with the ones used by Soyuz,) I wonder if an all mechanical alternative could be used. Thinking like an engineer, using something like a 'spherical capture claw' to engage slotted pins might be a viable alternative. Using mechanical actuators gives the possibility of using a 'hand cranked' ultimate backup seperation system--that and with some pushoff springs ought to be a possible alternative. Granted--there would have to be substantial engineering involved, and maybe even  a bit of weight penalty.
  
  Also, does anyone know if the Russians use "Double Initiated" Pyro-devices for their seperation, and range safety hardware like most Western Space Agencies?
• #42 by DaveS on 28 Apr, 2008 14:19
• Quote

  TyMoore - 28/4/2008  4:15 PM
  and range safety hardware like most Western Space Agencies?

  No range saftey.
• #43 by edkyle99 on 28 Apr, 2008 15:13
• A question I've been pondering:  How does this module separation failure relate to launch abort systems?  
  
  Clearly, the reentry module must separate from the service and orbital modules during a launch abort sequence.  If a module separation issue existed during the Soyuz TMA-11 and Soyuz TMA-10 launches, would it be fair to say that the crews unknowingly rode vehicles with unsurvivable abort systems?
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #44 by brihath on 28 Apr, 2008 15:22
• Ed-  Excellent point.  I thought the abort mode pulled the complete spacecraft stack off the R-7, then separated the shroud, OM and SM.  There could concievably be an abort survivability issue here, too.  It would be nice if a Soyuz subject matter expert (Possibly Jim Oberg?) could weigh in on this possibility.
• #45 by kevin-rf on 28 Apr, 2008 15:22
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 28/4/2008  11:13 AM
  
  A question I've been pondering:  How does this module separation failure relate to launch abort systems?  
  
  Clearly, the reentry module must separate from the service and orbital modules during a launch abort sequence.  If a module separation issue existed during the Soyuz TMA-11 and Soyuz TMA-10 launches, would it be fair to say that the crews unknowingly rode vehicles with unsurvivable abort systems?
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  What are the loads in both situations, I was under the impression that the connection between the service and reenty modules was not strong enough to support the weight of a fully fueled service module. Meaning the shroud and reentry module would tear free of the service module even if the seperation pryo's failed to operate during an abort.
  
  What worries me more is you have a service module with residual fuel undergoing heating before breaking free ... I fear something very bad could happen ...
• #46 by clongton on 28 Apr, 2008 15:22
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 28/4/2008  11:13 AM
  
  ... would it be fair to say that the crews unknowingly rode vehicles with unsurvivable abort systems?
   - Ed Kyle

  I don’t think so Ed. Mind you this is opinion, based on what I know about Soyuz, but I believe the forces induced by a launch abort exceed the yield strength of the pyrotechnic bolts. It’s the same with the ballistic re-entry; the aerodynamic forces also eventually exceed the bolts yield strength, it just takes a little longer. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
• #47 by TyMoore on 28 Apr, 2008 16:00
• It's still a crew abort survivability issue: the deployment of the reentry module's parachutes depends on the jettisoning of the orbital module. Even if the parachutes did not snarl or are cut from abrasion with the orbital module still attached, the added weight and the screwy CG would make the thing wholly uncontrollable. The whole mess would crash very hard, with dire consequences for the crew I'm afraid...
  
• #48 by Namechange User on 28 Apr, 2008 16:30
• Quote

  eeergo - 28/4/2008  5:24 AM
  
  

  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.
  

  
  What??  
  
  There is a problem.  Two ballistic entries in a row.  The United States is about to become even more of a paying customer to Russia for access to the ISS.  We should be concerned and I fail to see how somehow the US can be at fault for having these concerns.
• #49 by pm1823 on 28 Apr, 2008 16:37
• //With the apparent problems of a pyrotechnic based explosive bolt configuration (atleast with the ones used by Soyuz,)
  
  In the modules separation process used "pyro-lock" or "pyro-knife" for cables. Where you all and JimO takes these "pyrobolts" in the Soyuz?!
  If electrical ignition failed pyro-lock has own   independent high-thermal initiator which should work before other significant thermal or aerodynamic load will open it. And it works, as we see on TMA-10 or TMA-11 descent.
  
  //And what is the matter with that? Also I wouldn't call them "speculations"?
  
  And what is purpose for a such politics? Crew safety? For Soyuz, which have been build only for descent survival capability?
  As we can see, crews are alive and safe on the ground, other is a low-tech-based political speculation. No credible sources used (that "Interfax source" was talking before capsule and thermal shield arriving from Kazakhstan and telemetry data downloading), wrong terms used, shallow technical describing etc. It can be excusable, for ppl talking about rumors on the forum, but can't for expert's article.
  If Mr.Oberg competent enough, he should know, that  Soyuz' crew has more danger to stay on orbit for the very long time, if engine failed, than to die in the descent. And we haven't "always ready" Soyuz-rescue for the LON! Let's talk about it, where this main safety issue rising in that article? And its opening the question, is this article has more your political patriotic "gap" issue, than "Soyuz' crew safety"?
  
  PS I'm really want to see that plutonium from Mars-96... and I DO NOT like some "s-words" used in that article, like "Pusillanimous pussy-footing with Russian paranoia".
• #50 by clongton on 28 Apr, 2008 16:38
• Quote

  OV-106 - 28/4/2008  12:30 PM
  
  

  Quote

  eeergo - 28/4/2008  5:24 AM
  
  

  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.
  

  
  What??  
  
  There is a problem.  Two ballistic entries in a row.  The United States is about to become even more of a paying customer to Russia for access to the ISS.  We should be concerned and I fail to see how somehow the US can be at fault for having these concerns.

  Two in a row, a third on station and no alternate ride home on the manifest. That's a problem regardless of the flag.
• #51 by Chris Bergin on 28 Apr, 2008 16:40
• Quote

  pm1823 - 28/4/2008  5:37 PM
   I DO NOT like some "s-words" used in that article, like "Pusillanimous pussy-footing with Russian paranoia".

  
  What "S words"? There's no swear words in what you quoted and no swear words in any article ever published on this site. Translators making a mess of it?
• #52 by ShuttleDiscovery on 28 Apr, 2008 16:44
• Quote

  TyMoore - 28/4/2008  5:00 PM
  
  It's still a crew abort survivability issue: the deployment of the reentry modules parachutes depends on the jettisoning of the orbital module. Even if the parachutes did not snarl or are cut from abrasion with the orbital module still attached, the added weight and the screwy CG would make the thing wholly uncontrollable. The whole mess would crash very hard, with dire consequences for the crew I'm afraid...
  

  
  That's what worries me the most with Soyuz. Whether the modules seperated OK and if the parachutes deployed successfully.
  
  I really think they need to fix this urgently and if it's a major issue, fly a new Soyuz up before October to replace TMA-12 on orbit. It's not fair on anyone to put the crew in a vehicle that could kill them or give them extremely high Gs or injury during re-entry and landing.
  
  An earlier post described the possibility of having the crew returning on the Shuttle in case of emergency. Do you think NASA would actually consider this if the Soyuz problem takes a long time to fix? Forget about Shuttle LON - they'd need ISS LON missions too if this were to happen. I suppose the only way they could launch a shuttle at such short notice, especially when all 3 orbiters are into large scale processing, is to take one orbiter out of nominal service all stacked up in the VAB, ready to roll out to the pad when needed. I suppose that would be the most efficient way, but still not as fast as a Soyuz already docked to the station...
  
  Lets just hope they find the cause and deal with it ASAP!  
• #53 by clongton on 28 Apr, 2008 16:58
• The fact that we needed to rely on the backup system to get home, two times in a row, also indicates that, two times in a row the primary system failed. To me, and again this is my opinion, it *suggests* a possible quality control issue in the production run for Soyuz manufacture, somewhere along the line.
  
  There is no doubt in my mind that the primary system has *NO* design flaws. It has worked hundreds of times over many, many years. The design works - period. Something else failed. Personally, I suspect something on the assembly line wasn't done correctly or a subcontractor supplied substandard parts that slipped thru the quality control. Either way, it needs to be identified and corrected, with additional steps taken to prevent a recurrence.
  
  For all our Russian participants on this forum - that is not anything against "Russian" – not at all. I have seen exactly the same kind of quality control issues creep in, over long periods of time, in American companies as well. We do the same thing over and over again, year after year. After a while we’re just not as careful as we otherwise would be. That’s not Russian or American – it’s human. It happens to individuals and companies from all over the earth.
  
  The thing to do is for us to not get all upset over what nationality happened to be holding the cards this time because at some point that describes all of us, but to identify the shortcoming, fix it and take steps to prevent it from happening again.
  
• #54 by extropiandreams on 28 Apr, 2008 17:01
• hmm. the first thing i wondered about is why they could not see the descent of the soyuz on radar, and locate it this way. But it seems that the russian early warning radar in balkhash can't see it because it's too far in the south of kazachstan. (Please correct me if i'm wrong). The russian early warning satellites which perhaps could detect it in infrared are at miminal configuration and are just covering the us. So at least this explains why they could not see where the soyuz comes down.(Which all might change with the new early warning radar going operational this year in the south caucasus and the new early warning system EKS in 2009)
  
  now to the other issues, first of all,  i find it impressive that the soyuz is able to do a survivable landing with a attachted propulsion module, and i believe that this kind of built in security is the way to go. Of course there are qualtity management issues in the russian industry as a whole. And energia is not sukhoi, which is currently implementing boeing management methods in it's production lines. But things are changing.
  
  But i believe it's too early and not ok to draw a conclusion at this stage, an anonymous russian "expert"  is not enough judge the one way or the other. I don't believe that the russians will risk the lives of anybody just because of pride or nationalism. Money is no issue for a country with a budget surplus of 70 billion, 520 billion in currency reserves, and close to no debt.  in fact the russian state is rich compared to the united states these days. a 700 million dollar contract is not relevant for them any longer.
  
  After each problem in the russian space industry, not just this landing, but for example the last Breeze-M failure people are questioning russian reliability, but i just have to say there was a centaur failure not long ago, and of course there was columbia. there is too much nationalism from both sides, and we have to overcome this on both sides. Nobody is making more launches than the russians, so it's no wonder that even with the same reliability there will be more problems on the russian side.
  
  The russians have to investigate this problem, and if they say it's ok to land the next soyuz, or it's ok to launch the next soyuz, i would just trust them. And if people are suggesting that spacex with it's dragon could solve this problem - it's a joke. the soyuz has flown 1700+ times. the soyuz capsule, don't now exactly how often - but well since 40 years. The russians have to be more open, have to be more honest - but the rsa hasn't lost any people since 1971.
  
  sorry for my bad english, i don't want to offend anybody, just my opinion.
• #55 by simonbp on 28 Apr, 2008 17:14
• Quote

  pm1823 - 28/4/2008  10:37 AM
  
  PS I'm really want to see that plutonium from Mars-96...

  
  Here's the IKI website for the mission, noting that the surface stations were powered by 2 small RTGs: http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mars96/08_mars_e.htm#%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%20%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85%20%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC
  
  And the penetrators (specifically noting that used plutonium): http://www.iki.rssi.ru/mars96/09_mars_e.htm#%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8
  
  There's noting sinister about using plutonium; it's a great power source. The issue was that parts of it may have landed on on land, which is still not really a problem, but scares a few paranoid types...
  
  Simon
• #56 by daj24 on 28 Apr, 2008 17:41

• extropiandreams --

  I do not think that anyone is questioning the abilities of our Russian partners in regards to either their ability or desire to fix the problem(s).  I just think that the posturing and denying of a problem is troubling.  Yes, there have been the Challanger and Columbia accidents but because of the nature of our society we put it all on the table for everyone to see.  There was no hiding the problems after the failures (and yes there were management problems before hand that could be attributed to not stopping the failures because the root failure causes were know before hand).  The whole world knew of all our dirty laundry.  We just want our partners to be as open to us so we can be as sure as one can be of our people's (and anyone's) safety in this dangerous launch/orbit/landing business.  

   

  Off topic.  How do you, or where can I find, how to include the topic that you respond to in the body of the post with the vertical bar on the left side? Pls email me or PM.  TIA (Edit: Thanks for the answer!)
   

• #57 by sammie on 28 Apr, 2008 17:47
• I do agree that this is a typical Oberg article. I dislike the over reliance on Russian newspaper sources and the extrapolation from these "sources".  We have had dozens of "stupid US media" threads in this forum, but should we suddenly take Russian newspapers for the printed thruth. The article is called "past smoke and flames" but it barely lives up to it's own name.
  
  As far as I can tell, Oberg has to resort to newspaper sources because the real workings and decision making procedures remain unknown to outsiders. It just seems that Jim have taken speculation from Russian papers for truth, added some of his own experiences from his time in NASA (as described in Star Crossed Orbits) and viola: a 3000 word essay on how things are going wrong. Without actually having seen the data or talked to the people that make the decision.
  
  There are things wrong in Russia, and two landing anomolies are indeed a grave concern. But leave the speculations based on Russian newspapers sources out of it, please...
• #58 by Jim on 28 Apr, 2008 17:53
• Quote

  pm1823 - 28/4/2008  12:37 PM
  As we can see, crews are alive and safe on the ground,

  
  That is not a valid argument as the crews of the flights before Challenger and Columbia were also were alive and safe on the ground
• #59 by Jim on 28 Apr, 2008 17:56
• Quote

  sammie - 28/4/2008  1:47 PM
   But leave the speculations based on Russian newspapers sources out of it, please...

  
  Why?  Aren't they reliable?  Aren't they open?