The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames

• #60 by DarthVader on 28 Apr, 2008 17:58
• sammie, not the sounds like a "Spelling Nazi" especially since my english is most of time very incorrect, but it's "voila" and NOT "viola" ... for some raison it's a very common mistake for non-french speaking folks ...
• #61 by sammie on 28 Apr, 2008 18:02
• excuse moi
  
  as to Jim's response
  
  Nope, I would rely even less on Russian newspapers for my daily news as I would on CNN/Fox and others.
• #62 by Jim on 28 Apr, 2008 18:02
• The perfect example that is a typical Russian response is the Kirsk accident.  
  The finger pointing and excuses started right away.
• #63 by Jorge on 28 Apr, 2008 18:02
• Quote

  extropiandreams - 28/4/2008  12:01 PM
  
  the soyuz has flown 1700+ times. the soyuz capsule, don't now exactly how often - but well since 40 years.

  
  Not as many as people seem to think, due to the fact that the Soyuz has had a low flight rate over most of those 40 years. When TMA-11 landed, it marked the 87th consecutive successful manned Soyuz landing since the Soyuz 11 accident in 1971.
  
  Coincidentally, this now matches the streak of 87 consecutive successful space shuttle landings between STS-26 and STS-113. I won't be a party-pooper by noting what happened on the 88th.
  
  

  Quote

  The russians have to be more open, have to be more honest - but the rsa hasn't lost any people since 1971.

  
  When measuring flight safety statistics, number of flights is all that matters. Years don't matter unless the flight rates are equivalent, and in this case they most certainly are not.
  
  

  Quote

  sorry for my bad english, i don't want to offend anybody, just my opinion.

  
  Same here, not trying to offend, just stating the facts.
• #64 by eeergo on 28 Apr, 2008 18:07
• Quote

  OV-106 - 28/4/2008  5:30 PM  

  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.

  I thought I had let this clearer: I believe there's a serious problem that needs to be corrected with the Soyuz (but not to the extent of grounding systems or anything like that, or at least not yet, and with all the time they have until TMA-12 landing) Extropiandreams has made a good post that explains more or less what I tried to express.

  I also agree more openness should be exhibited from the Russian side, most of all with the general public (how can it be we were told until a few days ago there were no separation problems with TMA-10!) If they aren't sure, by ground documentation, the same problem won't re-occur again, I think the way to go would be to orchestrate an EVA and inspect the separation systems, that I remember reading would be accessible. Strella could help, I think there's nothing technical that forbids this approach.

  What I say is: of course the US has all the rights to request a thorough investigation and full access to it and its findings (I would even say the American, European and Japanese public should have it too) BUT I don't see how remembering past mismanagements in a long list of errors (some of them not technically related to the problem here) can help to get anywhere in mutual understanding and future open cooperation. It will only make biases more pronounced. And well, I did find the language a bit strong in some points, but I agree its importance may vary depending on the attitude you read it with.

• #65 by eeergo on 28 Apr, 2008 18:16

• Quote

  Jim - 28/4/2008  7:02 PM  The perfect example that is a typical Russian response is the Kirsk accident.    The finger pointing and excuses started right away.

  Not to be nitpicking, but it's Kursk

  I'm sorry, but this sounds like an extrapolation... while maybe being partly true something similar may be happening here, using a completely different accident isn't a very reliable way of arguing your views.
  

• #66 by extropiandreams on 28 Apr, 2008 18:23
• --simonbp
  
  Every organiztion in every country is doing this. The F-15 gets grounded, and your air force is trying to sell more f-22 to the congress. On the other hand things are invented and falsified, iraq war for example. Even boeing and airbus aren't honest all the time about potential serious problems. Sometimes if there is a whistleblower, they even try to silence them by pressure by law.(like the airbus case concerning the cabin pressure system).
  
  There is no censorship concerning such problems(in the press) in russia(there might be some problems concerning political topics on russian tv, however, or some military programs), and it was interfax which first cited the unknown source.(russian press is as bad as the western press as far as this topic is concerned)
  
  Ok, russia has a different culture, and they are somewhat special. And maybe the rsa and the russian companies don't want to see every conclusion in the public. But i believe they will work hard on the problem and will be honest with nasa. Maybe they are so silent because whatever they do, russian technology gets bashed anyway. I'm not from russia by the way, but from austria, which is a neutral country, i just want to get such a perspective on this. western media is trying to bash russia on every opportunity, and if it had gone after them, like they predicted there would be no russian spaceflight nowadays. (remember what the media said in 97,98 ?)
  
  ok, perhaps the reason why they are so silent has it's ground in the reaction of western media, which try to see in every russian problem a systematic problem of the russian society. Russia has changed, and is changing rapidly, and many people seem to ignore it.
  
  back to the topic: the soyuz fullfilled it's mission, but it's not ok for such a system to rely on backup modes constantly. perhaps they can change the flight profile, to minimize the risk for the next landing. russians are very flexible in this regard, so i hope that the greatest strength of the russian(improvisation) will help to minimize the risk, even if the backup landing mode has shown it's risky but workable.
• #67 by Norm Hartnett on 28 Apr, 2008 18:24
• Quote

  janmb - 28/4/2008  1:48 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)
  
  

  
  This troubled me too. It is not the kind of article I would have expected to see on this site. I would reword this comment to read "seen through an exclusively american point of view" to read "seen through an exclusively older American point of view" though. There are so many vestages of the cold warriors hanging about on both sides of the issue that we are best off waiting for some technical results rather than indulging in politics.
  
  JMO
• #68 by extropiandreams on 28 Apr, 2008 18:28
• --Jim
  
  the kursk incident is a different matter because those submarines contain military secrets of strategic nature, the soyuz is a different matter. There are no strategic secrets to hide.......you can't compare this to this case
• #69 by DMeader on 28 Apr, 2008 18:44
• "Strategic secrets" have nothing to do with it. Same thing with Chernobyl. It is simply a matter of an entity not wanting to lose face by admitting there is a problem. We've seen that many times over the years, when details only came out by drips and drabs as a result of outside pressure.
• #70 by Chris Bergin on 28 Apr, 2008 18:45
• Quote

  Norm Hartnett - 28/4/2008  7:24 PM
  
  

  Quote

  janmb - 28/4/2008  1:48 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)
  
  

  
  This troubled me too. It is not the kind of article I would have expected to see on this site. I would reword this comment to read "seen through an exclusively american point of view" to read "seen through an exclusively older American point of view" though. There are so many vestages of the cold warriors hanging about on both sides of the issue that we are best off waiting for some technical results rather than indulging in politics.
  
  JMO

  
  This is to the three members (Norm, Eeergo and Jan)...on the above point (as all three are along these lines):
  
  1) The article represents both points of views (notably including the Russian media angle, of which a lot of it is negative, with their "sources").
  
  2) It also gives the counter points, including the heavy angles of so called "American" involvement with regards to said negative angles.
  
  3) It gives several historical references of the above, with extensive background.
  
  4) It's a hell of a lot better than paraphrasing those Russian media reports, as most have run with.
  
  5) As noted, and despite so many reports already out there, this is not giving the results of the investigation, as that is still pending. It's giving a summary of historical references, the above points, and both sides of the argument.
  
  Yes, it is a different type of article as you'd normally see here, as I write 99 percent of the content and I'm a quote based/documentation type writer, but given who the writer is (as opposed to someone without any insight), and given this is - imho - a lot better than the paraphrased copy-and-paste type articles already out there, it was viable to run and I stand by it.
• #71 by Namechange User on 28 Apr, 2008 18:47
• Quote

  extropiandreams - 28/4/2008  1:23 PM
  
  --simonbp
  
  Every organiztion in every country is doing this. The F-15 gets grounded, and your air force is trying to sell more f-22 to the congress. On the other hand things are invented and falsified, iraq war for example.

  
  So much for being "neutral".  It seems you are just as guilty as taking certain media reports as gospel as well.
• #72 by edkyle99 on 28 Apr, 2008 19:11
• Quote

  Chris Bergin - 28/4/2008  1:45 PM
  
  Yes, it is a different type of article as you'd normally see here, as I write 99 percent of the content and I'm a quote based/documentation type writer, but given who the writer is (as opposed to someone without any insight), and given this is - imho - a lot better than the paraphrased copy-and-paste type articles already out there, it was viable to run and I stand by it.

  
  Chris,
  
  As I read it, Jim's writeup seemed like a commentary, an editorial type piece.  He raises good points worthy of consideration, but perhaps a "Special Editorial" type heading would have been appropriate for a piece that has obviously hit some nerves.
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #73 by Stowbridge on 28 Apr, 2008 19:17
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 28/4/2008  2:11 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Chris Bergin - 28/4/2008  1:45 PM
  
  Yes, it is a different type of article as you'd normally see here, as I write 99 percent of the content and I'm a quote based/documentation type writer, but given who the writer is (as opposed to someone without any insight), and given this is - imho - a lot better than the paraphrased copy-and-paste type articles already out there, it was viable to run and I stand by it.

  
  Chris,
  
  As I read it, Jim's writeup seemed like a commentary, an editorial type piece.  He raises good points worthy of consideration, but perhaps a "Special Editorial" type heading would have been appropriate for a piece that has obviously hit some nerves.
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  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.
• #74 by Jason Davies on 28 Apr, 2008 19:17
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 28/4/2008  2:11 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Chris Bergin - 28/4/2008  1:45 PM
  
  Yes, it is a different type of article as you'd normally see here, as I write 99 percent of the content and I'm a quote based/documentation type writer, but given who the writer is (as opposed to someone without any insight), and given this is - imho - a lot better than the paraphrased copy-and-paste type articles already out there, it was viable to run and I stand by it.

  
  Chris,
  
  As I read it, Jim's writeup seemed like a commentary, an editorial type piece.  He raises good points worthy of consideration, but perhaps a "Special Editorial" type heading would have been appropriate for a piece that has obviously hit some nerves.
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  I believe he did add it was a special, Ed.
• #75 by extropiandreams on 28 Apr, 2008 19:19
• -- OV-106
  
  (EDITED: I've already warned you about going on about Iraq. I've let you have your say, it's been answered, now leave it - James).
  
  back to the topic:
  
  i heard that the hatch wasn't burned at all, my question is was the container of the parachutes burned ? and are they specially protected ?(there are two of them as i know?)
• #76 by Chris Bergin on 28 Apr, 2008 19:23
• Quote

  edkyle99 - 28/4/2008  8:11 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Chris Bergin - 28/4/2008  1:45 PM
  
  Yes, it is a different type of article as you'd normally see here, as I write 99 percent of the content and I'm a quote based/documentation type writer, but given who the writer is (as opposed to someone without any insight), and given this is - imho - a lot better than the paraphrased copy-and-paste type articles already out there, it was viable to run and I stand by it.

  
  Chris,
  
  As I read it, Jim's writeup seemed like a commentary, an editorial type piece.  He raises good points worthy of consideration, but perhaps a "Special Editorial" type heading would have been appropriate for a piece that has obviously hit some nerves.
  
   - Ed Kyle

  
  I thought I had tagged it as required, and it's also in the "Features" section, not the news sections ( http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/cat.asp?cid=12 ) - though that isn't obvious on a direct link. I'll add the word "Editorial" to the "Special" to be on the safe side
• #77 by JimO on 28 Apr, 2008 19:27
• janmb - 28/4/2008 1:48 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)
  
  Norm Hartnett: 28/4/2008 1:24 PM -- This troubled me too. It is not the kind of article I would have expected to see on this site. I would reword this comment to read "seen through an exclusively american point of view" to read "seen through an exclusively older American point of view" though. There are so many vestages of the cold warriors hanging about on both sides of the issue that we are best off waiting for some technical results rather than indulging in politics.
  
  Norm, I accept your comment as an ‘older’ American and a ‘cold warrior’ as a compliment (both for surviving this long, and for enlisting on the right side of that world conflict), and have to add that the best ‘America bashers’ in the world are Americans themselves… one of many odd traits of our popular culture (so knee-jerk nationalistic defensiveness is beaten out of us pretty thoroughly).
  
  The point of view of my essays (and your point is well taken – perhaps they often should be labeled as ‘analysis’ rather ‘reportage’) reflect my experiences, which are mainly as a professional student of and participant in human spaceflight engineering and operations for more than four decades, as well as front-line activism in investigation of claims about Soviet/Russian aerospace technology, activities I conducted in close collaboration with English, Dutch, Belgian, Canadian, and even Russian colleagues.  
  
  Our concern was to find out what WAS, and we racked up an impressive string of successful revelations over the years -- often prodding or prompting officials to release hitherto concealed or distorted information. The approach certainly spilled over into political and ideological themes, whether it was the Moon Race, or space weapons, or the accused involvement of the space shuttle in the Korean Airlines flight 007 catastrophe – but by trying always to determine what made engineering sense, we could cut through all the enveloping nonsense spread by folks who picked their conclusions first, and manipulated the facts to fit.
  
  That’s got to be the central focus of this site, and of our communal desires – first of all, what is real, what is true? Perhaps a good example of how some folks lose sight of this is the comments on the Mars-96 plutonium (my main criticism is of the US government, on this account, by the way, for not correcting its preliminary claims about the probe falling safely into the Pacific). There’s an impression some posts might leave here that plutonium canisters scattered on dry land are nothing to worry about and there’s no use warning local inhabitants by issuing warnings or other alarming announcements, and it’s best to keep the lid on this incendiary topic – or it’s somehow ‘biased’ or ‘American’ to object to that approach. Chris, do you want to start a separate discussion on this specific example, or would a brief exchange of comments here, pretty well cover all angles?
  
• #78 by eeergo on 28 Apr, 2008 19:31

• Quote

  Chris Bergin - 28/4/2008  7:45 PM This is to the three members (Norm, Eeergo and Jan)...on the above point (as all three are along these lines):  1) The article represents both points of views (notably including the Russian media angle, of which a lot of it is negative, with their "sources").  2) It also gives the counter points, including the heavy angles of so called "American" involvement with regards to said negative angles.  3) It gives several historical references of the above, with extensive background.  4) It's a hell of a lot better than paraphrasing those Russian media reports, as most have run with.  5) As noted, and despite so many reports already out there, this is not giving the results of the investigation, as that is still pending. It's giving a summary of historical references, the above points, and both sides of the argument.  Yes, it is a different type of article as you'd normally see here, as I write 99 percent of the content and I'm a quote based/documentation type writer, but given who the writer is (as opposed to someone without any insight), and given this is - imho - a lot better than the paraphrased copy-and-paste type articles already out there, it was viable to run and I stand by it.

  I can see the points you're making, and I've re-read the article to see if I had somehow got a distorted impression of what its message was. Actually, I see two well-defined parts: the first half is quite balanced (for my point of view) and adresses real concerns, with sources in both the Russian non-babbling side and the American opinions.

  However, after Gernstenmeier's part a more debatable point of view is progressively taken, starting with Cold-War-like accusations between the two parts, not related to the Soyuz problem. I can see this as a historical background, but I see it having more importance than it should. Same applies to the Soyuz-5 reference, and the last "chapter" ("The heart of the problem") is too accusatory for my liking, with the Mars96 reminder and the strong last paragraphs. This part, being at the end, is more easily remembered as the main message of the article.

  Sometimes a bit more diplomatic approach helps in touchy subjects like this one. 

  I don't think the site shouldn't be featuring this type of articles from time to time, and in fact I find they spark an interesting debate, richer than the mere speculation media-quoting would yield. But a Russian author would write quite a different view, and probably be quite right in turn. I disagree on some ways of reasoning the article has, but one of this forum's greatness is the arena it provides to civily discuss these matters and maybe make our ideas converge.
  

• #79 by TJL on 28 Apr, 2008 20:36
• Is there any serious talk of grounding the Soyuz until an investigation determines the cause, or perhaps launching an unmanned Soyuz in order to test the landing without a crew on board?