LIVE: Soyuz TMA-M undocking and landing - March 16, 2011

[anik]

Soyuz TMA-M undocking from Poisk module is planned at 04:27 UTC on March 16. The crew: commander Aleksandr Kaleri, flight engineer-1 Oleg Skripochka, flight engineer-2 Scott Kelly.

After the undocking Aleksandr Kaleri will perform Soyuz TMA-M stationkeeping at 20 m. Then he will do Soyuz TMA-M stationkeeping at 50 m with brief test of motion control system and other systems. After that at 04:39 UTC he will carry out Soyuz TMA-M breakout from ISS.

Soyuz TMA-M deorbit burn is planned at 06:57 UTC and landing at area north-est of Arkalyk - at 07:47 UTC.

[JimO]

Released minutes ago in NASA's daily ISS status report

   Soyuz 24S Post-Undock Tests: Teams in Moscow and Houston are conducting final analyses of some tests being planned by RSC-Energia/TsUP for the new-design Soyuz 24S immediately upon undocking next Wednesday (3/16), particularly in view of the on-orbit installation of new M4294M Microamperemeter rate measurement assemblies (“ammeters”) by Alex Kaleri on 2/2 in the Neptun-ME crew console (PKSA) in response to an instrumentation failure during 24S ascent last year. There will be two types of post-undock tests:

[1]   Test of the manual LVLH (local vertical/local horizontal) attitude-keeping mode of the new digital Soyuz avionics systems.

   The test takes 5 minutes or less. The crew and ground will monitor thruster activation. LVLH is not the most important part of this test, the most important is that the hand controllers work and the thrusters fire.

   This test will not affect entry and landing regardless of the outcome.

[2]   Ammeter test of the data from the new on-orbit installed roll rate instruments

*** If test is nominal, the crew will have all 4 landing modes available (two automatic, two manual); but if we can’t do an automated entry for any reason (based on miss distance, not the ammeter test) the crew can then do a manual entry.
*** If the rate gyros in the ammeter test are not operational then we will go into a ballistic descent. If there are issues with 2 of 3 ammeters then we will go into the reserve ballistic mode.

[JimO]

Today's report says the installation occurred Feb 2, and sure enough,

ISS On-Orbit Status 02/02/11
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2011/02022011.html
Kaleri worked ~2 hrs in Soyuz TMA-01M/24S (#701, docked at MRM2), outfitting it with four M4294M Microamperemeter assemblies which he installed at instrument panel locations. Documentary photography was then taken and downlinked for a tagup with ground specialists.


We didn't seem to notice that report at that time:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21500.300

[Space Pete]

I think this explains why we didn't get the flyaround - RSC-Energia seem to have some pretty big concerns with their instrumentation panel if they have elected to do this.

[JimO]

I think this explains why we didn't get the flyaround - RSC-Energia seem to have some pretty big concerns with their instrumentation panel if they have elected to do this.

Pete, that half-explains it. Be patient.

But even alone, you're right, this issue was a NO-GO for the flyabout.

As was another. Hint: hssssssss......

[e of pi]

I think this explains why we didn't get the flyaround - RSC-Energia seem to have some pretty big concerns with their instrumentation panel if they have elected to do this.

Pete, that half-explains it. Be patient.

But even alone, you're right, this issue was a NO-GO for the flyabout.

As was another. Hint: hssssssss......

Leaks!? I hope not! Do you have a source?

EDIT: Or worse: Snakes!

[Space Pete]

I think this explains why we didn't get the flyaround - RSC-Energia seem to have some pretty big concerns with their instrumentation panel if they have elected to do this.

Pete, that half-explains it. Be patient.

But even alone, you're right, this issue was a NO-GO for the flyabout.

As was another. Hint: hssssssss......

Leaks!? I hope not! Do you have a source?

EDIT: Or worse: Snakes!

The sequel to Snakes on a Plane: Snakes on a Soyuz!

Jim, there were also pressurisation issues during some of the recent landings of the TMA variant. Do you know whether the pressure issue is specifically related to 24S (i.e. does the issue relate to the same piece of hardware)?

[JimO]

We're only hours away from posting my story at the IEEE Spectrum site. I'll post backup URL sources here as soon as the item is on-line. Sorry for the sneakiness, my editors like to be able to say "as reported here first...". 

It's a game, I prefer the old saw, "It's amazing how much you can get done when nobody cares who gets the credit," but there's 'credit', and there's 'cash'....

[JimO]

The story is up, here:

Digital Soyuz Return Could Be Rocky

POSTED BY: JAMES OBERG  /  FRI, MARCH 11, 2011


http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/digital-soyuz-return-could-be-rocky

In addition, a helpful associate pointed me to page 31 of this report:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/517138main_Uhran%20ISS%20Status%20to%20NAC%20Feb%208%202011.pdf

[Spiff]

Thank you for that. Very informative. And, to be honest, scary.

[vt_hokie]

Thank you for that. Very informative. And, to be honest, scary.

+1.  Hope the return trip goes smoothly...

[JimO]

+1.  Hope the return trip goes smoothly...

The Soyuz is designed with a number of fall-back techniques that provide survivable degradation. Problem is -- support forces such as recovery teams have also been cut back so off-course landings have become more, not less, hazardous. Bigger problem is -- how can we be confident we're getting full and candid information relative to flight safety for our people?

Wednesday will definitely be a descent warrenting serious attention and we'll all be gathered here, if we can do without the sleep (or the salaries).

[TJL]

IIRC, all previous "modified" versions of Soyuz were flown for the first time unmanned.
I understand the mechanics that were upgraded were flown prior to this flight in an unmanned Progress mission, however is this the first time a "new" version of Soyuz was flown with a crew without the benefit of an unmanned flight?
Thanks.

[Jorge]

IIRC, all previous "modified" versions of Soyuz were flown for the first time unmanned.
I understand the mechanics that were upgraded were flown prior to this flight in an unmanned Progress mission, however is this the first time a "new" version of Soyuz was flown with a crew without the benefit of an unmanned flight?
Thanks.

The first TMA was manned.

[JimO]

The first TMA was manned.

True -- but the mods were for the 'A', "anthropomorphic", focusing on increased crew size envelope. I don't recall that there were any flight control upgrades -- see my story here:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/10152002soyuzimprove_sta.html which describes how the Russians considered an unmanned test, argued that it was unnecessary because of the small scale of the upgrades, and NASA agreed. Was NASA given the same opportunity for TMA-M?

This time, te new digital control system was flown on several Progress-M missions in the past two years, up through rendezvous, separation, and deorbit -- just none involving entry control.

The availability of several robust downmode options is reassuring but it will still be a relief to watch the new system perform properly for landing -- as I'd give at least even odds it will do.

[anik]

Timeline (in UTC) for Wednesday's test and landing:

Undocking - 04:27 (dV = 0.12 m/s)
Separation burn - 04:30 (dV = 0.35 m/s, dT = 10 s)
Stationkeeping - 04:31 (test)
Separation burn - 04:39 (dV = 0.72 m/s, dT = 20 s)
Deorbit burn - 06:58:15-07:02:37 (dV = 115.2 m/s, dT = 261,3 s)
Entry - 07:22:56
Opening parachute command - 07:34:20
Landing - 07:49:20 (50 35 N, 67 06 E)

[Space Pete]

Per NASA TV, strong winds and blowing snows are forecasted at the landing site at the time of touchdown.

[JimO]

Part 2 of my big story on digital Soyuz problems secrecy is on 'The Space Review' this morning:

Soyuz landing tests new systems and old secrecy habits
by James Oberg // Monday, March 14, 2011
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1799/1
   The launch of the upgraded “digital Soyuz” last October was a shakedown cruise for the new model manned spacecraft that will soon become the planet’s only vehicle transporting crews to the International Space Station (ISS) for years to come. As expected (even as hoped), some problems arose, and were responded to by Russian flight controllers.
   The treatment of those problems, especially in how much was disclosed to Russia’s NASA customers (contractually such, on a cash basis—not bartering/swapping “partners” as earlier on ISS) and the general public, was another kind of “shakedown cruise” for the next five years or more of US dependence on Russian space capabilities and space candor. Here, too, problems have cropped out, and it’s not yet clear how they will ultimately be handled.

[Danderman]

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=228309

"The first modernized manned spaceship Soyuz TMA-M may have a ballistic landing on Wednesday, NASA said.

Soyuz TMA-M commander Alexander Kaleri will test angular speed sensors after the ship undocks from the International Space Station (ISS). The other crewmembers of Soyuz TMA-M are Oleg Skripochka and Scott Kelly.

If a problem occurs, the astronauts may experience G8 to G10 in the ballistic return, NASA said.

Astronauts experience G3 to G4 in the case of a regular return.

NASA explained the planned check of angular speed sensors with the failure of the landing capsule's analog signal processing system, which happened on October 9, 2010, on the second day of Soyuz TMA-M's flight to the ISS. As a result, data from angular speed sensors stopped being displayed on the Neptun-ME console."

Did NASA really explain all this?   

[Ronsmytheiii]

"The first modernized manned spaceship Soyuz TMA-M may have a ballistic landing on Wednesday, NASA said.

For reference, TMA-1, 10, and 11 experienced ballistic landings but for different reasons (not sure about before then)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/04/the-real-soyuz-problem-looking-past-the-smoke-and-flames/