Author Topic: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy  (Read 6955 times)

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1037
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 483
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #20 on: 10/12/2018 09:18 PM »
Either provider should be able to do a dozen missions in a year with enough planning.

But concerning lead times, could a provider take a mission that is 18 months out and move it up to a mission 6 months out.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #21 on: 10/18/2018 07:29 PM »
Looking like RTF may be accomplished before the year ends.

Quote
However, as it became known to “Kommersant”, the majority of experts involved in investigating the state of emergency with the Soyuz-FG is convinced that the cause of the accident was a mechanical problem that was made during the docking of the side units to the second stage of the rocket at the Baikonur cosmodrome. “Apparently, the damage was caused during the lifting of the side unit with a crane,” says one of the Kommersant interlocutors, who is close to the Russian Ministry of Defense. “This is not a design error and not a factory defect. Rather, we are talking about operational errors. " Roscosmos says that a report on the causes of the incident will be ready by the end of the week.

Not yet confirmed but it would make perfect sense. Damage the valve during the booster lift and mating operation, damage is not noticed, valve doesn't open booster causes the first stage to break up.

Hoping that we get a quick RTF, however, this is basically also the scenario we were concerned about for the long term, which is QC. This shows they still have major QC and training issues and it means another failure like this but on a different part of the vehicle is likely in the future. Still provides alot of incentive to get commercial crew flying ASAP, with no more delays.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6242
  • Liked: 4077
  • Likes Given: 5596
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #22 on: 10/22/2018 01:14 PM »
Looking like RTF may be accomplished before the year ends.

Quote
However, as it became known to “Kommersant”, the majority of experts involved in investigating the state of emergency with the Soyuz-FG is convinced that the cause of the accident was a mechanical problem that was made during the docking of the side units to the second stage of the rocket at the Baikonur cosmodrome. “Apparently, the damage was caused during the lifting of the side unit with a crane,” says one of the Kommersant interlocutors, who is close to the Russian Ministry of Defense. “This is not a design error and not a factory defect. Rather, we are talking about operational errors. " Roscosmos says that a report on the causes of the incident will be ready by the end of the week.

Not yet confirmed but it would make perfect sense. Damage the valve during the booster lift and mating operation, damage is not noticed, valve doesn't open booster causes the first stage to break up.

Hoping that we get a quick RTF, however, this is basically also the scenario we were concerned about for the long term, which is QC. This shows they still have major QC and training issues and it means another failure like this but on a different part of the vehicle is likely in the future. Still provides alot of incentive to get commercial crew flying ASAP, with no more delays.

Quote
According to that report, citing a “space agency source,” a mounting lug was bent when the side booster was “forcefully connected” to the core stage, and that workers then added lubricant to ensure that it would separate. However, during separation, that side booster hit the core stage and damaged it, leading to the launch abort.
https://spacenews.com/roscosmos-to-complete-soyuz-accident-investigation-this-month/

This is again a quality control issue... making a mistake and then covering it up with a jerry-rigged solution.  Fixing that installation step has nothing to do with preventing the next failure because there is an indefinite number of ways an assembly process can be screwed up.  If Soyuz operations resume in weeks, it is a total white-wash.

NASA is 'averting its eyes' -- a management problem.  Where is ASAP?
« Last Edit: 10/22/2018 01:26 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8607
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5235
  • Likes Given: 1690
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #23 on: 10/22/2018 01:37 PM »
Looking like RTF may be accomplished before the year ends.

Quote
However, as it became known to “Kommersant”, the majority of experts involved in investigating the state of emergency with the Soyuz-FG is convinced that the cause of the accident was a mechanical problem that was made during the docking of the side units to the second stage of the rocket at the Baikonur cosmodrome. “Apparently, the damage was caused during the lifting of the side unit with a crane,” says one of the Kommersant interlocutors, who is close to the Russian Ministry of Defense. “This is not a design error and not a factory defect. Rather, we are talking about operational errors. " Roscosmos says that a report on the causes of the incident will be ready by the end of the week.

Not yet confirmed but it would make perfect sense. Damage the valve during the booster lift and mating operation, damage is not noticed, valve doesn't open booster causes the first stage to break up.

Hoping that we get a quick RTF, however, this is basically also the scenario we were concerned about for the long term, which is QC. This shows they still have major QC and training issues and it means another failure like this but on a different part of the vehicle is likely in the future. Still provides alot of incentive to get commercial crew flying ASAP, with no more delays.

Quote
According to that report, citing a “space agency source,” a mounting lug was bent when the side booster was “forcefully connected” to the core stage, and that workers then added lubricant to ensure that it would separate. However, during separation, that side booster hit the core stage and damaged it, leading to the launch abort.
https://spacenews.com/roscosmos-to-complete-soyuz-accident-investigation-this-month/

This is again a quality control issue... making a mistake and then covering it up with a jerry-rigged solution.  Fixing that installation step has nothing to do with preventing the next failure because there is an indefinite number of ways an assembly process can be screwed up.  If Soyuz operations resume in weeks, it is a total white-wash.

NASA is 'averting its eyes' -- a management problem.  Where is ASAP?

ASAP has no say. That second letter "a" stands for "advisory".
And NASA is not going to object to the final report of the Russian investigation. Because objecting to it would likely result in a lengthy de-crewing of ISS, given that Soyuz is currently the ONLY means of getting US astronauts to-and-from the ISS.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6242
  • Liked: 4077
  • Likes Given: 5596
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #24 on: 10/22/2018 01:40 PM »
This is the path on which Columbia was lost.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8607
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5235
  • Likes Given: 1690
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #25 on: 10/24/2018 07:05 AM »
This is the path on which Columbia was lost.

Wrong.

In the case of Columbia NASA had the power to intervene and prevent Columbia from happening. NASA knew that foam-shedding from the ET was a potential problem. But they didn't do anything about it.
NASA had the power to stop and go fix the problem, but they chose not to do so. That's what caused Columbia.

Soyuz is a different situation. NASA quite literally has ZERO power regarding the decision to return the Soyuz launcher to flight. NASA quite literally has ZERO power to influence or correct the continuing Quality Control problems in the Russian spaceflight industry.
Even if NASA was willing to fix the problem they simply cannot do it. Not their launcher, not their space program, not their rules.
« Last Edit: 10/24/2018 07:06 AM by woods170 »

Offline litton4

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 242
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #26 on: 10/24/2018 07:37 AM »
.....and it will be fixed in a year or so with 2 additional, dissimilar launch systems available.

As a side issue, what would the position be if one of those 2 systems had a stand-down for (say) a year or 18 months?
Would the other provider be able to prepare and launch an additional vehicle to take up the slack?

Otherwise we'd be in a similar scenario to what we have now, scrambling around for ways to reduce the gap, or avoid breaching the on-orbit lifetime of a vehicle.....
Dave Condliffe

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8607
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5235
  • Likes Given: 1690
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #27 on: 10/24/2018 12:30 PM »
.....and it will be fixed in a year or so with 2 additional, dissimilar launch systems available.

As a side issue, what would the position be if one of those 2 systems had a stand-down for (say) a year or 18 months?

There would still be at least two systems flying: Soyuz and the other CCP system.

NASA has made it very clear that the CCP systems do not replace Soyuz. NASA will continue to buy seats on Soyuz, even with the CCP systems being operational. It is just that the number of seats bought on Soyuz will decrease substantially.

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 274
  • Likes Given: 754
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #28 on: 10/24/2018 11:17 PM »
NASA has made it very clear that the CCP systems do not replace Soyuz. NASA will continue to buy seats on Soyuz, even with the CCP systems being operational. It is just that the number of seats bought on Soyuz will decrease substantially.

Really?  I understood that there would be an exchange of seats, so that one Russian would fly on each PCM Dragon2 or Starliner, and one NASA astronaut would fly on each Soyuz, to aid in smooth crew rotation.  (Or at least that was the expected plan, with the details still being negotiated.)

Where have you heard that NASA will continue to buy Soyuz seats?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8607
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5235
  • Likes Given: 1690
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #29 on: 10/25/2018 06:10 AM »
NASA has made it very clear that the CCP systems do not replace Soyuz. NASA will continue to buy seats on Soyuz, even with the CCP systems being operational. It is just that the number of seats bought on Soyuz will decrease substantially.

Really?  I understood that there would be an exchange of seats, so that one Russian would fly on each PCM Dragon2 or Starliner, and one NASA astronaut would fly on each Soyuz, to aid in smooth crew rotation.  (Or at least that was the expected plan, with the details still being negotiated.)
Safeguard against a potential long stand-down of a CCP provider. These are new and unproven systems after all.


Where have you heard that NASA will continue to buy Soyuz seats?
NASA folks I have conversations with.
« Last Edit: 10/25/2018 06:10 AM by woods170 »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3790
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2416
  • Likes Given: 3125
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #30 on: 10/25/2018 06:19 AM »
NASA is 'averting its eyes' -- a management problem.  Where is ASAP?

ASAP has no say. That second letter "a" stands for "advisory".
And NASA is not going to object to the final report of the Russian investigation. Because objecting to it would likely result in a lengthy de-crewing of ISS, given that Soyuz is currently the ONLY means of getting US astronauts to-and-from the ISS.

Yes, ASAP most definitely has a say.  They can recommend that NASA refuse to let US astronauts fly on Soyuz until Russia can satisfy us that Soyuz is safe.  If that never happens, NASA astronauts wait for commercial crew.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8607
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5235
  • Likes Given: 1690
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #31 on: 10/25/2018 10:38 AM »
NASA is 'averting its eyes' -- a management problem.  Where is ASAP?

ASAP has no say. That second letter "a" stands for "advisory".
And NASA is not going to object to the final report of the Russian investigation. Because objecting to it would likely result in a lengthy de-crewing of ISS, given that Soyuz is currently the ONLY means of getting US astronauts to-and-from the ISS.

Yes, ASAP most definitely has a say.  They can recommend that NASA refuse to let US astronauts fly on Soyuz until Russia can satisfy us that Soyuz is safe.  If that never happens, NASA astronauts wait for commercial crew.

You said it: ASAP can recommend. But NASA is not obliged to follow ASAP's recommendations. ASAP recommendations are not law. They are advice. Advice can be implemented, but it can also be ignored.
There are examples where NASA in fact did not follow/implement ASAP recommendations. One example is when NASA returned the space shuttle to flight (in the post-Columbia era) whereas ASAP had strongly recommended NASA not to do so.

As such I stand by my earlier post: ASAP has, practically speaking, no say. Particularly not with regards to a foreign launch vehicle that is currently the only means of launching crew to the ISS.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3790
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2416
  • Likes Given: 3125
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #32 on: 10/26/2018 07:15 AM »
NASA is 'averting its eyes' -- a management problem.  Where is ASAP?

ASAP has no say. That second letter "a" stands for "advisory".
And NASA is not going to object to the final report of the Russian investigation. Because objecting to it would likely result in a lengthy de-crewing of ISS, given that Soyuz is currently the ONLY means of getting US astronauts to-and-from the ISS.

Yes, ASAP most definitely has a say.  They can recommend that NASA refuse to let US astronauts fly on Soyuz until Russia can satisfy us that Soyuz is safe.  If that never happens, NASA astronauts wait for commercial crew.

You said it: ASAP can recommend. But NASA is not obliged to follow ASAP's recommendations. ASAP recommendations are not law. They are advice. Advice can be implemented, but it can also be ignored.

Sure, absolutely true.

AncientU said "Where is ASAP?" and my interpretation of that was that ASAP points out lots of risks with Commercial Crew, so why aren't they doing the same with Soyuz?  Either way, it's a risk to a NASA astronaut.

Offline litton4

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 242
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Immediate effects of Soyuz booster failure on policy
« Reply #33 on: 10/27/2018 01:27 PM »
.....and it will be fixed in a year or so with 2 additional, dissimilar launch systems available.

As a side issue, what would the position be if one of those 2 systems had a stand-down for (say) a year or 18 months?

There would still be at least two systems flying: Soyuz and the other CCP system.
...


Yes, but they'd still be missing an increment.

Same question with one of three systems stood down.

Assuming 6 month increments, and the increased crew size (still happening?), are they still launching a fresh crew every 3 months or so?

As I understand it, Russia is reducing it's Soyuz production rate, and the CCPs are only launching once per year each, so would one of the remaining providers be able to bring forward a launch to reduce any gap?
I can see SpaceX being able to (Assuming a Dragon+S2 is available and they are certified to launch on a flight-proven booster), but the others? I'm assuming there isn't a spare Atlas V lying around somewhere.....
« Last Edit: 10/27/2018 01:28 PM by litton4 »
Dave Condliffe

Tags: