Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Further Details From Soyuz Mishap

Posted by Soulskill on from the remind-me-never-to-crash-my-spaceship dept.

fyc brings us some information from Universe Today about what happened to Soyuz TMA-11 when it re-entered the atmosphere late last week. Reports indicate that a failure of explosive bolts to separate the Soyuz modules delayed the re-entry and oriented the capsule so the hatch was taking most of the heat, rather than the heat shields. CNN reports that the crew was in 'severe danger.' They experienced forces of up to 8.2 gravities. NASA officials have voiced their approval of how Russia handled the crisis. They expect to rely heavily on Soyuz spacecraft once the shuttles are retired in 2010.

18 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. GAO Report by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is interesting that the GAO has concerns about the ability of Soyuz to take the shuttle's place. And anything else with capabilities that approach the shuttle's are basically vaporware at this point. I think that it is not out of line to ask if the ISS is going to make it. I'm not saying that because I think it wont, I just don't think it is to difficult to imagine very realistic scenarios where it does not.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:GAO Report by BZWingZero · · Score: 4, Informative

      No they don't. At least not in anywhere near a usable state. One (that actually flew in space once in 1988) is crushed under a building, another is on its way to a museum in Australia. And another is a simulator ride in Moscow. Helping SpaceX finish their Falcon 9/Dragon capsule launch system would be easier and more cost effective.

  2. We won't always be so lucky by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It will be interesting to see public outcry when one of the Russian craft craters with Americans onboard. This will inevitably happen, even if the Soyuz is safer than anything America has (which it probably is). Then we'll all have to be dragged through a lot of media-driven "soul-searching" about whether it was smart to "outsource NASA" (you heard it here first).

    1. Re:We won't always be so lucky by Uncle+Focker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Never underestimate the power of xenophobia on any public mob.

  3. Similar to Soyuz 5? Upsidedown reentry. by node159 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sounds very similar to the Soyuz 5 rentry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_5), would have been quite an ordeal. For more 'interesting' reentries have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters

    --
    GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
  4. Russian hardware by Bombula · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Give me Russian-built aerospace hardware any day. Their stuff is built brick-shithouse tough. Re-entry without the heatshield? Astonishing. I've heard lots of stuff over the years about how tough the old Migs and SUs were as well, and I think the attitude would translate well to space exploration. I think NASA's approach of building craft out of gold foil and tissue paper in clean rooms, trying to turn every last ounce of the payload into instrumentation is misguided. How much does a Soyuz laucnh cost compared to a shuttle launch? Fuel and other materials are the cheapest part of the overall cost of spaceflight, so the logical thing would seem to be to build simple, cheap, super-tough craft and just launch dozens of them rather than investing heavily in individual craft. And why not launch missions with a fleet of craft, rather than just a single vehicle? When we do launch more than one vehicle, it is months apart as in the case of the Mars rovers. Doesn't make much sense.

    There's a moral that applies here... how does it go again? Something about not putting all your eggs in one basket, if I recall correctly...

    --
    A-Bomb
    1. Re:Russian hardware by Uncle+Focker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you want to talk about durability and toughness you just need one word: AK-47.

    2. Re:Russian hardware by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Having spoken with two ex-Mig flight trainers who had also flown F-16s, my impression of their impression was that they loved the potential of the Migs, but were always nervous that the electronics would get them killed. American aircraft have had system crashes that have endangered (and probably in cases I don't know about, killed) pilots, but in India it was considered common for Mig pilots to die because instruments went glitchy at a bad time (like in low visibility situations). Maybe this was somewhat specific to Indian Migs, though. One of the pilots told me that his dream plane would be a Mig design built in the US.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    3. Re:Russian hardware by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well they didn't reenter without a heat shield. It looks like the hit sideways until the propulsion section broke away and then righted themselves. At least that is what it looks like from the pictures I have seen.
      Your comments about Russian aerospace hardware is at best optimistic and based more in folk lore than anything.
      A lot of Russian jet aircraft are simple but pretty fragile. US aircraft tend to be pretty complex but very rugged. The Mig-21 was made of tissue paper compared to the F-4, F-105, A-6 and or F-100.
      Even the F-15 has huge kill ratio VS every Migs.
      There was at least one F-15 that had a mid-air and lost a wing! That plane made it home!
      Yea US aircraft tend to require more man hours and you have to have more skills and tool than your average oil change tech but they tend to be very rugged and reliable.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Russian hardware by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Give me Russian-built aerospace hardware any day. Their stuff is built brick-shithouse tough. Re-entry without the heatshield?

      They didn't re-enter without the heatshield. They started re-entry improperly oriented and properly oriented the craft at virtually the last possible instant. That isn't tough, that's damn lucky.
       
       

      How much does a Soyuz laucnh cost compared to a shuttle launch?

      Soyuz is much cheaper than a Shuttle per launch. But considering it takes something like four Soyuz launches and four Progress launches to incompletely replace a single Shuttle mission to ISS, it shouldn't be surprising that it is cheaper - lower capability almost always implies lower costs. I say 'incompletely' because Soyuz/Progress cannot deliver station modules, cannot deliver external cargo, cannot deliver ISS racks, cannot return hardware... etc.. etc... All of which the Shuttle can do. (Not to mention that the CBM hatches available to Shuttle carried cargo containers are nearly four times as big as the APAS hatches used the Soyuz/Progress.)
       
       

      the logical thing would seem to be to build simple, cheap, super-tough craft and just launch dozens of them rather than investing heavily in individual craft.

      If only cheap and super-tough weren't mutually incompatible.
       
       

      When we do launch more than one vehicle, it is months apart as in the case of the Mars rovers. Doesn't make much sense.

      It makes perfect sense - because assembling and launching them in serial (as opposed to parallel) means you can apply lessons learned from assembling the first to assembling the second. You can 'promote' and 'demoted' hardware from one vehicle to the next to ease schedule pressure. Etc... Etc... Launching them at the same time means assembling them at the same time - and for one-off (or severely limited production) vehicles that means more expensive, more likely to fail, more likely to slip schedule, etc... etc... Without providing an iota more science return.
    5. Re:Russian hardware by phliar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      By "electronics would get them killed" do you mean in combat?

      My brother is a MiG-29 (and Su-27) pilot. (He has also flown F-16s on a USAF detachment.) On a landing approach in the MiG-29, he hit a truck that was parked a little too close to the runway. They had to replace the wheels and tires but otherwise the aircraft was fine. The truck was totalled.

      --
      Unlimited growth == Cancer.
    6. Re:Russian hardware by the_other_chewey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Remind me, why should we copy the Russians in the space arena? In which regard are they ahead of the west?

      Daylight. They are constantly hours ahead, and the west still hasn't caught up.

  5. Re:You are being held by a force of two gravities! by ch-chuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People have willingly endured 46.2g 's.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  6. Re:You are being held by a force of two gravities! by AJWM · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't know where you got that figure from.

    Modern fighter aircraft are software-limited to 9G maneuvers, with the crew in G-suits and trained for it. (The hardware can probably take higher). The Gemini launches on converted Titan-II missiles routinely hit about 8G during the ascent (Shuttle does 3G).

    Then-Captain John Stapp in his rocket sled experiments in the late 1940s/early 1950s routinely experienced 18G in the "eyeballs in" position, and 30G in "eyeballs out" deceleration as the sled stopped. The peak force he survived was around 45G. (Black-eyed, bloodshot, bruised, with the occasional cracked rib and generally beat up, but survived.)

    --
    -- Alastair
  7. There's another way... by bigfootindy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's an alternative to waiting 5 years after the final shuttle launch - check out http://www.directlauncher.com./ It'd be ready 2 years after the final shuttle launch and it would cost a heck of a lot less than Ares...

  8. Can we vote this guy in by Shadow-isoHunt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Now please?

    "We seem to have gotten away from our concentration on science," said U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, D- Texas.
    --
    www.isoHunt.com
  9. old-fashioned engineering by tetromino · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's not so much a difference between Russians and Americans as between old-fashioned and modern engineering practices.

    Back in the old days: "We don't fully understand the physics of this thing, so let's make this part 5 times stronger than it has any reason to be, just in case shit goes seriously wrong."
    *kaboom*
    "Heh, good thing we had that margin of error!"

    Modern engineering: "We can shave 0.37% off the cost of the final product by replacing this part with cheaper, lighter materials. The computer model tells us this is perfectly safe to do."
    *KABOOM*
    "Oops, I guess our computer model didn't account for turbulence."

  10. IAF F-15 Mishap by clbyjack81 · · Score: 5, Informative
    There was at least one F-15 that had a mid-air and lost a wing! That plane made it home!

    The incident to which you refer was a mid-air collision in an Israeli Air Force training flight. Here is a link to the History Channel interview with the pilot. After McDonnell Douglas analyzed the accident, they concluded that the F-15's lifting body design allowed it to remain airborne on one wing, given enough speed.

    Gigantic kudos to the pilot who brought that plane home safely! After a full investigation into the accident, a new wing was fitted, and the fighter returned to service.

    How's that for American aircraft ruggedness! (Well, in the F-15's case anyway)

    --
    Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.