Slashdot Mirror


Soyuz 4/5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today

dj writes in with a reminder that forty years ago, on January 16, 1969, the two Russian spacecraft Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5 carried out the first docking between two manned spacecraft and transfer of crew between the craft. Wired's piece gives a gripping account of "one of the roughest re-entries in the history of space flight": "Soyuz 5's service module failed to detach at retrofire, causing the vehicle to assume an aerodynamic position that left the heat shield pointed the wrong way as it re-entered the atmosphere. The only thing standing between Volynov and a fiery death was the command module's thin hatch cover. The interior of Volynov's capsule filled with noxious fumes as the gaskets sealing the hatch started to burn, and it got very hot in there (which, a short time later was something he probably missed). ... But wait. There's more."

26 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing like Soviet Engineering by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 5, Funny

    nothing worked right, but that was no big deal since the machines were so tough, they could just brute force their way to the end.

    1. Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's right..as opposed to oh so superior American Engineering that results in lots of good TV coverage of shuttles blowing up and burning up every few years.

      If I were going into space I'd pick the Soyuz every time, at least you get up there and back without being spread over most of Texas.

    2. Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, comparing to a real third world country with nukes (Pakistan), the soviet industry was way more advanced back then - 40 years ago - than pakistani industry is now.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    3. Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Soyuz; It's the AK-47 of spacecraft

    4. Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Amen! The Russians improved on an existing design to make it increasingly more reliable. We instead keep jumping from the alleged latest and greatest to the next alleged latest and greatest.

      Programming languages and tools are like this also: outside of the US, older languages are still happily used in many parts. This is one reason why Microsoft kept upgrading FoxPro until recently--it's sales numbers were fairly high outside the US. (There's still some features about FoxPro that I like far more than MS-Access.)
           

    5. Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Informative

      yea, that was 1960. and the Nedelin disaster was an ICBM test; it was not space-related.

      so far NASA astronauts have a mortality rate of 4.1% (17 deaths), whereas only 4 Russian cosmonauts have died, which is 0.9% of all the cosmonauts launched.

    6. Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It started off that way of becoming a super V2, however the Russians had a surviving decent rocket scientists of their own. What they lacked was technicians. What they did is repeated cleverly in a several Indian software companies today, they had the captured germans working on basicly irrelevant projects and would bring in soviet technicians and engineers to work alongside of them. After a while the soviet workers would leave and new ones would come in - the enhanced V2 project they were working on had become a training program. In the USA the captured rocket scientists were also not trusted for a few years and were mostly kept idle. The soviet orbitial rockets couldn't really be a mass produced delivery system of anything but it appears to have started off as a cleverly subverted promise to deliver a few enormous nukes to anywhere that quickly turned into a space program - Deborah Cadbury's "Space Race" describes it quite well.

    7. Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't get me wrong, but I think if the MIR was a western design, it would not have outlived its expected lifetime by many years. Yes, it would have worked flawlessly 'til its end, but in the end it would have come down because some special part was not available and without you couldn't keep it afloat.

      Spirit and Opportunity would like to have a word with you.

    8. Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The durability of Soviet (now Russian) space technology is the result of a very different design philosophy.

      The U.S. program tends to use extreme engineering to make the failure of critical componants extremely unlikely. The Soviet philosophy is to make system failures less critical. That's why Mir was basically OK with it's main power failed after the docking accident.

      Another aspect of Soviet design is to brute force the problem using existing materials rather than develop new exotic materials to finesse the problem. That's why a Soyuz capsule can survive reentering at the wrong attitude.

      The resulting designs do have their merits. I suspect there's a happy medium between the two approaches that would work even better.

  2. "Soyuz 4/5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today" by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What a retarded headline. Would it have killed someone to write it as "Soyuz 4 and 5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today"?

    1. Re:"Soyuz 4/5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today" by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Indeed. I lost about 5 minutes searching for "Soyuz 0.8" on Wikipedia.

    2. Re:"Soyuz 4/5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today" by Colitis · · Score: 5, Funny

      That version was an internal-only release.

  3. Moral of the story by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Soyuz space capsule was an incredible engineering accomplishment. Sometimes, a simpler, robust design is vastly superior to a complex, brilliant piece of engineering. It isn't always about min-maxing performance characteristics : engineering is about solving a problem with the least amount of resources used.

    I've read that the clever Russian solution to updating the computers in Soyuz. Rather than a start from scratch rewrite of the controls and instruments, they choose to emulate all their old computers in modern circuitry, and to display the same gauges and instruments on modern LCDs.

    For various reasons, somehow NASA has never done this. Their solutions to problems have tended to be stupendously expensive, complex boondoggles. Any average joe can see that building a space station when your launch costs are $10,000 a kilogram is a horrifically bad decision : the money spent should go into working out a cheaper way to launch things into orbit, first.

    Part of this is politics, of course. The only reason Mission Control was in Houston rather than in the same facility where the rockets are worked on is due to a certain powerful Texas politician, LBJ...

    1. Re:Moral of the story by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Informative

      actually, Florida extends further south than Texas.

      -Houston, Texas is located at 294546N
      -Merritt Island, Florida is located at 282128N

      also, the Saturn V rockets were designed & built at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, which is a heck of a lot closer to Florida than to Texas. and it should also be noted that just because Johnson Space Center is the Mission Control of all manned space flights in the U.S. does not mean all manned space missions take off from Houston. the Apollo 11 mission was actually launched from Kennedy Space Center.

    2. Re:Moral of the story by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      eh, so when the "old hardware" was first used, how did NASA know it would work in space? did they look at the test data from the ancient Mayan space flights?

      the whole "we use old hardware because we know it works" excuse is a ton of baloney. every space technology has to be tested and tried for the first time initially. sticking to the tried and true is not a blanket excuse to oppose change or to stubbornly hold onto archaic & outdated technology; otherwise, we'd never make any kind of technological progress.

      we know enough about space that vital equipment can be tested on earth by simulating space environments before they're employed on an actual space mission. it's the same principle as building equipment for use in the arctic or the deep ocean. if you don't try new things you won't be able to improve on existing systems.

      part of what NASA has been doing over the past 4 decades is learning more and more about environmental conditions in space and how this affects human-beings and equipment. that lets us theorize/predict how new equipment will behave in space, and allows us to design better space technology. space isn't this unknowable mystery or some supernatural realm that magically breaks new equipment for no reason. the best way to know if LCD screens will work in space is to send one up for non-mission-critical use. and if it does break unexpectedly from an unknown interaction, then that's something that we need to investigate as it could shed light on aspects of space that we are not currently privy to.

      if something doesn't work in space, we should learn why it doesn't work. likewise, if something does work in space, we should learn why it works. by taking a rational scientific approach to space exploration, we can improve on existing systems and employ new technologies in space without rolling dice. sticking to outmoded technologies due to a fear of change is a very reactionary attitude that does not belong in space exploration.

    3. Re:Moral of the story by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sigh. The Russians were planning MIR-2.. it was canceled, what with the fall of the Soviet Union and all. Bush (Sr)'s justification for the "Agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes" was well documented at the time. With his departure and the arrival of Gore and Clinton, the reasoning was spelled out again.

      I'm repeating the fact that water is wet, you're saying I'm "making attacks on people's ignorance".

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Moral of the story by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Funny

      patriot? What the fuck dude? For one, I'm Australian. For two, parts of MIR had fallen out of the sky by the time the ISS started construction in 1998. Here's another idea, how about you just fuck right off? Nit picking tool.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  4. Bonus Parts? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let me see if I got this strait: the return capsule accidentally got stuck to part of the ship it was docked to, and took the part with it on the way down, but this extra part cause the capsule to face the wrong way, using the wrong side as the "heat shield", which meant the astronaut was about to be cooked to death.

    But the vibration and heat of a rough re-entry jiggled or melted the extra part away, setting the capsule free and allowing it to face the proper direction. (Although the rough ride caused other landing problems as a result.)
           

    1. Re:Bonus Parts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Good enough. Soyuz, Gemini and Mercury capsules were designed so that they are stable in aerodynamic flight when the heat shield is pointing in the direction of travel. So even if you can't see what orientation you are in, once the capsule 'feels' the atmosphere, it will turn around on its own to face the correct direction.

      The same thing happened recently on the TMA-11 return, where the SM got hung up and didn't detach for some time.

      http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/4170

    2. Re:Bonus Parts? by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Let me see if I got this strait...

      You don't. You don't have it straight, either.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Bonus Parts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let me see if I got this strait:

      Not quite, but you're on the right Bering.

    4. Re:Bonus Parts? by smoker2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let me see if I got this strait:

      Not quite, but you're on the right Bering.

      Oh, that was just dire.

  5. He came from outer space by Raenex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Best part of the story for me was this:

    Given that the entire re-entry-and-landing process was pretty well botched, it's perhaps unsurprising that Volynov came down well short of the intended landing area. In fact, he landed in the Ural Mountains, where he was greeted by a local temperature measuring a brisk minus 36 degrees Fahrenheit With rescue several hours away at best, our intrepid cosmonaut decided to hoof it for safety. He plodded a few kilometers before finding a cheery fire and a brimming samovar in the cottage of a welcoming peasant.

    That must have been one surprised peasant.

    1. Re:He came from outer space by Detritus · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's much better than Voskhod 2, which also landed off-course in the Urals in similar circumstances, and was surrounded by hungry wolves.

      http://www.astronautix.com/flights/voskhod2.htm

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:He came from outer space by quenda · · Score: 4, Funny

      no kidding. given what had just happened to him, i half expected for the peasant to have shot Volynov for trespassing.

      Not in Russia. But this is why US astronauts landed at sea, rather than risk landing in Texas.

  6. Pronouncing Russian space names by Opyros · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FWIW, most of us English speakers are badly mispronouncing the word "Soyuz". James Oberg has an article on how to pronounce it and several other names associated with the Soviet/Russian space program.