Slashdot Mirror


Russian Space Agency Determines Cause of Soyuz Crash

An anonymous reader writes "The online version of the San Francisco Chronicle reports the cause of the loss of a Soyuz rocket in August. The Russian Space Agency, ROSCOSMOS says a manufacturing flaw led to the failure of a gas generator."

25 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. There are no accidents by rim_namor · · Score: 2

    This is not an accident that there is a flaw in manufacturing procedure, it's the reality of current Russian political arena, where nobody really gives a s..t about anything and the only important question is - how do I make more money now?

    1. Re:There are no accidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Troo Dat. Not like here in America where we don't give a flying fuck about making money; we only care about making things of the very finest quality.

    2. Re:There are no accidents by funkatron · · Score: 2

      They're learning capitalism and it sounds like they're good at it. Who knew?

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    3. Re:There are no accidents by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      Yeah, because building exploding spacecraft is a surefire way to economic prosperity.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    4. Re:There are no accidents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We made it to the moon with ones that burn on the launch pad. And I recall some shuttles exploding and/or disintegrating as well. And our economy was great back then. Maybe what we've been missing these last couple years is spacecraft going boom. Maybe we can just dynamite a decommissioned shuttle to fix the economy. Should be a cheap experiment.

    5. Re:There are no accidents by brillow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What are you talking about? The Soyuz rocket has the best track record of any launch vehicle. It's an incredibly well-designed rocket which has not been improved in over a decade.

    6. Re:There are no accidents by damburger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Soyuz rocket has redundancy upon redundancy, to accomodate for just this kind of manufacturing error, and normally it works as evidenced by the incredible reliability of the rocket. Consider the fact that, when first introduced, it had to deal with 1960s Soviet quality control on its parts. Sometimes, of course, even the best precaution fails. You can't draw conclusions about the entire state of Russian society based on a single wonky gas generator...

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    7. Re:There are no accidents by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Communism produces neither.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:There are no accidents by fnj · · Score: 2

      Dude, please engage rational thought. Communism PRODUCED the Soyuz, which has been phenomenally reliable up to the point of this accident.

    9. Re:There are no accidents by rim_namor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, Communism produced Soyuz, but where in the world did you get an idea that it was cheap? The entire country was put to work to push the space race forward, the only 'cheap' part of it was labor, which was actually free, as in - slave free labor.

    10. Re:There are no accidents by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      The GOP? You really want to blame a single party for that?

      Here's a tip: they are ALL too busy fucking us to care.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  2. This is good news. by conspirator23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In fact it is better and faster news than many people feared. It suggests a by-the-numbers path to return the Soyuz to service. In turn, this dramatically lowers the risk that we will need to evacuate the ISS and suffer any negative consequences associated with that.

    (We now return you to this thread's excessively random spew.)

  3. Gravity by wesleyjconnor · · Score: 2

    was the real problem

  4. Re:That was not Soyuz, it was Progress - space tru by clj · · Score: 5, Informative

    A Progress was the payload. The rocket is called Soyuz. (As are the payloads that carry humans.)

  5. Re:Let me be the first to say by mug+funky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    how are american lives more important than russian lives, or any other?

  6. Re:Let me be the first to say by alexmin · · Score: 2

    If you can't value a human life, ask life insurance professional. Short version: a human generates income stream. Value of someone's life is a sum of that income from present to death of the individual. So if GDP per capita today is 14K in Russia and 45K in America then average American life is three time as valuable.

  7. Loss of russian skilled workers to blame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Space Failures Raise Uneasy Questions - The Russian Space Industry starved after the fall of the USSR. The workforce aged and retired and there was a lack of new hires due to non-competitive pay scales with industry. Now the agency faces a lack of skilled workers that will only worsen as corruption has devoured all capital investments. New engineers and technicians take years to become proficient, it's not like working at you're local 7-11 as some folks seem to think.
    You can draw a direct parallel to the US human spaceflight program. Now that the shuttle program has ended the majority of laid-off contract workers (i.e. USA, BOEING, Rockwell) are dispersing out of Brevard County - Florida to other aerospace jobs across the United States. Any future US manned space program will spend much treasure and likely a few lives to restore the talent that was let go, APOLLO all over again.

  8. Russian Space Agency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hello. This is Russian Space Agency. My Name Peggy. You Have Problem With Our Rocket?

  9. What manufacturing flaw? by slinches · · Score: 2

    In the second link it says that a defect led to a "clogged fuel supply pipe". They don't seem to specify which part was faulty or what the defect actually was. Did a valve stick or maybe a turbopump failed. The way it's worded somebody could have left their lunch in the fuel tank.

    Anybody know where there's more specific information?

    --
    Knowledge Brings Fear
    1. Re:What manufacturing flaw? by damburger · · Score: 2

      They may be describing the same failure mode.

      The gas generator is basically a turbine connected by a shaft to the fuel and oxidiser pumps. On most modern rockets, its turned by either fuel that has been heated by pumping it around the engine bell and combustion chamber (which has the added bonus of cooling it) or by pre-burning a small quantity of the propellants. Soyuz engines are unusual in that the turbine is powered by a supply of hydrogen peroxide separate from the fuel and oxidiser.

      Saying that a gas generator failure and a fuel line blockage caused the accident suggests either a) when they said gas generator they meant turbupump, and a bit of the turbopump broke off and blocked the line or b) the failure of the gas generator triggered the failure of the fuel turbopump. On a shaft rotating at 50k RPM one end of the shaft turning to shrapnel is likely to cause problems at the other end.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    2. Re:What manufacturing flaw? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Orders came down from the top (Medvedev, likely speaking for Putin) to find the problem. That means that a problem needs to be found and some sort of action taken. Now, it's entirely possible that the engineers looked over the data and were able to pinpoint the problem. However, it is also entirely possible that the engineers did not have enough data to figure out the problem in a reasonable timeframe, so "management" asked them to brainstorm a few hypotheses, picked something that sounded plausible and did not put blame on anyone, and presented that as the problem to the top brass. In either case, more specific information is unlikely. If the engineers actually identified the prlblem, you aren't likely to hear much because Russia doesn't like to publicize her failures, especially in something as high profile and high tech as the space program. If the engineers did not identify the problem, you will not hear any more details simply because there are no more details.

  10. Re:Let me be the first to say by RLaager · · Score: 2

    This isn't about spaceflight, so it isn't directly applicable here, but... I was always curious about a $1 bid, so I asked someone in the construction industry. He said that one of the requirements on every job is a "completion bond". This is a bond from an insurance company that will pay to have the project completed to the requirements if the bidder fails to do so themselves. So, if you get an insurance company to underwrite a bond on your $1 bid, the buyer doesn't care. If you don't build it, your insurance company will pay someone else to do so. Either way, they get what they requested for your bid of $1. If you don't get the bond, they'll never accept your bid in the first place.

    How does the buyer ensure you're meeting the requirements? They have inspectors. As with any contract dispute, if you say you completed the project to requirements and the buyer says you didn't, ultimately a court will have to decide who's right.

  11. Re:Define "cheap" by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

    That may work in small owner-operated business. As soon as you get corporations with diffuse ownership structure and a leader that really has no stake in the company, the decision between price and quality tends to rest on the question whether the flaws of the cheaper model have a high enough chance to only become apparent after the CEO already jumped ship with his golden parachute.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  12. There was a test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was an urgent full-cycle test of Soyuz rocket engine RD-0110 (from the same batch which include failed one) at the test range near russian city Voronezh right after Progress has crashed. Defect inspection after firing test showed no mistakes in manufacturing or defects in materials used, so decision-makers marked this Progress crash with "shit happens" bit, and allowed remaining engines form the batch to be used on purpose.

  13. Re:Let me be the first to say by kevinNCSU · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Americans dying on an American rocket or Russians dying on a Russian rocket is a tragedy but Americans dying on a Russian rocket or vice versa is a political and diplomatic nightmare that would seriously damage this planets space efforts for generations.