Soyuz Capsule Return Marred By Mystery Communications Blackout

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Soyuz Capsule Return Marred By Mystery Communications Blackout

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 16, 2011 @04:23AM from the have-you-tried-turning-it-off-and-then-on-again dept.

astroengine writes "An unexplained communications loss left flight controllers unable to speak with three space station crew returning to Earth over Kazakhstan during the last 15 minutes of their descent Thursday night. The first indication that the capsule survived its fiery plunge through the atmosphere was a series of beeps signaling components of the Soyuz had been jettisoned as planned. Later, ground controllers picked up signals that the Soyuz's parachutes had deployed, but it wasn't until a Russian recovery aircraft established two-way radio communications with the crew that flight controllers knew all was well."

67 of 97 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

a menace? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 04:25 · Score: 1

A communications blackout can mean only one thing: invasion.
1. Re:a menace? by Zephyn · 2011-09-16 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Or the beginning of an episode of the Twilight Zone.
Communications failure? by girlintraining · 2011-09-16 04:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Wait, you're telling me that plunging through super-heated plasma at mach 17 for several minutes can cause communication problems? HOLY CRAP! :\

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Communications failure? by MozeeToby · 2011-09-16 04:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  On the other hand, if you're expecting to have communication and communication drops out, that means something is wrong. And something being wrong on a manned vehicle is what you might call "a bad thing".
2. Re:Communications failure? by Synerg1y · 2011-09-16 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  They established radio contact, so it sounds like the main communication system never came up. Still they wouldn't expect it if it wasn't meant to work. Soviet engineering prevails though :) Minor complicated system fails, major system stays in tact, thus the astronauts are ok.
3. Re:Communications failure? by Technician · 2011-09-16 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  Hmm.. Reminds me of the Apollo program except they expected the plasma issue. Maybe they thought another frequency would be immune to the issue.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_blackout
  
  For Apollo missions, the communications blackout was approximately three minutes long.[3] For Apollo 16, for example, pre-advisory data (PAD) for re-entry listed the expected times for re-entry communications blackout to be from 0 minutes 16 seconds after entry interface to 3 minutes 33 seconds after entry interface (a total of 3 minutes 17 seconds).[4] For the Apollo 13 mission, the blackout was much longer than normal because the flight path of the spacecraft was unexpectedly at a much shallower angle than normal.[4] According to the mission log maintained by Gene Kranz, the Apollo 13 re-entry blackout lasted around 6 minutes, beginning at 142:39 and ending at 142:45, and was 1 minute 27 seconds longer than had been predicted.[5]
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
4. Re:Communications failure? by Dunbal · 2011-09-16 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  Although arguably they make better trolls.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
5. Re:Communications failure? by Lumpy · 2011-09-16 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Then they should not have used Windows Mobile and AT&T for their radio system... Takes forever to reacquire a signal after it blacks out for a short time....
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
6. Re:Communications failure? by n5yat · 2011-09-16 04:44 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Tweet about life without facebook?
7. Re:Communications failure? by nedlohs · 2011-09-16 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Because this is the first time they've ever done this, right?
  It's not like every other Soyuz Capsule has managed to not have this happen or anything.
  And it's not like communication should reestablish after you are through the plasma.
8. Re:Communications failure? by assemblerex · 2011-09-16 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  So true.... I remember the shuttle melting over Texas.. Silence allows the mind to race without any frame of reference.
9. Re:Communications failure? by Talderas · 2011-09-16 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. It's not so much that a blackout occurred, it's the length that is the troubling part. 15 minutes when the longest length for Apollo was 6 minutes (under highly unusual circumstances) and the norm was 3 minutes.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
10. Re:Communications failure? by SiriusStarr · 2011-09-16 05:29 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Posting to undo mis-moderation, sorry.
  
  --
  Fear the penguin.
11. Re:Communications failure? by 0123456 · 2011-09-16 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm.. Reminds me of the Apollo program except they expected the plasma issue. Maybe they thought another frequency would be immune to the issue.
  I don't know about Soyuz, but on later missions the shuttle used TDRS satellites to communicate during reentry. The blackout primarily affects downward radio signals, not upward, so the shutte could have near-constant communications with the ground the whole time (unless it burned up).
12. Re:Communications failure? by Mercano · 2011-09-16 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Ron Garan is active on Twitter, not Facebook. The last few months, he's has one of the coolest twipic accounts I've seen.
  
  --
  #include <signature.h>
13. Re:Communications failure? by Technician · 2011-09-16 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  This could have been caused by nothing more than a slight craft orientation issue when beginning reentry. Without proper alignment, an alteration of the course could have created an alignment problem with a communications satellite. Without proper orientation on reentry, a dirversion off course would result in a longer blackout.
  From the same Wikipedia article;
  
  Until the creation of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System, the Space Shuttle would, like Gemini, Mercury, Apollo, and others, endure a 30 minute long communications blackout before landing. However, the Shuttle can communicate with a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite during re-entry. This is because the shape of the Shuttle creates a "hole" in the ionized air envelope, at the tail end of the craft, through which it can communicate upwards to a satellite in orbit and thence to a ground station.[1]
  If the hole was not pointed at a satellite, the communications link would fail.
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
14. Re:Communications failure? by RenderSeven · 2011-09-16 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm shocked, shocked to find someone with ethics on slashdot. Your 'personal responsibility' nonsense has no place here, sir, begone with you.
15. Re:Communications failure? by LifesABeach · 2011-09-16 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  I think this is one time when the "Party is looking for you" is most likely, a good thing.
16. Re:Communications failure? by camperdave · 2011-09-16 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Um... Shuttle, not Soyuz. I don't know if the US makes the TDRS cluster available to the Russians, or if they have an equivalent cluster, or even if a Soyuz makes a big enough hole (although I expect the ionized air envelope to be conical and not close in on itself behind the craft).
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
17. Re:Communications failure? by KeensMustard · 2011-09-16 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, if you're expecting to have communication and communication drops out, that means something is wrong. And something being wrong on a manned vehicle is what you might call "a bad thing".
  I suppose on that basis that if the capsule contains women a few minutes of radio silence is okay? Blessed relief from the jibber jabberin'?
18. Re:Communications failure? by MichaelSmith · 2011-09-16 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, you're telling me that plunging through super-heated plasma at mach 17 for several minutes can cause communication problems? HOLY CRAP! :\
  That hasn't been a problem for decades.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
19. Re:Communications failure? by MichaelSmith · 2011-09-16 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  If the hole was not pointed at a satellite, the communications link would fail.
  Okay but the plasma sheath is basically a reflective tunnel, effectively a conical wave-guide. It would be widest at the far end, because the plasma spreads and disperses, so a signal transmitted back, along the path of the vehicle should bounce along the tunnel and spread by diffraction once the plasma peters out. I don't think the satellite would have to be perfectly aligned with the tunnel, though having it within 30 degrees or so would be an advantage.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
20. Re:Communications failure? by mpe · 2011-09-17 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm.. Reminds me of the Apollo program except they expected the plasma issue. Maybe they thought another frequency would be immune to the issue.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_blackout
  
  This article only refers to NASA vehicles. There is no mention of any of Soviet/Russian Federation design/manufacture. The original article also does not make it clear if this was a TMA or TMA-M.
One or two minutes, but not 15 by tp1024 · 2011-09-16 04:38 · Score: 1

That's the problem here. Had I been part of the ground crew, I would have certainly been worried.
Check their DNA by KingSkippus · 2011-09-16 04:39 · Score: 4, Funny

They should make sure to check the crew's DNA very carefully and make sure they're still human. A lot of really bad things in the movies have started exactly like this.
1. Re:Check their DNA by i.r.id10t · 2011-09-16 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of really bad things in the movies have started exactly like this.
  FTFY ...
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
2. Re:Check their DNA by Dog-Cow · 2011-09-16 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of really bad movies have started exactly like this.
  FTFY.
3. Re:Check their DNA by 0123456 · 2011-09-16 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of really bad things in the movies have started exactly like this.
  Uwe Boll, for example.
4. Re:Check their DNA by cornface · 2011-09-16 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  "Today's big story centers around the killing
  Of District Attorney McGraw, whose body was
  Found in his garage, murdered.
  Dr. Walker is under the impression that these crimes
  Were being perpetrated by dead men charged with atom
  Rays, which gives them superhuman strength and makes
  Them impervious to bullets.
  Well, if you want to believe that story you can."
5. Re:Check their DNA by jovius · 2011-09-16 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe some mixed DNA as in Hot Plasma IIV - The Insertion, or as in Space Hotties IV - Fiery Plunge, to which there is also the legendary sequel Two Way Communication.
6. Re:Check their DNA by Hartree · 2011-09-16 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  "They should make sure to check the crew's DNA very carefully"
  Oh, the crew's DNA is just fine.
  It's all that extra with the unusual nucleotide coding that we're worried about.
7. Re:Check their DNA by webmistressrachel · 2011-09-16 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  GParent -"A lot of really bad things in the movies have started exactly like this."
  Parent - "A lot of really bad things in the movies have started exactly like this."
  What the fuck, exactly, did you fix for the GP? Cos I can't se the difference, and those are copy-pasted with incorrect punctuation to force them to appear at the same x on the page.
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
8. Re:Check their DNA by uvajed_ekil · 2011-09-16 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe this will shed a little light on this thread for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
9. Re:Check their DNA by webmistressrachel · 2011-09-17 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I'm well aware of the FTFY meme. It's just that, normally, the troller actually fixes something for the trolled.
  It's not funny to be stupid or thick, you know. And saying you've fixed something when you haven't is pretty dumb.
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
Soviet engineering FTW by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-16 04:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Their radio broke. This isn't the first time that something has failed on a Soyuz capsule, and it won't be the last. Twice, the explosive bolts holding on the service module failed to fire. They had that 3rd stage failure a few months ago. They've had capsules land so far off course it has taken hours to get the helicopter there. And so on and so forth.
Do you know what all of these accidents have in common? They haven't lost a crewmember in 30 years...
1. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by SpiralSpirit · 2011-09-16 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Only by accident. If that third stage failure had a soyuz carrying astronauts in it, they'd all be dead. Same is true for a half dozen other incidents at least - soyuz TMA-11, Soyuz TMA-1, June 1997 a module of the mir space station was punctured and depressurized during a mid space collision between mir, spektr, and progress, etc etc. The US suffered some catastrophic tragedies with Columbia and Challenger, losing 7 astronauts per incident. It doesn't mean soviet engineering is at all better.
2. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by 0123456 · 2011-09-16 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Only by accident. If that third stage failure had a soyuz carrying astronauts in it, they'd all be dead.
  No they wouldn't, because unlike the shuttle the launch abort procedure from Soyuz consists of more than 'and then you die'.
  If that rocket had carried astronauts the escape system would have fired and they'd have been sitting on the ground waiting for a helicopter a few minutes later.
3. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by Megane · 2011-09-16 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Only by accident. If that third stage failure had a soyuz carrying astronauts in it, they'd all be dead.
  Except for the minor difference that a Soyuz has a parachute. As I recall, the main problem was that the launch failed to go high enough. They likely could have separated the crew module and fired the parachutes.
  
  The US suffered some catastrophic tragedies with Columbia and Challenger, losing 7 astronauts per incident.
  The root cause of the Columbia and Challenger incidents can be blamed on putting the crew vehicle on the side of the rocketry rather than on top. (We're not planning to do that again.) Other than that we only lost three on the ground from failing to understand how fire works, and avoided losing three more in space to an actual accident.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
4. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by SpiralSpirit · 2011-09-16 06:26 · Score: 2
  
  no it wouldn't, because the soyuz second stage ends after 290 seconds into flight, and the escape system can only be used until 157 seconds into the flight. They'd be dead.
5. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by SpiralSpirit · 2011-09-16 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  so you're saying they weren't high enough, so the parachutes that couldn't have deployed would have saved them? or they'd separate, somehow gain more altitude, and then deploy parachutes? The soyuz escape system doesn't work after the 157 seconds, and the malfunction wasnt detected until 325 seconds. It's possible ancient aliens could have saved them too, but somehow I doubt that likely.
6. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by 0123456 · 2011-09-16 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  no it wouldn't, because the soyuz second stage ends after 290 seconds into flight, and the escape system can only be used until 157 seconds into the flight.
  You mean like the way the Apollo abort rocket was jettisoned soon after second stage separation? Do you think that means that the Apollo astronauts would have died due to a second stage failure?
  No, it means they didn't need it anymore.
  Hint: the only actual, real, actually happened Soyuz launch abort happened more than 290 seconds into the flight. The crew did not die.
  But don't let reality get in the way of a good rant.
7. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by 0123456 · 2011-09-16 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's possible ancient aliens could have saved them too, but somehow I doubt that likely.
  I guess they must have saved the crew of Soyuz-18A.
8. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by SpiralSpirit · 2011-09-16 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  it didn't happen under exactly the same circumstances. Saying the same result would have occurred is pretty inane. in soyuz 18a cosmonauts experience sustained accelerations of more than 20g (which can be fatal), and the parachutes survived far beyond their expected loading @ 15g. The capsule also didn't land in the ocean and get dragged underwater by it's parachute, like a previous soyuz capsule, even though the landing site was completely random. So as I said to begin with - don't attribute to soviet engineering what is actually luck. You'll notice the one time the soyuz escape system was actually used, on the pad, it failed to initiate automatically and had to be initiated by the control tower, and only launched 2 seconds before the rocket exploded. so I don't see where I'm wrong. There's more chance they'd be dead than alive. the soviets were really lucky.
9. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by 0123456 · 2011-09-16 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  it didn't happen under exactly the same circumstances.
  The Soyuz detected a guidance problem and shut down. The Progress detected an engine problem and shut down. Why do you think the abort would have been any different in those cases, other than having happened later in the second case?
  
  So as I said to begin with - don't attribute to soviet engineering what is actually luck.
  So your proof that Soyuz astronauts would have died appears to be that in the only actual real launch abort which ever happened so far they survived?
10. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by dbIII · 2011-09-16 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't mean soviet engineering is at all better.
  It didn't before, but now it's a comparison between Russian, Chinese and Indian space engineering.
11. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by MichaelSmith · 2011-09-16 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  Space-Plane == Horseless-carriage
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
12. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by MichaelSmith · 2011-09-16 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  The progress payload doesn't have a heat shield so an abort at 325 seconds makes it burn up. The manned launcher does have a heat shield so it makes a normal landing down range.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
13. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by mpe · 2011-09-17 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  If that third stage failure had a soyuz carrying astronauts in it, they'd all be dead.
  
  If the third stage were to fail to ignite can the crew not manually initiate separation of the third stage from the Service Module? (Probably also immediatly also dump the Orbital Module to reduce mass). Then use the engine and thrusters to give control over where they are going to land.
  Even if the third stage were to explode. So long as both the crew and the Descent Module survived the explosion they should still be able to land safely.
14. Re:Soviet engineering FTW by RivenAleem · 2011-09-19 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget the time too when some guy had to fix the door shut using The Inanimate Carbon Rod.
Re:Write the script... Blockbuster here! by Lumpy · 2011-09-16 04:45 · Score: 2

There is 15 minutes of silence recorded on all their recorders!!!!

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Duh? by rwven · 2011-09-16 04:53 · Score: 1

Maybe they should have tried switching to their auxiliary subspace transmitter. Radio? What's that?
Re:Write the script... Blockbuster here! by spongman · 2011-09-16 05:03 · Score: 1

That is interesting, isn't it?
LightSquared by dietdew7 · 2011-09-16 05:03 · Score: 5, Funny

In other news, my LightSquared broadband is working great!
Re:Write the script... Blockbuster here! by Coren22 · 2011-09-16 05:33 · Score: 1

Isn't this the beginning of one of the species movies?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Intentional Problems? by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-09-16 05:42 · Score: 1

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must but, I'm getting the idea that there might be some interest in the US not relying upon Russia for crew transport... Russia's space tech might be a bit on the old side, but it has never been known to be unreliable. Now inside of a few short months they've been experiencing some pretty serious problems after going for so very long without any.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
1. Re:Intentional Problems? by bmo · 2011-09-16 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  >Now inside of a few short months they've been experiencing some pretty serious problems after going for so very long without any.
  Because the Chinese are going to be marketing their new heavy booster any day now. Deng Xioping came back from the dead and he's the new marketing director.
  Blame Canada.
  --
  BMO
2. Re:Intentional Problems? by damburger · 2011-09-16 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  You are a conspiracy theorist.
  Even if this is a statistically significant cluster of reported failures (I am skeptical of that; random data does cluster you know...) then it could simply be that Soyuz failures are being reported more.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
3. Re:Intentional Problems? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-16 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  Your honor, I swear this bolt is from my bicycle!
4. Re:Intentional Problems? by elrous0 · 2011-09-19 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  It could also be increased press scrutiny from the U.S. press now that the Russkies are the go-to's for transporting astronauts. The U.S. press has never missed an opportunity to bad-mouth even the most minor of Soviet/Russian technical problems. Now that the shuttle is gone and people are bitching about how we have to rely on Russia, they've focused in on the Soyuz--picking apart every minor problem as some catastrophe waiting to happen (I can almost picture them with their fingers crossed). The U.S. press has an established narrative for everything, and their space narrative has always been that the U.S. is ahead of the Russians at all times (even back in the early-mid 60's when this CLEARLY wasn't the case).
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
yo dawg, I heard you like memes... by Thud457 · 2011-09-16 05:44 · Score: 1

Proof that Richard Nixon was a Sirian fifth-columnist.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Body doubles? by digitalsolo · 2011-09-16 05:47 · Score: 1

So the crew was replacedhttp://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/16/1558202/Soyuz-Capsule-Return-Marred-By-Mystery-Communications-Blackout# with alien drones, big deal.

--
Just another ignorant American.
1. Re:Body doubles? by digitalsolo · 2011-09-16 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Odd, looks normal in preview, all jacked up after submittal. Ah well.
  
  --
  Just another ignorant American.
Moon by Dan+East · 2011-09-16 06:38 · Score: 1

Obviously the moon had something to do with this:
http://www.space.com/12981-nasa-photo-shows-moon-soyuz-space-capsule-landing.html

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:Write the script... Blockbuster here! by Midnight+Thunder · 2011-09-16 07:27 · Score: 1

Indeed. Think Carl Sagan.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:Write the script... Blockbuster here! by Hartree · 2011-09-16 09:05 · Score: 1

"There is 15 minutes of silence recorded on all their recorders!!!!"
There was 15 minutes of being out of communications.
There was 23 hours and 15 minutes of silence on their onboard recorders.
Well, obvious but... by kikito · 2011-09-16 14:04 · Score: 1

"All was well" isn't accurate. At the very least, their communication systems were malfunctioning.
Grocery shopping for Earthlings.. by nanospook · 2011-09-16 15:56 · Score: 1

Well, it's obvious.. they were abducted by aliens.. and rejected..

--
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?