Crew of 'Soyuz' Spacecraft Establish Contact After Failed Launch (theguardian.com)

A Russian-American space crew have been forced to make an emergency landing in Kazakhstan after their Soyuz rocket suffered a failure shortly after launching from Russia's Baikonur cosmodrome in one of the most serious space incidents in recent years. From a report: The launch began as a routine affair. Missions bound for the International Space Station (ISS) have been conducted every few months for the past 20 years. But 119 seconds into Thursday's flight, mission controllers on the Nasa broadcast began to speak of a failure. Shaky footage from the capsule's cabin seen during the live broadcast appeared to show objects floating mid-launch. The crew told mission control they felt weightless, an indication of a problem during that stage of the flight. Agitated voices flooding the radio link between mission control and the capsule could be heard on the Nasa broadcast. Details and the exact sequence of events remain unclear, but shortly afterwards the crew initiated an abort and ejected their capsule from the rocket. Judging by the time at which the failure took place, it involved separation of the rocket's second stage -- just before the ship would have ignited the third stage for its final kick to exit the atmosphere. A commentator on Nasa's live broadcast later said that rescue teams had reached the capsule's landing site and the two-person crew were in "good condition."

Comments

These aborts are dangerous

[Rei]

All sides have every incentive to play up the "the crew is safe" aspect, but there's frequently injuries associated with these aborts, and sometimes long-term ones. I hope they're actually in good health after this.

Re:These aborts are dangerous

[gman003]

Soyuz has had two prior aborts prior to reaching orbit. Soyuz T-10A, in September 1983, caught fire during fueling. The LES motor fired, carrying the crew to safety shortly before the rocket exploded. Soyuz 18A, in April 1975, was a pretty close match for this event: stages 2 and 3 failed to fully separate before stage 3 ignition, the ensuing strain as the engine blew the second stage away caused the craft to veer off course, triggering an automated abort.

The crew of Soyuz 18A had a particularly nasty time of it. The abort triggered while the craft was already pointing downward, so it accelerated its downward fall - they went through about 20G of deceleration when they hit the atmosphere. The craft landed on a hill and started rolling, narrowly avoiding falling off a cliff before the still-attached parachutes snagged on trees. The terrain and heavy snow kept the rescue team from reaching them for a day, forcing the crew to camp overnight. And they were initially unsure of their position, and thought they might be in China - who was rather hostile at the time.

Re:These aborts are dangerous

[dunkelfalke]

Not according to a major Russian new agency.

They say that the astronauts are not in a "completely good health".

Re:These aborts are dangerous

[Rei]

Yes, Soyuz 7K-T No.39 / Soyuz 18a and Soyuz 7K-ST No. 16L / Soyuz T-10-1. There have also been similar high-G experiences in Soyuz capsules from other causes, such as Soyuz 33, Soyuz TMA-1, and Soyuz TMA-11.

Nominal G forces in an abort in a Soyuz capsule are 15g. Sometimes they can be even more. The landing site is also untargeted in an abort and can be hazardous. Heck, even the normal landings in Soyuz spacecraft are pretty rough - over a third of all NASA astronauts who had flown in Soyuz capsules as of late 2016 were injured during landing.

Re:These aborts are dangerous

[XXongo]

the Soviet programme had a capsule-abort from a rocket once, one of the cosmonauts even credited the inventor of the American system that the Soviets duplicated with saving his life if I remember right.

Yes, the Soyuz T10-1 abort used an escape tower to pull the spacecraft away from the burning (soon to be exploding) rocket, 1983. They credited Maxime Faget for inventing the escape tower that was used in the abort (before Soyuz, Soviet manned spaceflight used ejection seats, which only are useful over a very limited range of altitudes. And they left off the ejection seats for some missions, where they needed the mass).

https://web.archive.org/web/20030204073904/http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jsd/jsd030203_3_n.shtml

Re:These aborts are dangerous

[bev_tech_rob]

the Soviet programme had a capsule-abort from a rocket once, one of the cosmonauts even credited the inventor of the American system that the Soviets duplicated with saving his life if I remember right.

The American system used in Challenger and Columbia? Seems like the Russians did not duplicate faithfully.

Ummmmm....the Space Shuttle had no such escape system. They had 'abort modes' that were only usable in certain stages of launch and climb to orbit. There was no option for the crew to 'bail out' during the Challenger accident and Columbia burned up on re-entry due to failure of the heat shielding on the left wing due to a foam impact during launch. The Apollo, Gemini and Mercury systems had such escape systems, but fortunately never had to be used.

BTW, Google is your friend......

Re:This is why everyone is going back to capsules

[ToTheStars]

Capsules have killed too, there was the Soyuz accident where faulty valve leaked the air into space and one where capsule impacted earth at full speed.

That is true, but those failure modes are not unique to capsules; air leaks and mechanical failures will kill in shuttles just as they will in capsules. The difference is that the capsule gives you more abort coverage, since the crew module is self-contained and can survive any conditions from stationary on the ground to orbital velocity. Just pop it off the stack (or whatever's left of it) and go -- not a comfortable ride (I've read that abort loads can be in excess of 20 G's for a few seconds) but that's easier to take than getting caught in the blast. The Space Shuttle, on the other hand, had stricter structural limits because of its large wings and cargo bay, so there were 'black zones' in its launch sequence where it could not safely separate in the event of a failure.