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

[TWX]

I'm going to treat this abort-crew-is-safe similarly to how I treat the passenger in cars post-auto-accident. Asking, "are you OK?" doesn't mean I expect them to be exactly as they were prior to the collision, I'm establishing if they are in a position to respond, and how serious their injuries are. I expect they might have suffered whiplash, or been battered-around enough to have bruises and scrapes. I just want to know if they're seriously injured enough to require emergency medical attention, so when I'm talking with the 911 operator I can state if an ambulance must be called or not.

My expectation is that the crew is battered and possibly has suffered minor to moderate abrasions from cabin contents shifting about. Concussion isn't even ruled out. I expect though, no deep lacerations, no major bones broken, no injuries that would classify one as a casualty.

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:These aborts are dangerous

[TechyImmigrant]

I expect they may need new underwear.

This is why everyone is going back to capsules

[ToTheStars]

Wings and wheels get you some nice qualities for certain missions (see the X-37 and fly-back booster designs like the XS-1), but for crew safety, it's really nice to be able to just pull the crew module up and away.

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.

Re:This is why everyone is going back to capsules

[Solandri]

The Space Shuttle was originally proposed in the 1960s, and designed in the 1970s. Back then, spy satellites used film. After a full roll was shot, it was ejected, re-entered the Earth's atmosphere, and an elaborate system was in place to capture those film canisters in mid-air. When all the film aboard a spy satellite was used, it became a billion dollar paperweight in orbit.

The point of the Space Shuttle was to go into orbit, dock with a spy satellite, and re-load it with new film canisters. That's why the Shuttle's cargo bay was exactly the size to hold a spy satellite (which not coincidentally is about the same size as Hubble - in fact they're just a HST pointed at the ground instead of at the stars). As long as the cost of each Shuttle mission was less than the cost of building and launching a new spy satellite, it was worth it to the USAF. The USAF was hoping for one Shuttle launch every week to restock its spy satellites with fresh film. At that frequency, the rocket stages you throw away become prohibitively expensive. So the Shuttle was designed with as many re-usable parts as possible.

Unfortunately for the Shuttle, during its development, spy satellites began switching to electronic camera sensors. These could simply beam the resulting images down to Earth via radio, obviating the need for film. Consequently, by the time the Shuttle finally flew, the USAF no longer needed it for its original purpose. And the Shuttle never flew more than about a dozen times a year, with average interval between flights being more than 2 months. The huge development, facility, and staff maintenance costs which were supposed to be amortized by spreading it over 50 launches a year, were instead spread over just 5 launches a year. Resulting in a per-flight cost which far exceeded the cost of conventional rockets.

Re:The missing footage shows

[stealth_finger]

brainwashing works well on human subject, only specially train candidates are able to resist

Soon this world will belong to the trains. Choo choo mother fucker.

Components

[stealth_finger]

Did they try hitting it with a hammer? American components, Russian components, all made in Taiwan.

Re:I hate when that happens

[Kazymyr]

Welcome back Jebediah. Now get ready for the next attempt. Moar boosters this time.

Q Who?

[Zorro]

Capt. Picard: I understand what you've done here, Q. But I think the lesson could have been learned without the loss of 18 members of my crew.

Q: If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.