collectSPACE: Messages - Reply to Topic

Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Forum:	Soviet - Russian Space
Topic:	Soyuz 1 (spacecraft 7K-OK No. 4)

Want to register?

Who Can Post?	Any registered users may post a reply.
About Registration	You must be registered in order to post a topic or reply in this forum.
Your UserName:
Your Password:	Forget your password?
Your Reply: HTML is ON UBB Code is ON Smilies Legend	[QUOTE]Originally posted by David C: [B] [QUOTE]Originally posted by soviet space: [b]I think that Komarov wrote all what be going on with him on shipboard Soyuz...[/b][/QUOTE] I'm sure you're right, that's what test pilots do, but it was all lost in the fire.[/B][/QUOTE]
Options	Disable Smilies in This Post. Show Signature: include your profile signature. Only registered users may have signatures.
*If HTML and/or UBB Code are enabled, this means you can use HTML and/or UBB Code in your message.

If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

<table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="600"><TR><td bgcolor="#000000"><TABLE BORDER=0 cellpadding=4 border=0 cellspacing=1 WIDTH="100%"><TR bgcolor="#660000"><TD COLSPAN=2><CENTER>T O P I C     R E V I E W</CENTER></TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#494949"><TD valign=top>David C</TD><TD>Recently, I noticed that despite a few threads here which touch upon aspects of the mission (particularly Vladimir Komarov's death), we have no dedicated Soyuz 1 thread. Largely as a consequence of the former Soviet Union's policy of secrecy, a large amount of disinformation, rumours and downright lies continue to circulate on the subject. This being the 50th anniversary year of the mission, I thought I'd start a thread on the subject. I know that many people here are far more knowledgeable on this than I am, and I hope they will take the opportunity to educate the rest of us.Unfortunately for westerners, much relevant material is still only available in Russian. My main sources are Boris Chertok, Nikolai Kamanin (English summaries) and Asif Siddiqi.</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#333333"><TD valign=top>David C</TD><TD>This is a summary of the uncrewed flight tests prior to Soyuz 1.The Soyuz program, years behind its original schedule, was now working towards the unrealistic objectives of a manned lunar circumnavigation in 1967, followed by a manned moon landing in 1968. Two Soyuz versions were in development for these tasks: the three man 7K-OK Earth orbital craft, and the two man 7K-L1 version (later publicly known as Zond 4 to 8). Different groups of cosmonauts were assigned to each spacecraft type.The 7K-OK spacecraft themselves were divided into odd numbered passive, and even numbered active docking types. The first unmanned test vehicle 7K-OK no. 1 commenced ground tests in May 1966. These ran on for 112 days instead of the planned 13 days, 2123 defects were discovered but it was still sent for launch preparation after "the review team's patience ran out" (Chertok). 7K-OK no. 2 in it's turn displayed about half this number of defects.7K-OK no. 2 was inserted into orbit on Nov. 28, 1966. By the end of its first orbit it had depleted all of its attitude control hydrogen peroxide and was rolling out of control at two revolutions per minute. The remaining orbital life was used to conduct as many systems tests as practical before attempting return using the back-up engine. However, attitude control on this also malfunctioned. They resorted to attempting de-orbit by numerous short firings of the backup engine but the craft was destroyed by the APO system when it detected that landing would occur outside the USSR. It turned out that both the primary and backup means of attitude control had effectively been "phased" in reverse.The launch of 7K-OK no. 1 was rescheduled for Dec. 14. The launch attempt was scrubbed when one first stage booster failed to ignite. The cause was investigated whilst the launch vehicle was still fully fueled. During this time the launch escape system (SAS) unintentionally automatically activated. The 7K-OK descent module made a normal soft landing about 500 yards away but a fire was started in the launch vehicle. The vehicle exploded, destroying the launch facility and killing one member of the ground crew.On Feb. 7, 7K-OK no. 3 was launched. This again had (different) attitude control problems and numerous other glitches. Again a non-normal deorbit was performed followed by entry in the backup ballistic mode. The descent module landed on the Aral Sea and sank due to a burn through of the heat shield.Despite these failures, they decided to resume the program with piloted launches after defect rectification. I think that the undisputed facts are as follows:The plan was to launch 7K-OK no. 4 with a single cosmonaut. The next day 7K-OK no. 5 would be launched with a crew of three. 7K-OK no. 4 would conduct an automatic rendezvous to around 200 yards and the pilot would then dock manually with the other craft. An EVA transfer of two cosmonauts from vehicle 5 to vehicle 4 would then be performed. The craft would then undock and land individually having once more upstaged the Americans. As each vehicle was successfully inserted into orbit they would assume the public designations of Soyuz 1 for 7K-OK no. 4 and Soyuz 2 for 7K-OK no. 5.Three days prior to the first launch the crew assignments were made: Komarov as commander of 7K-OK no. 4 with Yuri Gagarin as his backup; and Valery Bykovsky (commander), Aleksei Yeliseyev and Yevgeny Khrunov for 7K-OK no. 5.On April 23, 1967, Soyuz 1 piloted by Komarov was inserted into an approximatey 110 nautical mile near circular orbit. The left solar array failed to deploy, and the right array operated below design efficiency leaving the craft critically low on electrical power and endurance. In addition, both the 45K sun/star and ionic orientation systems failed. The crew of 7K-OK no. 5 were re-tasked to rendezvous with and conduct EVA repairs of Soyuz 1, but this was subsequently cancelled due to thunderstorms at the launch site. Eventually, with the craft almost out of electrical power reserves, Komarov successfully used an untrained ad hoc emergency procedure sent up by the ground to deorbit. The last confirmed radio contact with Komarov occured after he calmly confirmed descent module separation. The retro-fire problems resulted in a default to backup ballistic reentry.After a successful reentry, the soft landing systems failed and the descent module impacted the ground at around 90 mph approximately 2 miles west of Karabutak in southern Russia. Komarov died on impact. The wreckage and body were severely distorted by a post-crash fire.The investigation determined the final accident sequence to be as follows: The main parachute container cover was jettisoned, presumably at the nominal altitude of around 31,000 feet. This deployed the pilot chute which in turn extracted the drag chute. This chute was designed to reduce the descent velocity so that the main chute would not be damaged by excessive air loads, and to extract the main chute which would then deploy. However, the main chute remained in its container with the drag chute deployed in the airflow. At around 18,000 feet altitude a barostatic instrument measuring detected excessive rate of descent and commenced deployment of the reserve parachute system. Part of this sequence was to release the main canopy, but since it was still in it's container, this step failed. The reserve parachute was extracted but failed to inflate in the disturbed airflow caused by the main drag chute, and the two may have subsequently become entwined. The high rate of descent meant that the front heat shield was only jettisoned just above the surface, and the soft landing rockets fired after impact.The cause of the main parachute deployment failure was officially put down to deformation of the parachute container structure resulting from the pressure differential between the pressurised descent module interior and the atmosphere. Chertok subsequently provided a hypothesis that fits all known facts much better. A manufacturing process error on both 7K-OK no. 4 and no. 5 resulted in excessive roughness of the inside of the main parachute container surfaces. The force required to extract the chute was greatly in excess of that which the drag chute was designed to produce. If the launch of 7K-OK no. 5 had not been cancelled, that crew would also have perished on landing.</TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#494949"><TD valign=top>David C</TD><TD>Common rumours, lies and myths: <OL TYPE=1><LI>Komarov was unhappy with the craft but did not withdraw himself since they would have launched Gagarin instead.Although this seems logical, who knows? Komarov had already commanded Voskhod 1, in itself a very high risk mission. The Soviet space effort in those years seems happy to have accepted extraordinary levels of risk.<LI>Komarov and ground personnel knew he was doomed after the problems in orbit. He referred to the craft as a "devil ship," spoke to Kosygin and said goodbye to his wife.This appears to be malicious nonsense. All credible accounts suggest that although the mission was a failure, he had a good chance of surviving the return.<LI>The descent module ran out of attitude control fuel and went unstable at around Mach 3 during reentry. Subsequent tumbling caused the parachute failure.Also appears highly questionable considering that the severity of the post-crash fire was explained by the presence of remaining unused attitude control hydrogen peroxide.<LI>Komarov manually activated the reserve parachute system.As far as I know there was no manual method of activating the reserve parachute system in the 7K-OK, but I'm ready to be corrected. [And have been, see below]<LI>He died screaming in rage over the radio about his botched ship and the people that put him in it.Worst of the lot in my eyes. A seasoned test pilot and cosmonaut, it just doesn't seem credible, and there is in fact no reliable evidence for this.<LI>The impact was very high speed at around 400 mph.Actually it wasn't. The estimated peak of the impact velocity range was 40 meters per second, which is around 90 miles per hour.</OL></TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#333333"><TD valign=top>cspg</TD><TD>Siddiqi's article about Soyuz 1 in the Space Review: <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI><A HREF="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3226/1" TARGET=_blank>Fifty years later: Soyuz-1 revisited (part 1)</A> (4/27/2017) <LI><A HREF="http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3229/1" TARGET=_blank>Fifty years later: Soyuz-1 revisited (part 2)</A> (5/1/2017)</UL></TD></TR><TR bgcolor="#494949"><TD valign=top>David C</TD><TD>If you're squeamish, skip the next bit. This film clip (1 minute 29 seconds onwards) appeared in a Russian language documentary:Does anyone know if it genuinely shows the Soyuz 1 descent module crash? It does seem to raise a few questions.<center><iframe width="400" height="225" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/s6jrvDu1QEo?rel=0&showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

soviet space

I think that Komarov wrote all what be going on with him on shipboard Soyuz, but because Vladimir perished that a film mounted was not and later in films used part of chronicle from surveys aboard Soyuz 1. I know many films about Komarov, not only it. And by the way there is vinyl about Komarov with his voice and then what he thinks before the flight, the rare vinyl.

David C

quote:
Originally posted by soviet space:
I think that Komarov wrote all what be going on with him on shipboard Soyuz...

I'm sure you're right, that's what test pilots do, but it was all lost in the fire.

kyra

quote:
Originally posted by David C:
As far as I know there was no manual method of activating the reserve parachute system in the 7K-OK, but I'm ready to be corrected.

Yes, there was a command native to the Soyuz 7K-OK, V13. 'Otstrel ZSP' roughly shoot or fire the Reserve Parachute System.

soviet space

May be interested:

Rare film about Komarov
Modern film about Komarov with rare shot.
Rip from vinyl with voice Vladimir Komarov, 1967

David C

Thanks, those were excellent. Hadn't seen almost all of that.

David C

quote:
Originally posted by kyra:
Yes, there was a command native to the Soyuz 7K-OK, V13. 'Otstrel ZSP' roughly shoot or fire the Reserve Parachute System.

Interesting, was that a switch on one of the "КСУ" panels?

kyra

Yes, but it was a pushbutton on either KSU (left or right). The first step was to select/push "Posadka" or landing which was row V. Then press the 13 key.

Ostensibly, Vladimir Komarov would have been trying and retrying this until the last second. At the failure of the main chutes to deploy there would be a red light and siren to cue him into doing this. (This is on the signal matrix, another part of the panel) if I am understanding the sequencing correctly.

David C

So do you have high resolution 7K-OK panel diagrams that you could post here? I only have later Soyuz material.

kyra

I would recommend this.

Most of this is correct for the 7K-OK variant minus the signal table and onboard clock, and the smaller command block that is not part of the KSU grid. The orbital module panel description here is also lacking certain details.

I can send you what I have via e-mail if you are interested. Some diagrams are too large for the forum size limit.

David C

Yes, I'd already seen that site. I'd appreciate you sending me what you've got on the 7K-OK if it's not a bother. My address is on the button above. Thanks.

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts