|
Author
|
Topic: Report: Soyuz escape system has a problem
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-31-2010 07:21 PM
   
MSNBC: Russians report snag in space safety system When astronauts blast off to the International Space Station in a Soyuz spacecraft on Friday, they'll be relying on a safety system that failed in a still-unexplained manner less than a year ago, a top Russian space official said Tuesday.A NASA spokesman told msnbc.com that the U.S. space agency's representatives in Russia had heard about the problem with the Soyuz's launch escape system -- but were assured that it was no big deal. Other NASA sources told msnbc.com that they hadn't been told that the system malfunctioned during a launch last May. And by all accounts, the cause of that malfunction has not yet been determined... |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-31-2010 07:26 PM
Is the pre-Apollo 1/STS-51L culture reemerging within NASA and is this the same approach to risk we are going to see permeate contracted HSF services in the commercial sector under the new Obama plan? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-31-2010 07:35 PM
Or is it really "no big deal," as the Russians advised? According to acting associate administrator for public affairs Bob Jacobs: [Jacobs] said NASA personnel in Russia knew about the problem -- even if workers back in the United States did not."While there was an anomaly, the issue did not affect its functionality," Jacobs explained in an e-mail. "Our Russian partners didn't notify us because it was not considered a safety of flight issue. Had the performance review shown otherwise, NASA would have been notified during the standard general design reviews or stage operation readiness reviews." Jacobs said that Russian engineers "have been very forthright in describing the anomaly and its resolution for future flights." "Our Russian colleagues work problems with the same rigor and dedication as NASA engineers and will discuss any issues with us as they arise and affect joint operations or safety," he said. |
Lasv3
Member Posts: 410
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted 03-31-2010 11:12 PM
From the posts above it is not clear what really happened - could you please explain?LES is normally activated only in case of the catastrophic launch failure. If launch goes well then it is separated. Was it something related to the separation phase (as the launch was obviously nominal)? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-01-2010 12:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lasv3:
From the posts above it is not clear what really happened - could you please explain?
Here are the key passages from the linked MSNBC article by Jim Oberg: The tower is routinely jettisoned two minutes after launch when it is no longer needed, but [during the Soyuz TMA-15 launch] the central thrust chamber malfunctioned, and the discarded rocket landed far from its target area....Western analysts worry that if the Soyuz's rocket booster malfunctioned, the escape system might not have provided adequate thrust to get the crew clear of the explosion, possibly resulting in their deaths. The article notes that the Russian investigation board is still "analyzing the failure." |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 04-01-2010 01:24 AM
Strange. The only problem seems to be that the "discarded rocket" didn't "land" where it was supposed to be. But that didn't impact the flight of TMA-15 (the escape rocket apparently did separate from the Soyuz booster).And from next year on, the US will solely depend on the Russian Soyuz, this story pops up now as a pure coincidence, right? |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-01-2010 02:45 AM
This sounds reminiscent of the ballistic re-entries endured by Soyuz crews in 2007 and 2008.The Russians fixed the root cause of that, so I'm sure they'll fix this. But to launch a crew with a potential flaw in the escape system is what the late Richard Feynman described as playing "Russian roulette" during the Challenger investigation. These three cosmonauts are especially courageous. |
Tonyq
Member Posts: 199
From: UK
Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted 04-01-2010 03:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
The only problem seems to be that the "discarded rocket" didn't "land" where it was supposed to be.
Surely the point is that the "discarded rocket" didn't land in the right place because it had malfunctioned and didn't perform as it should have done. This wasn't a major issue because it was being "discarded", but if it had been required to perform it's function as a launch escape system it might not have done so properly, thus putting the crew at significant risk. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-01-2010 08:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
...this story pops up now as a pure coincidence, right?
Yes, a coincidence, seeing as though this report originated in the Russian media and is attributable to a Russian official at the plant that produces the escape systems. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 04-01-2010 10:42 AM
There was a central thrust chamber malfunction That would seem to be a big problem to me. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 04-03-2010 07:19 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
But to launch a crew with a potential flaw in the escape system
Let's not get carried away. One minor failure in how many launches? It's what is known as risk assessment. One cannot eliminate every risk or nobody would launch. One does the best one can to minimise them and understand what went wrong when something does happen that isn't quite as it should be. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-03-2010 08:35 AM
I understand the concept of risk-assessment, but Challenger and Columbia proved it's best to correct problems sooner rather than later.One gets the impression the Russian Space Agency is under huge pressure to launch manned Soyuz rockets on schedule and without delay. This problem with the escape system was known for months, yet crews were launched anyway. It's a gamble. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 04-03-2010 08:57 AM
Wait until next year when there will be ONLY one vehicle available to reach the ISS. It's a bad idea. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-03-2010 10:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
One gets the impression the Russian Space Agency is under huge pressure to launch manned Soyuz rockets on schedule and without delay.
Russia sets its own Soyuz launch schedule with really no outside influence. NASA does not have input into Soyuz launch schedules other than working with Russia to avoid dual-docked ops with the shuttle. quote:
This problem with the escape system was known for months, yet crews were launched anyway. It's a gamble.
Russian design and engineering culture is different from the United States' and Europe's. They don't (generally) use clean (or white) rooms, for example, and their redundant (back-up) systems are not duplicates but rather completely different designs. But it works for them and they have the flight record to prove it works. quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
Wait until next year when there will be ONLY one vehicle available to reach the ISS. It's a bad idea.
It's not an ideal situation for sure, but it's no different then what happened between Feb. 2003 to July 2005. |
advertisement