Slashdot Log In
Soyuz Ballistic Re-entry 300 Miles Off Course
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sat Apr 19, 2008 09:36 AM
from the you-know-you-need-the-soviet-russia-joke dept.
from the you-know-you-need-the-soviet-russia-joke dept.
call-me-kenneth writes "Soyuz TMA-11, carrying a crew of three returning from the ISS, unexpectedly followed a high-G ballistic re-entry trajectory and ended up landing 300 miles off-course. The crew, including Commander Peggy Whitson and cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko, are reportedly in good health. Soyuz capsules have previously saved the lives of the crew even after severe malfunctions that might have led to the loss of a less robust vehicle."
Related Stories
[+]
Further Details From Soyuz Mishap 190 comments
fyc brings us some information from Universe Today about what happened to Soyuz TMA-11 when it re-entered the atmosphere late last week. Reports indicate that a failure of explosive bolts to separate the Soyuz modules delayed the re-entry and oriented the capsule so the hatch was taking most of the heat, rather than the heat shields. CNN reports that the crew was in 'severe danger.' They experienced forces of up to 8.2 gravities. NASA officials have voiced their approval of how Russia handled the crisis. They expect to rely heavily on Soyuz spacecraft once the shuttles are retired in 2010.
[+]
Soyuz With Richard Garriott Successfully Launched 56 comments
Toren Altair writes "Soyuz TMA-13 with ISS Expedition Crew 18 and Richard Garriott successfully launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome at 7:01 UT (3:01 EDT). The Soyuz capsule will dock to the ISS in two days. Garriott will return to Earth with Expedition 17 crew members, Commander Sergei Volkov and Flight Engineer Oleg Kononenko on October 23."
With the extra attention on this launch, the Russians have gone out of their way to say that the return of the Soyuz vehicle will be safe, after a couple of different malfunctions in the past year. Garriott is in space partly for recreation, and partly as a promotion for his latest MMO, Tabula Rasa. He took with him a hard drive filled with information about humanity, as well as DNA sequences from Tabula Rasa players and various celebrities (including Stephen Colbert and Stephen Hawking) to 'preserve' that data in case of a disaster on Earth. Garriott will also spend time running and participating in experiments. Coverage of the Soyuz mission is ongoing at NASATV.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
"less robust" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"less robust" (Score:5, Interesting)
The US hasn't had a man-rated traditional stack since the last Apollo in 1976, but the next-gen Ares launcher will be a traditional inline design with the payload at the top. That, plus the lack of enormous asymmetrical control and lifting surfaces required for (some value of) atmospheric flight pretty much eliminates the sources of danger caused by the shuttle design.
OTOH, the somewhat... controversial? decision to make the Ares first stage an adaption of the existing shuttle solid rocket boosters is proving rather problematic, owing to the well-known pogo oscillation modthrusterse problems of SRB [flightglobal.com]s. (that's just a random story that popped up on google, no doubt there are much better overviews elsewhere.) Basically as designed the vehicle would crush the crew to jelly with high frequency +/1 70G vertical oscillations (shortly before the entire stack shakes itself to pieces.) (This wasn't a problem on the shuttle because there are two SRBs coupled through the external tank.)
Anyway, in a few years' time we'll be able to start comparing the safety of like with like.
No-one outside the space geek community seems to have noticed, but the Ariane-V launched ATV cargo vessel (payload: ~20 tons) has now launched human flight-rated hardware (the ATV, now docked to ISS), albeit without humans in it when it went off. I suspect there are some interesting things being doodled on napkins at cafes and bars all over Darmstadt.
Parent
Re:China (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what is happening is goods from China are price correcting. If you think Wal-mart is getting expensive, maybe you should try shopping there on the pay scale of the people who make the clothes you are buying. For many years now the Yuan has been kept artificially low, giving China a strong advantage in international trading. They kept their currency values (read labor cost) low by buying up US debt, which kept the dollar high, Japan may have done the same thing. [treas.gov] In effect, Asia has been subsidizing US consumerism for decades. So the western world moved a huge amount of their manufacturing to China. In 2005 China stopped their policy of keeping the Yuan fixed at 8.28 yuan to the dollar, now it's up to 7 yuan to the dollar so everything made in China costs 18% more. China still maintains some trade advantage as they now have a much better manufacturing infrastructure and labor pool, but the now rising yuan is going to slingshot the standard of living in China up to that of the western world in short order. That means that "Made in China" is soon going to cost just as much as "Made in the USA". Which really just means that the people making it are getting paid a fair living wage, and the item actually costs what it is worth.
Parent
How far exactly? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps the calculations were done by the same person who worked out the re-entry trajectory?
Re:How far exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
420km in miles is 260, which gets rounded up to 300 for the Slashdot article.
Parent
sort of off-topic (Score:5, Insightful)
A professional news reporter would know that there have been trouble with the US space program regarding conversions to and from metric units. Therefore it is professionally prudent to make sure you are not lumped in with the same idiots who made those mistakes.
It's not that hard, really. Such things are the stuff of journalism classes from the 50's or sooner. How not to look like an idiot when reporting the news!
Parent
Re:sort of off-topic (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:sort of off-topic (Score:5, Funny)
You've made an intelligent point without threatening anyone.
That's downright unamerican.
Parent
Re:sort of off-topic (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
I shall endeavour to make my humour more obvious from now on. Knock knock...
Re:How far exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're trying to explain significant figures to
Re:How far exactly? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Full Manual Re-entry is Possible in Soyuz (Score:5, Interesting)
There is an interesting article [space.gc.ca], written by a Canadian, in which he discusses the manual descent training that he received as part of cosmonaut training. Apparently, one of the back up computer systems is your brain itself (i.e. full manual control or renentry with analog controls and instruments). Queue the Soviet Russia jokes now...In Soviet Russia the re-entry computer is YOU!
From TA: "Under nominal end-of-mission situations, an automatic re-entry system will return the Soyuz vehicle and crew from space safely back to the ground. However, the crew must be familiar with the several backup modes that exist in instances when the automatic system fails. One of the backup re-entry modes is the crew themselves! For certain hardware and software malfunctions, the crew will be required to manually fly the Soyuz back to Earth through the atmosphere."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Full Manual Re-entry is Possible in Soyuz (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Full Manual Re-entry is Possible in Soyuz (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Full Manual Re-entry is Possible in Soyuz (Score:5, Informative)
According to this link: http://www.astronautix.com/flights/mireo23.htm [astronautix.com] the landing rockets failed anyway, which resulted in a hard, but survivable landing.
And according to this: http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html [jamesoberg.com] the crew has no control over the parachute deployment. (This is written in entry 6 B under "Special Questions)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But at 10G, the crew's probably not going to be conscious to operated that manual system. 10G is enough to cause G-induced loss of consciousness (GLOC) in anyone, even physically fit, properly trained, and prepared personnel. Even fighter aircraft, where the pilot is in a properly reclined position and is wearing a g-suit, limit maneuvering to 9g, because after that, that pilot's asleep.
In an aircraft, the pilot's head is necessarily somewhat higher than the rest of his body so that he can see outside, especially forward. That's why high G's result in a loss of blood flow to the brain.
An astronaut doesn't have that limitation. I wouldn't be surprised if their seating position makes them less vulnerable to GLOC than a pilot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Heavyside Layers (Score:4, Informative)
There's a difference between the eyes-down load on a fighter pilot sitting in an ejection seat (even the semi-reclining versions, which aren't really very reclined) and the eyes-in loading on a astronaut laying on their back. The main difference is that the person on their back isn't having their blood trying to fill their boots when the Gs strike like the person sitting in a chair.
The two don't really compare. I'd advise you to do a little research before trying to make that case.
Parent
Re:Heavyside Layers (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Genie in a Bottle (Score:5, Funny)
Horse shoes and hand gernades (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Any landing you walk away from is a good landing."
Ancient quotation from the early days of airplanes... and still appropriate.
Good to have the cosmonauts back in one piece.
I'm impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that they survived the experience is amazing. Say what you want about Soviet technology, this was a very, very neat trick.
I'm not impressed. (Score:5, Informative)
When it comes to Soviet technology only one thing needs to be pointed out: This brings the re-entry failure rate of the current mark of Soyuz to 20% and trending upwards. (This report [jamesoberg.com] on Soyuz landing safety with the older marks is sobering reading.)
Parent
Re:I'm not impressed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I'm not impressed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I'm not impressed. (Score:4, Interesting)
Saying that Soyuz is no good is like saying that Linux is no good because the 2.2 kernel sucked.
Soyuz is a $#*#*ing remarkable spacecraft. Its reentry mechanism might not be the most elegant, but is certainly the most robust, and has proven able to get the crew back even after every other system has failed.
Since the last fatality in 1971, Soyuz cosmonauts have survived two booster failures -- one in which the booster wildly deviated off-course, and another in which the rocket exploded on the pad with the capsule still attached.
To contrast, the Space Shuttle was destroyed by a piece of foam, and must follow its landing procedure to a T in order for the crew to have even a remote chance of survival.
Parent
Re:I'm impressed (Score:4, Insightful)
He's right, there's nothing amazing about the Soyuz surviving a ballistic re-entry, since that's what it was designed to do. This isn't the shuttle we're talking about - you can't compare the two. It's like saying that it's amazing that a 747 can continue flying with one broken engine, while a Cesna can't. You'd be comparing two completely different things.
Parent
Something is missing from this story... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr Perminov said the craft followed the back-up landing plan, a so-called "ballistic re-entry" - a plunge with an uncontrollable, steep trajectory
He said the crew missed the target because they changed their landing plan at the last minute without telling mission control.
Astronauts don't just don't go changing re-entry profiles willy-nilly. If they did it, there was a reason they needed to.
Remember the collision between the Progress supply ship and Mir during the manual docking? The first thing the Soviets did was blame it on the Russian cosmonaut. It turned out the whole operation was poorly planned, rehearsed and was an accident waiting to happen.
There's a lot more to this story than we've heard yet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oblig (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
Astronauts. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Astronauts. (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe you should say huge nads or something else that's more unisex, considering both of the astronauts in this case were women.
Parent
Re:Astronauts. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:5, Informative)
"He said the crew missed the target because they changed their landing plan at the last minute without telling mission control."
So most likely it was not a steering malfunction.
Parent
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:5, Funny)
"Screw you guys, I'm going home."
Parent
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:4, Funny)
Serezha, davai vruchnuyu!!!
Parent
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:5, Funny)
"Nyet Nyet, metric I tell you metric"
Parent
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:4, Funny)
A jet mechanic friend of mine is fond of the phrase "the glide-ratio of a rock".
Parent
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really an euphemism. The definition of "ballistic" literally means to fall like a rock.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He said the crew missed the target because they changed their landing plan at the last minute without telling mission control.
Certainly IS scary. You wouldn't expect the a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's rather a case of "we make them rugged, 'cause we got a lot of other problems we have to overcome."
Re:Nice Spin (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/54404/ [airliners.net]
Soyuz (1967-Present)
Flights: 95
Failures: 4 (2 non-fatal)
Failure Rate: 4.21%
Cosmonauts Flown: 228
Fatalities: 4
Fatality Rate: 1.75%
Shuttle (1981-Present)
Flights: 116
Failures: 3 (1 non-fatal)
Failure Rate: 2.59%
Astronauts Flown: 692
Fatalities: 14
Fatality Rate: 2.02%
This is a statistical dead heat. There is simply not a big enough sample size to distinguish between a 1.75% and a 2.02% fatality rate. And the "who had an accident more recently" does not establish it either.
Both are good systems, each has respective advantages (simplicity and low-cost vs. a lot of on-orbit assembly and payload capability). It's good the world has both, and we may never know which would be safer with infinite flights.
Parent