Russia To Rescue ISS Crew On Backup Rocket After Capsule Leak (reuters.com) 27
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Russia said on Wednesday it would launch another Soyuz spacecraft next month to bring home two cosmonauts and a U.S. astronaut from the International Space Station after their original capsule was struck by a micrometeoroid and started leaking last month. The leak came from a tiny puncture -- less than 1 millimeter wide -- on the external cooling system of the Soyuz MS-22 capsule, one of two return capsules docked to the ISS that can bring crew members home.
Russia said a new capsule, Soyuz MS-23, would be sent up on Feb. 20 to replace the damaged Soyuz MS-22, which will be brought back to Earth empty. "Having analyzed the condition of the spacecraft, thermal calculations and technical documentation, it has been concluded that the MS-22 must be landed without a crew on board," said Yuri Borisov, the head of Russian space agency Roscosmos. Russian cosmonauts Sergey Prokopyev and Dmitry Petelin and U.S. astronaut Francisco Rubio had been due to end their mission in March but will now extend it by a few more months and return aboard the MS-23.
"They are ready to go with whatever decision we give them," Joel Montalbano, NASA's ISS program manager, told a news conference. "I may have to fly some more ice cream to reward them," he added. The MS-23, which had been due to take up three new crew in March, will instead depart from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan as an unmanned rescue mission next month. If there is an emergency in the meantime, Roscosmos said it will look at whether the MS-22 spacecraft can be used to rescue the crew. In this scenario, temperatures in the capsule could reach unhealthy levels of 30-40 degrees Celsius (86-104 degrees Fahrenheit). "In case of an emergency, when the crew will have a real threat to life on the station, then probably the danger of staying on the station can be higher than going down in an unhealthy Soyuz," Sergei Krikalev, Russia's chief of crewed space programs, said.
Russia said a new capsule, Soyuz MS-23, would be sent up on Feb. 20 to replace the damaged Soyuz MS-22, which will be brought back to Earth empty. "Having analyzed the condition of the spacecraft, thermal calculations and technical documentation, it has been concluded that the MS-22 must be landed without a crew on board," said Yuri Borisov, the head of Russian space agency Roscosmos. Russian cosmonauts Sergey Prokopyev and Dmitry Petelin and U.S. astronaut Francisco Rubio had been due to end their mission in March but will now extend it by a few more months and return aboard the MS-23.
"They are ready to go with whatever decision we give them," Joel Montalbano, NASA's ISS program manager, told a news conference. "I may have to fly some more ice cream to reward them," he added. The MS-23, which had been due to take up three new crew in March, will instead depart from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan as an unmanned rescue mission next month. If there is an emergency in the meantime, Roscosmos said it will look at whether the MS-22 spacecraft can be used to rescue the crew. In this scenario, temperatures in the capsule could reach unhealthy levels of 30-40 degrees Celsius (86-104 degrees Fahrenheit). "In case of an emergency, when the crew will have a real threat to life on the station, then probably the danger of staying on the station can be higher than going down in an unhealthy Soyuz," Sergei Krikalev, Russia's chief of crewed space programs, said.
Re:Lame, Editor Ivan (Score:4, Informative)
it's EXACTLY the same!
Re: Lame, Editor Ivan (Score:3)
If my car breaks down on the motorway, and I call the AA, what do they do? They send a rescue vehicle.
Hereâ(TM)s the definition: To cause to be free from danger, imprisonment, or difficulty; save. synonym: save.
Are they in difficulty? Yes.
Are they freeing them from that difficulty by sending a second Soyuz? Yes.
Sounds like theyâ(TM)re rescuing them to me. Stop not picking to try and sound smart.
Re: Lame, Editor Ivan (Score:2)
The difficulty that they have no functional vehicle to return to earth in. The Soyuz will roast them, and the dragon is not capable of returning all crew members.
Re: Lame, Editor Ivan (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Lame, Editor Ivan (Score:2)
Er... there are only four seats on the Dragon capsule at the ISS, which has 7 people on it. "Cramming in" people into a reentry vehicle without seats to be strapped into isn't safe either for them OR for the others , who they could kill from jostling about. This isn't a matter of cramming people into a VW bus.
If the Dragon capsule had to be used, people would likely have to be left behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
failure is not a surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
That the Souyz module is susceptible to failure from micrometeor strike is not surprising. I remember when I was a kid, visiting the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, DC where they had (at the time, not sure if they still do) an exhibit with a mockup of the Apollo-Soyuz linkup, which was the first international space mission and led to things like Skylab and the ISS. It looked very much like the mockup was from spare, unlaunced systems, a full Apollo Command and Service Module, and a full Soyuz module. The Apollo hardware was sleek --- almost nothing on the outside. The Soyuz had all sorts of wires and pipes running along the outside, completely unprotected from external strikes. As a young teenager I looked at it and said, "wow, that's stupidly vulnerable. Why didn't they put all of that stuff on the inside, like with Apollo?"
It was only a matter of time before a tiny strike would turn a Soyuz module into space junk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: failure is not a surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
What makes you think that the Apolloâ(TM)s walls would have stopped anything? The outer coverings are 0.3mm thick aluminium. There arenâ(TM)t going to stop anything travelling at orbital velocities. The exact same thing would happen to it. Looking neat is not a measure of engineering quality. For reference, the US sections of the ISS have been holed (ie punching right through the pressure vessel) by micrometeoroids in the past.
Apollo appears to have been a pretty awesome capsule, the actual command module was as far as Iâ(TM)m aware 100% reliable on its few flight. Soyuz is *also* incredibly reliable though. It is in fact the most reliable launch and recently system ever built (though Falcon 9/dragon are catching up).
Re: failure is not a surprise (Score:5, Informative)
A 0.3 mm outer wall doesn't stop micrometeoroids, but it turns them into small debris that no longer has enough kinetic energy to penetrate what's underneath. All modern manned spacecraft use this principle, known as a Whipple shield [wikipedia.org].
Re: failure is not a surprise (Score:3)
Thatâ(TM)s not what Apollo has though. Apollo has a thin bit of Aluminium immediately above the actual equipment, not spaced out from it to give it time to disperse.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, it's just a veneer. My guess is that a similar strike on an Apollo would have punctured the thin skin and done similar damage inside.
Re:failure is not a surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
It's simply impractical to make the walls thick enough to completely prevent a compromise of pressure from a micro-meteorite. They're small, but they have an incredible amount of energy due to their speed. Scientists have developed multi-layer systems that are effective, but for now it's not practical to use up this much room and weight as is needed.
For now they just rely on the odds of a hit being very low and try to make it not be "catastrophic" when (not IF) it happens. They also have small patch kits for little holes like this. Even a few layers of duct tape is sometimes all that's needed. (atmospheric pressure is actually quire low, and it doesn't take much to cover a 1-2mm hole temporarily) The biggest danger is if it hits somewhere that's in a spot they can't get to, such as behind a piece of equipment they can't easily move to get behind. (think of a hit behind the control panel in the Soyuz, or behind the water recycler on the ISS)
The other problem of course is FINDING the leak. The ISS is a big place, and it gets hit regularly, but not holed regluarly. It does happen though, and they have microphones positioned all over the vehicle to listen for the telltale whistle of air leaving through a small hole, to tell them which module to search. They also have sensitive pressure sensors that can identify a module with a leak due to the slight pressure difference it creates. If needed, they also have the option to close doors and wait to see which side of the door the leak is on, and narrow it down slowly that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, and my comment wasn't meant to be a criticism of Apollo's design, just saying that the approach used in Soyuz is also not bad.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if they'll take the opportunity to do some science with the struck Soyuz upon its re-entry. I'd read (yesterday?) they expect the internal temperature to reach 40C or higher; if they can ship up some science on the rescue vehicle so they can bring additional instruments and telemetry to bear on its way down, there could be some valuable learning from this incident.
Re: (Score:2)
Smooth skin is useful on things that fly through the atmosphere, not so much things that stay in space long-term. Hiding all the plumbing would just make it more difficult to service (or find leaks in the first place). All of this stuff is also detached before landing the crew capsule, so it wouldn't make sense to route it through the pressure vessel.
Nothing flying in space is exactly armored against external strikes. A dropped screw flying at orbital speeds would go right through the ISS like a bullet thro
Re: (Score:1)
Missing details (Score:2)
Re:Missing details (Score:4)
Citation? The article linked to in the summary explicitly says, "unmanned." And all the other news sources I've found indicate it will be unmanned.
Where do you read that the Soyuz cannot be flown autonomously? Wikipedia claims the Soyuz capsule can be operated in automatic mode, docking with no human intervention.
Re: (Score:2)