Soyuz malfunction during launch

Message
Author
Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Soyuz malfunction during launch

#1 Post by Boac » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:19 am

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe ... c_breaking

Down and reported alive and well. Bit of a wait for the current ISS crew!

NASA LIve

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#2 Post by Boac » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:08 pm

UPDATE 13 MCC Moscow told the ISS crew “The boys have landed, the ballistic entry was only 6 to 7 G I guess they didn’t accelerate enough on the way up”.
UPDATE 12 Soyuz crew members are on board rescue helicopter.
UPDATE 11 Soyuz incident could have happened when 1 of 4 units of first stage hit second stage.
UPDATE 10 Rescue crew reached the landing site and the crew is out of the capsule.
UPDATE 9 According to reports, Soyuz MS10 landed 20km from Jezkazgan, Kazakhstan.
UPDATE 8 Four Mi-8 helicopters have taken off from Kazakh airports to search for the crew who landed in Kazakhstan – Russian military.
UPDATE 7 The crew feels “good, as well as possible after experiencing such g-forces”.
UPDATE 6 All Russian manned launches suspended after ‘Soyuz’ accident.
UPDATE 5 Mission control in communication with the crew of Soyuz MS-10, they are in good condition.
UPDATE 4 Crew of Soyuz confirmed alive after emergency landing.
UPDATE 3 The crew is alive and experiencing a g-force of 6g.
UPDATE 2 New ISS crew to make ballistic descent and land approximately in Kazakhstan.
UPDATE 1 “The boosters on a second-stage launching vehicle switched off,” the sources at the Baikonur Cosmodrome told Interfax news agency.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#3 Post by Boac » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:32 pm

They are now back at base. What happens now? Change of shreddies, strap on a new booster and off we go again?

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#4 Post by Boac » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:40 pm

Getting interesting! Now apparently (reported) to be a criminal investigation into the 'assembly process' of the Soyuz rocket.

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#5 Post by Undried Plum » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:06 pm

Very impressive that the emergency system worked in what amounts to a worst case scenario.

That piece of sh!t Shuttle wasn't so well designed. A 40% failure rate, always catastrophic to the crew/passengers.

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#6 Post by Boac » Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:01 pm

According to The Times, "Russia has suspended crewed spaceflights after a Soyuz spacecraft made an emergency landing." which leaves the December rotation of crew in question. The current crew, of course, have their own Soyuz module plugged in to ISS but 'coming home' would leave the ISS un-personned unless the next 3 can get up there. Best turn the heating down, lock it up, and leave the key under a flowerpot by the door? :))

User avatar
Fox3WheresMyBanana
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 12986
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Location: Great White North
Gender:
Age: 61

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#7 Post by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:23 pm

Don't forget to cancel the milk and papers too!

User avatar
llondel
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5913
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:17 am
Location: San Jose

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#8 Post by llondel » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:32 pm

Someone must have really pissed off the crew, they went ballistic.

G-CPTN
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7594
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:22 pm
Location: Tynedale
Gender:
Age: 79

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#9 Post by G-CPTN » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:50 pm

Did they take their baggage with them when they evacuated?

wings folded
Capt
Capt
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 8:31 pm
Location:

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#10 Post by wings folded » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:23 am

"Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch"

I read it as "Re: Soyuz malfunction during lunch"

Good job the crew was not French. They wouldn't have made start on fixing it until at least 3 in the afternoon

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17209
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#11 Post by Boac » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:30 am

At least they would have had a glass of wne with the lunch.

G-CPTN
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7594
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 11:22 pm
Location: Tynedale
Gender:
Age: 79

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#12 Post by G-CPTN » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:45 am

wings folded wrote:
Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:23 am
Good job the crew was not French. They wouldn't have made start on fixing it until at least 3 in the afternoon.
A similar quote (but about the Italians) got me banned from R&N at TOP . . . :YMPARTY:

Just saying . . .

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#13 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:06 am

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2018/10/12/ ... e-station/

abort_crew_return.jpg
abort_crew_return.jpg (34.6 KiB) Viewed 1071 times
Caco

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#14 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:29 am

Undried Plum wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:06 pm
Very impressive that the emergency system worked in what amounts to a worst case scenario.

That piece of sh!t Shuttle wasn't so well designed. A 40% failure rate, always catastrophic to the crew/passengers.
The Russian record of successful launches has been spotty recently notwithstanding the high successful launch rate over the last 3 decades.

The Soviet & Russian space programs have traditionally had a high launch rate, which also resulted in a fair number of partial and complete failures. For the past 30 years, the program has experienced 61 incidents or an average of about two per year. The current string of annual failures stretches back to 2004.

The chart below chronicles the partial and complete failures experienced over the last three decades. (Note: Some of the incidents involve Zenit boosters produced by former Soviet factories in Ukraine. These rockets usually fly with Russian-produced upper stages. Dnepr was also a joint program with Ukraine.)
Launch1.JPG
Launch1.JPG (85.55 KiB) Viewed 1069 times
Launch2.JPG
Launch2.JPG (84.75 KiB) Viewed 1069 times
Launch3.JPG
Launch3.JPG (88.01 KiB) Viewed 1069 times
Launch4.JPG
Launch4.JPG (78.65 KiB) Viewed 1069 times
Caco

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#15 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:32 am

Launch5.JPG
Launch5.JPG (89.07 KiB) Viewed 1068 times
Caco

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#16 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:05 am

Undried Plum wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:06 pm
Very impressive that the emergency system worked in what amounts to a worst case scenario.

That piece of sh!t Shuttle wasn't so well designed. A 40% failure rate, always catastrophic to the crew/passengers.

The Russian "shuttle" Buran made allowance for ejection by all 6 crew and was an able air and spacecraft, making a flawless first (and only) flight in autonomous mode before the Soviet Untion collapsed.

Buran ejector seats.gif
Buran ejector seats.gif (63.24 KiB) Viewed 1057 times





Она летит Борис


Caco

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#17 Post by Undried Plum » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:55 am

The Shuttle Orbiter's design spec, particularly for its payload bay dimensions and handling arm, was designed to recover Soviet LEO intel satellites intact and bring them back to Earth.

The Soviets knew that, so they designed Buran specifically for the task of doing the same thing with Septic intel sats.

The reason why the project was not continued beyond the demo flight was that the Septics got the message and so never actually attempted to pinch a Sov sat in orbit.

There is a somewhat funny sidebar to that story, but I need to think carefully before putting it on an open forum.

User avatar
OFSO
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 18600
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:39 pm
Location: Teddington UK and Roses Catalunia
Gender:
Age: 80

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#18 Post by OFSO » Sat Oct 13, 2018 1:53 pm

Soviet vehicles were always of massive construction. Note the way that they are assembled horizontally and then raised to a vertical position. Arianespace and US launch vehicles are always assembled vertically by stacking. The pressurised fuel and oxidiser tanks also augment stability. Russian vehicles are stronger even when empty. And of course heavier and need far more thrust for the same payload.

User avatar
Undried Plum
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 7308
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 pm
Location: 56°N 4°W

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#19 Post by Undried Plum » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:00 pm

I'm going to have to miss out a few details, and I'm going to skip very lightly over how I know the inside info, but here's what I meant by a sidebar to the Shuttle thing.

When Challenger exploded, the principal civilian contractor to USN SupSalv, who had HQ in Falls Church and a workshop in Fort Liquordale, was immediately dispatched to commence the seabed search and recovery.

Remarkably precise and accurate radar data, with an amazing scan rate, had tracked the exact impact point of many thousands of pieces of falling debris. The cause of the breakup was immediately known by the NASA wonks.

The prioritisation for the recovery crew was very explicit:

#1 Human remains
#2 The SRBs
#3 The astronav gizmo which was located just in front of the left hand front window of the flight deck. It was the same device as was/is used to navigate Trident missiles in the mid-flight phase and they thought that the Russkies didn't know how it worked.
#4 The payload.

I will never understand why they prioritised #3 over #4. The payload was massively more important and way more secret than the damned Starfix gizmo. It was to distract public attention from the payload that there had been all that pre-mission hoopla about the school ma'am. For the Proles, she was the payload.

In actuality, Priorities #1 & #2 were carried out in parallel. There exist several illicit and unpublished photos of the SRB sections on the back deck of the work vessel which very clearly show the sooty streak from the locus of the failed seal. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the cause of the crackup. When the person who took the photos went back to the drug store to get newly developed film and prints, the girlie behind the desk pulled the closest-up pic out of the sleeve and said something to the effect of "Is that where the Shuttle blew up?". It took Richard Feynman to replicate her conclusion, months later.

So much time was spent on Priorities 1 & 2 & 3 that I was somewhat unsurprised that 'sumb'dy' had already spirited away the juicest bits of the payload before SupSalv's finest had got to them.

I got into trouble for saying to one of the many bosses of that job that somebody had cleverly got their revenge for the Glomar Explorer job.

The opposition knew damn well how unreliable the Shuttle was and had quite certainly pre-positioned underwater assets appropriately as a matter of routine, just in case.

I'm always unsurprised when I see how good Russians are at chess.

Cacophonix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 8327
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:14 pm
Location: Wandering

Re: Soyuz malfunction during launch

#20 Post by Cacophonix » Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:11 pm

Undried Plum wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:00 pm
I'm going to have to miss out a few details, and I'm going to skip very lightly over how I know the inside info, but here's what I meant by a sidebar to the Shuttle thing.

When Challenger exploded, the principal civilian contractor to USN SupSalv, who had HQ in Falls Church and a workshop in Fort Liquordale, was immediately dispatched to commence the seabed search and recovery.

Remarkably precise and accurate radar data, with an amazing scan rate, had tracked the exact impact point of many thousands of pieces of falling debris. The cause of the breakup was immediately known by the NASA wonks.

The prioritisation for the recovery crew was very explicit:

#1 Human remains
#2 The SRBs
#3 The astronav gizmo which was located just in front of the left hand front window of the flight deck. It was the same device as was/is used to navigate Trident missiles in the mid-flight phase and they thought that the Russkies didn't know how it worked.
#4 The payload.

I will never understand why they prioritised #3 over #4. The payload was massively more important and way more secret than the damned Starfix gizmo. It was to distract public attention from the payload that there had been all that pre-mission hoopla about the school ma'am. For the Proles, she was the payload.

In actuality, Priorities #1 & #2 were carried out in parallel. There exist several illicit and unpublished photos of the SRB sections on the back deck of the work vessel which very clearly show the sooty streak from the locus of the failed seal. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the cause of the crackup. When the person who took the photos went back to the drug store to get newly developed film and prints, the girlie behind the desk pulled the closest-up pic out of the sleeve and said something to the effect of "Is that where the Shuttle blew up?". It took Richard Feynman to replicate her conclusion, months later.

So much time was spent on Priorities 1 & 2 & 3 that I was somewhat unsurprised that 'sumb'dy' had already spirited away the juicest bits of the payload before SupSalv's finest had got to them.

I got into trouble for saying to one of the many bosses of that job that somebody had cleverly got their revenge for the Glomar Explorer job.

The opposition knew damn well how unreliable the Shuttle was and had quite certainly pre-positioned underwater assets appropriately as a matter of routine, just in case.

I'm always unsurprised when I see how good Russians are at chess.
Funded by Howard Hughes if I remember correctly and of course the major bit of the Soviet (reactors/missiles) sub they were looking for broke off and sank back into the briny. Of course all this skulduggery continues with the "top secret" U.S. military's X-37B whirling around on classified missions.

lead_720_405.jpg
lead_720_405.jpg (54.69 KiB) Viewed 1028 times
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ve/525969/

Caco

Post Reply