Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Space - History Forum » Soyuz TMA-11 Comes Home, More or Less...

Page 2 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Author

Message

Pat Flannery

Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:56 pm

Guest

Dale Carlson wrote:

Quote:

Whatever caused the 20 minute delay, that would explain why the
landing has been described as an "overshoot", as I assume the
steeper trajectory of a ballistic course would result in the opposite.

That can't be right; a twenty minute delay means the capsule was

floating around for twenty minutes under its descent under its
parachute, and to get that to happen it would need to get sucked up in
some sort of giant thermal updraft like would be caused by a thunderstorm.
I dug out all my stuff on Soyuz reentry details last night and the
amount of deviation from the normal landing target is right on the nose
for a ballistic reentry (450 km), but that's a undershoot, not a overshoot.
To get a overshoot of that magnitude, the capsule would have had to do
some sort of a aerodynamic skip-type maneuver during reentry, if it had
a nominal retro burn. A 20 minute delay in retrofire means you are going
to come down around 1/4 of the Earth's circumference away from where you
were supposed to have landed.
A short or late retro burn could make you overshoot the landing site,
but coming down with a 450 km overshoot with a ballistic reentry means
you need a normal reentry landing point that is 900 km off from where
it was intended to be.
That would explain why the crew "chose" a ballistic reentry though... it
would allow them to come down far short of where a normal lifting
reentry would have put them.
That still isn't 20 minutes difference though.

Pat

Pat Flannery

Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:14 pm

Guest

Dale Carlson wrote:

Quote:

Thus, no need for a burning parachute on descent. The heatshield
is gone, so the landing rockets likely fired.

Soyuz TMA has both a primary and secondary set of landing rockets on its
base; I've always wondered what would happen if the first set firing
reflected its exhaust off of the ground, and ignited the second set.
In the photo there appears to be a large burn mark to the left of the
picture, so I assume that's where it originally touched down.
That doesn't agree with the side the top of the capsule is facing if the
parachute dragged it around due to the direction of the wind shown in
the photo, or its final position.
When I was writing that earlier posting, I realized you could be in a
world of hurt if the returning Soyuz capsule ever did descend into a
thunderstorm due to something doing off-kilter during reentry. If the
updrafts did pull the capsule upwards into the storm, its parachute
could become so covered with ice that its weight would cause the capsule
to fall out of the sky like a rock.
This may be one reason there is a automatic primary chute
jettison/back-up chute deploy built into the spacecraft if the onboard
systems indicate too rapid of a descent rate.

Pat

Pat Flannery

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:13 am

Guest

Alfred S. Dert wrote:

Quote:

Or acting as submarine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_23

I've never heard of it being completely submerged. The Soyuz is designed
to float, and cosmonauts are given training in water landings.
The whole parachute system only weighs a few hundred pounds, so even if
it were waterlogged it wouldn't drag the capsule underwater.
Even the page with photos of the recovery that the article cites shows
it floating:
http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru/bibl/davydov/text/12.htm
The fact that the parachute didn't detach is odd though.
Theres a somewhat garbled description of the landing here:
http://www.videocosmos.com/soyuz23.shtm
According to James Oberg's study, a electrical short after the water
landing caused the reserve parachute to deploy also:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html

Pat

Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:25 am

On Apr 22, 2:13 am, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:

Quote:

Alfred S. Dert wrote:

Or acting as submarine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_23

I've never heard of it being completely submerged. The Soyuz is designed
to float, and cosmonauts are given training in water landings.
The whole parachute system only weighs a few hundred pounds, so even if
it were waterlogged it wouldn't drag the capsule underwater.
Even the page with photos of the recovery that the article cites shows
it floating:http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru/bibl/davydov/text/12.htm
The fact that the parachute didn't detach is odd though.
Theres a somewhat garbled description of the landing here:http://www.videocosmos.com/soyuz23.shtm
According to James Oberg's study, a electrical short after the water
landing caused the reserve parachute to deploy also:http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html

Pat

T.B.

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:01 pm

Guest

Dr.Colon.Oscopy@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

Or acting as submarine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_23

I've never heard of it being completely submerged. The Soyuz is designed
to float, and cosmonauts are given training in water landings.
The whole parachute system only weighs a few hundred pounds, so even if
it were waterlogged it wouldn't drag the capsule underwater.
Even the page with photos of the recovery that the article cites shows
it floating:http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru/bibl/davydov/text/12.htm
The fact that the parachute didn't detach is odd though.
Theres a somewhat garbled description of the landing
here:http://www.videocosmos.com/soyuz23.shtm
According to James Oberg's study, a electrical short after the water
landing caused the reserve parachute to deploy
also:http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html

Pat

Interfax now reporting that the descent module came in "hatch first"
instead of heat sheild with signifigant damage occuring, pressure
relief valve damaged and comm antenna burned off. russian officials
give it a criticality of 3 out of 5. See
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jJitDZhZSzTx3L37XQOplAlh8fGQD90749E80
..............Doc

+++++++

I've heard of one Soyuz reentry where the descent module tumbled severely
(not including Soyuz 1) but never one that apparently came in nose first for
most or all of the descent. I would guess it's a miracle that the parachute
cover wasn't fused closed from the heat.

T.B.

Pat Flannery

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:02 pm

Guest

Dr.Colon.Oscopy@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

James Oberg was just on NBC news saying the same thing.
This was accompanied by great animation of a joined orbital module and
descent module entering the atmosphere with the crew landing in the
orbital module. Very Happy

According to the NBC report, the equipment module didn't detach the last
time either, which led to that ballistic reentry.
If the thing really did come in front-end first like Soyuz 5, that would
explain possible parachute damage, as that did occur on Soyuz 5 (Pat
pats self on back... as for once he did mention that as a possible cause
of parachute damage in a earlier posting on this landing:
http://tinyurl.com/59th8c )
If this really did occur twice in a row, then it's crazy to trust the
lives of American astronauts to the Soyuz for reentry.
This will have huge ramifications for the ISS program.

Pat

Pat Flannery

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:42 pm

Guest

Pat Flannery wrote:

Quote:

If this really did occur twice in a row, then it's crazy to trust the
lives of American astronauts to the Soyuz for reentry.
This will have huge ramifications for the ISS program.

This New Scientist article says the equipment module also separated late
on the TMA-10 mission: http://tinyurl.com/4x3t84
Odd, I don't remember hearing about that at the time it occurred.
This report speaks of a faulty electrical control cable:
http://ruspace.blogspot.com/2008/01/soyuz-tma-10-ballistic-landing-cause.html
Of course if one of the things that control cable was supposed to do was
separate the descent and equipment modules, then a lot is explained.
Another alternative is that the equipment module separated, but remained
attached to the descent module via the electrical cables that connected
them till they burned through or were torn off during the initial stages
of reentry. (normally, a pyrotechnic activated guillotine device is
supposed to sever them)
If that's the case, then it's a old problem for the Russians; the Vostok
spacecraft had problems with the umbilical between the crew sphere and
equipment/retro module not detaching, and more than one of the manned
flights (including Gagarin's) came into the atmosphere dragging its
equipment module behind it till the umbilical burned through or was
pulled out of its socket on the reentry sphere.

Pat

Jorge R. Frank

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:38 pm

Guest

T.B. wrote:

Quote:

I've heard of one Soyuz reentry where the descent module tumbled
severely (not including Soyuz 1) but never one that apparently came in
nose first for most or all of the descent. I would guess it's a miracle
that the parachute cover wasn't fused closed from the heat.

Soyuz 5 did, in 1969.

<http://www.jamesoberg.com/062002flightjournalsoyuz5.html>

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:50 pm

Guest

On Apr 22, 5:42 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:

Quote:

Pat Flannery wrote:

If this really did occur twice in a row, then it's crazy to trust the
lives of American astronauts to the Soyuz for reentry.
This will have huge ramifications for the ISS program.

This New Scientist article says the equipment module also separated late
on the TMA-10 mission:http://tinyurl.com/4x3t84
Odd, I don't remember hearing about that at the time it occurred.
This report speaks of a faulty electrical control cable:http://ruspace.blogspot.com/2008/01/soyuz-tma-10-ballistic-landing-ca...
Of course if one of the things that control cable was supposed to do was
separate the descent and equipment modules, then a lot is explained.
Another alternative is that the equipment module separated, but remained
attached to the descent module via the electrical cables that connected
them till they burned through or were torn off during the initial stages
of reentry. (normally, a pyrotechnic activated guillotine device is
supposed to sever them)
If that's the case, then it's a old problem for the Russians; the Vostok
spacecraft had problems with the umbilical between the crew sphere and
equipment/retro module not detaching, and more than one of the manned
flights (including Gagarin's) came into the atmosphere dragging its
equipment module behind it till the umbilical burned through or was
pulled out of its socket on the reentry sphere.

Pat

Latest news:
Citing an unmanned space official close to Russia's post-landing
investigation, Interfax reported that the propulsion module did not
jettison properly, preventing the Soyuz's heat shield from bearing the
brunt of the fiery temperatures during reentry.

Instead, the spacecraft's hatch side was facing forward and suffered
some heat damage before the propulsion module separated for good and
allowed a successful landing, the news agency reported.

Just like Soyuz 5, could have been a bad day....

Neil Gerace

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:54 pm

Guest

On Apr 23, 3:50 pm, M <otake...@bigvalley.net> wrote:

Quote:

Citing an unmanned space official close to Russia's post-landing
investigation,

probably should be 'unnamed' although I suppose the official could be
a robot Smile

spazhoward

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:06 am

Guest

On Apr 23, 2:02 am, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:

Quote:

...
James Oberg was just on NBC news saying the same thing.
This was accompanied by great animation of a joined orbital module and
descent module entering the atmosphere with the crew landing in the
orbital module. Very Happy

...
Pat

Pat,

I thought maybe I was the only one who noticed the mistake in the NBC
animation. After reading a few of your posts, I can see you've spent
even more time than me reading about the Soviet... uh, excuse me, I'm
showing my age, now it's the "RUSSIAN" space program!

MSNBC plays the clip at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619#24261472

I was already working online when the news aired last night on the
east coast, so I quickly e-mailed NBC News about the animation,
telling them I was just a nerd trying to be helpful. Surprisingly, Tom
Costello responded within minutes, with one of their producers
ultimately sending me this e-mail later last night:

From: Monahan, Kevin (NBC Universal)
To: 'spazhoward'
Sent: Tue Apr 22 21:52:37 2008
Subject: NBC News thank you
I just wanted to write you in order to thank you for your e-mail this
evening. Because of your information, we were able to fix the graphic
for the rest of the country tonight in Tom Costello's piece. Call
yourself a nerd if you want, but you helped us make a correction for
several million of our viewers tonight. Sorry for our mistake. Thanks
again,
Kevin Monahan
Nightly News with Brian Williams

I'd be interested in hearing if anyone on the west coast saw the
animation and noticed if they got it right, and maybe just didn't
update the website (or maybe they just flipped the orbital module this
time and THOUGHT they fixed the animation?)

Jorge R. Frank

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:46 am

Guest

Neil Gerace wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 23, 3:50 pm, M <otake...@bigvalley.net> wrote:

Citing an unmanned space official close to Russia's post-landing
investigation,

probably should be 'unnamed' although I suppose the official could be
a robot Smile

Or even a woman, though given Russian officials' attempts at "humor"
that is somewhat unlikely...

Pat Flannery

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:53 am

Guest

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Quote:

T.B. wrote:

I've heard of one Soyuz reentry where the descent module tumbled
severely (not including Soyuz 1) but never one that apparently came
in nose first for most or all of the descent. I would guess it's a
miracle that the parachute cover wasn't fused closed from the heat.

Soyuz 5 did, in 1969.

This New York Times article also says the TMA-10 flight didn't separate
correctly from its equipment module either:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/science/space/23soyuz.html?ref=europe
Although the Russians characterized this as a 3-out-of-5 on the scale of
severity, When Soyuz 5 did its reentry with the equipment module still
attached, everyone (including cosmonaut Boris Volynov) was amazed that
he had survived the reentry.
The fact that the problem on TMA-10 was considered minor at the time,
and that its true nature wasn't discussed by either the Russians or
NASA till now makes it look like a very severe situation got swept under
the rug in order to keep the ISS program running smoothly.
The fact that the same problem has now happened on two successive
flights indicates a major problem with the standards being used in
assembling and inspecting the Soyuz in Russia, and now further US
astronauts should be entrusted to it either on ascent or descent, till
what exactly went wrong on the the last two flights is tracked down and
fixed.
In the US, a problem of this magnitude would (hopefully) involve
grounding the spacecraft, fixing the problem, and flying one or two test
missions in a unmanned condition to check out those fixes before
restarting manned flights.
I seriously doubt the Russians will do this; they will assure us that
the problem is fixed, and keep right on launching...on the grounds that
no one has been killed yet, so it's safe to fly.
We've had a couple of run-ins with that thought process already in our
Shuttle program.
ISS requires deadlines to be met to keep the station manned and
supplied, and that is going to influence decisions as to whether the
manned spacecraft heading to it are safe to launch for its entire lifetime.

Pat

Andre Lieven

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:00 pm

Guest

On Apr 23, 11:06 am, spazhoward <spazhow...@carolina.rr.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 23, 2:02 am, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:

...
James Oberg was just on NBC news saying the same thing.
This was accompanied by great animation of a joined orbital module and
descent module entering the atmosphere with the crew landing in the
orbital module. Very Happy

...
Pat

Pat,

I thought maybe I was the only one who noticed the mistake in the NBC
animation. After reading a few of your posts, I can see you've spent
even more time than me reading about the Soviet... uh, excuse me, I'm
showing my age, now it's the "RUSSIAN" space program!

MSNBC plays the clip at:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619#24261472

I was already working online when the news aired last night on the
east coast, so I quickly e-mailed NBC News about the animation,
telling them I was just a nerd trying to be helpful. Surprisingly, Tom
Costello responded within minutes, with one of their producers
ultimately sending me this e-mail later last night:

From: Monahan, Kevin (NBC Universal)
To: 'spazhoward'
Sent: Tue Apr 22 21:52:37 2008
Subject: NBC News thank you
I just wanted to write you in order to thank you for your e-mail this
evening. Because of your information, we were able to fix the graphic
for the rest of the country tonight in Tom Costello's piece. Call
yourself a nerd if you want, but you helped us make a correction for
several million of our viewers tonight. Sorry for our mistake. Thanks
again,
Kevin Monahan
Nightly News with Brian Williams

I'd be interested in hearing if anyone on the west coast saw the
animation and noticed if they got it right, and maybe just didn't
update the website (or maybe they just flipped the orbital module this
time and THOUGHT they fixed the animation?)

I just looked at their website, from the above link, and it was
accurate,
Soyuz DM attached to SM, with that combo coming in nose first, then
the SM separates, and the DM reverses it's position, and continues in
bottom first.

So, a good call to you for noticing that fault, and to MSNBC for
fixing
it right.

Andre

Pat Flannery

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:46 pm

Guest

spazhoward wrote:

Quote:

Pat,

I thought maybe I was the only one who noticed the mistake in the NBC
animation.

They do that all the time; They always assume the front part has the
crew in it; even though it's obvious from the landing photos that it's
the middle module that gets recovered.

Quote:

After reading a few of your posts, I can see you've spent
even more time than me reading about the Soviet... uh, excuse me, I'm
showing my age, now it's the "RUSSIAN" space program!

I've been studying their space program for around 35 years now, and even
visited the Cosmos Pavilion in Moscow way back in the late 1970's, and
got to go up into the replica of the Salyut 6 space station.
They took a lot of the fun out of studying it when they declassified so
much stuff under glasnost, and people suddenly realized that it was a
lot more screwed-up than anyone ever imagined, particularly in regards
to their manned Moon program.
I don't know if you've ever seen these; but one of the most interesting
things I found on the web were these shots of the Polyus/Skif military
space station (mock-up?) in military markings, with a red star on the
side of the rear modules:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/cargo.htm
That page also has images of it targeting and destroying a target in space.
Where you can get a lot of data on Soyuz landing systems is in those two
"Space Station Handbook" publications that Matson Press put out in 1992.
The recovery sequence in regards to parachutes is pretty involved, with
a total of three drogue chutes being deployed before the main chute
comes out.
Right now, Soyuz TMA-12 is docked to the station, and considering it was
probably built before the last two Soyuz spacecraft suffered their
reentry problems, the crew that will return on it must be looking
forward to that reentry with a lot of trepidation.
Richard Garriott is scheduled to return on it, but if it were me, I'd
hitch a ride back on the next Shuttle flight to the station.

Quote:

MSNBC plays the clip at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619#24261472

I was already working online when the news aired last night on the
east coast, so I quickly e-mailed NBC News about the animation,
telling them I was just a nerd trying to be helpful.

Considering they had James Oberg on the broadcast, it's surprising he
didn't point out the problem with the animation to them.
I thought about emailing them, but figured they'd only be running the
animation once, so it probably wouldn't be worth the effort on my or
their part to re-do it.

Quote:

Surprisingly, Tom
Costello responded within minutes, with one of their producers
ultimately sending me this e-mail later last night:

From: Monahan, Kevin (NBC Universal)
To: 'spazhoward'
Sent: Tue Apr 22 21:52:37 2008
Subject: NBC News thank you
I just wanted to write you in order to thank you for your e-mail this
evening. Because of your information, we were able to fix the graphic
for the rest of the country tonight in Tom Costello's piece.

That's some very fast animation work on their part.

Quote:

Call
yourself a nerd if you want, but you helped us make a correction for
several million of our viewers tonight. Sorry for our mistake. Thanks
again,
Kevin Monahan
Nightly News with Brian Williams

There goes more of my potential glory! Wink

Great work on your part, getting them to fix it.

Pat

Page 2 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:34 pm Science Forum Index