Apr 23 2008
Prev/Next Posts: « Obama, Clinton grossly ill-informed on vaccines || “Impact”: I’d better have a spare keyboard handy »
Soyuz capsule nearly killed astronauts
Update (April 24): Universe Today has more info on what happened; there were problems in the Soyuz performance, but in a weird way it performed correctly; it has a very stable design that allows some failures without killing the crew. But as UT points out, the way this was handled by the Russian space agency is "worrying".
So I’m gone for a few days, and when I get back see tons of news I missed. But the most disturbing was that the Soyuz capsule bringing home astronauts from the ISS had malfunctions that nearly killed the astronauts on board… and that it appears that the Russians have made a conscious campaign to cover up or shift blame for any problems.
This needs to be confirmed, of course, but there’s an awful lot of badness lurking in this story. I’m sure we’ll hear more from NASA and almost certainly Congress. The Russians have been good space partners at some times and very bad ones at others (though in their defense, a lot of issues were due to their collapsed economy). But when their spacecraft nearly kills an American citizen, I would hope Congress would investigate.
Congress investigate? With all the steroids in baseball and flag lapel pins that need to be investigated? You’re just silly to think that they have time to protect American citizens from the evil empire.
Congress won’t investigate very hard - they need the Soyuz missions to keep the ISS going until they get around to funding a new ground-to-orbit vehicle.
Besides, the Russians aren’t the only ones to play coverup. When the shuttle broke up on re-entry, NASA did its best to bury any information that suggested the astronauts would have survived if the shuttle design included a few technically feasible safety features.
Dear Mr. Bad Astronomer, what exactly is ballistic re-entry as compared to a normal one?
Oh, i’m sure they’ll deny it. I mean, when was the last time Russia admitted to any bad PR?
Still, it may just be empty speculation. We all know journalists have very selective hearing.
Well, this (sorry, only German) news article says exactely the opposite: “Russians speak of all but catastrophe, NASA appeases out of calculation”. And: “For the Americans this is no reason for worry: ‘I do not see this as a big problem’, said NASA spokesperson William Gerstenmaier.” So there it seems like that it’s NASA who does not want to make a big fuss of this, not the Russians.
Personally, I think the important thing is that the cosmonauts survived, irrespective of how badly and bumpy the reentry actually was. Soyuz is a wonderful craft (much safer than the shuttle) and the only craft from which cosmonauts survived an aborted launch (with rocket exploding underneath them).
I think we have to remember that going to space is never easy, and the old saying “any landing you can walk away from…. “still holds true.
@Cusp
I’m not sure there needs to be a defense of the Soyuz capsule here, nor a comparison to its safety vs. the Space Shuttle. The issue here is simply that if either the Russian Government OR NASA is involved in an effort to cover up facts relating to a potential catastrophe or shift blame, it’s a serious, potentially life-threatening issue that should at the very least be investigated openly and thoroughly, IMHO.
Brodie,
A ballistic re-entry means that only aerodynamic drag was used to slow the vehicle - basically it came in at a steep angle of descent and made the fastet possible journey down. Normally a Soyuz comes in at an angle designed to provide a modicum of lift, keeping the capsule at high altitude as long as possible to minimze aerodynamic heating from friction and reduce the g-load on the crew. Ballistic entry mode on the Soyuz is an emergency mode and not typically used as it can subject the crew to loads in excess of 10G for brief durations. In plain speak it’s as close as you can get to a crash without killing the occupants.
OK, I just re-read my previous post and I relaize that it may not be completely clear since aerodynmaic drag is always the only force used to slow a capsule during re-entry. A better description would be a non-lift inducing re-entry.
I don’t see the connection between an “American citizen” being almost killed and Congress investigating. The US is part of the ISS, so Congress should investigate potential safety cover-ups whatever the nationality of the astronauts/cosmonauts.
There is also the minor detail that even if Congress held a hearing on it, it would be little more than a show trial. Russia has nothing to worry about because they know we wont spend more on the budget for NASA to cut out their part in crew transport.
From what I’ve read, it also came in on the wrong attitude–hatch first instead of heat-shield first. Now, of course, it must have flipped over at some point; entering hatch-down means entering head-down and -10G, if not lethal, is definitely going to burst most of the blood vessels in the human eye, and the astronauts and cosmonauts didn’t look like Rogue. Still, that would explain the hatch and antenna damage.
It also seems like NASA’s been less “covering up” and more “playing diplomat.” If it starts lashing out at Resurgent Russia–the same Russia that’s started (nuclear?) Bear patrols and flying over carrier groups just to show it can–then Russia will flip it the bird, a bird that NASA really can’t deal with at the moment. The Shuttle-Orion handoff is highly dependent on the Sovi^H^H^H^HRussians helping with access to the ISS.
Ruskosmos, on the other hand, started by blaming pilot error, as if the crew had much of anything to do with re-entry calculations. I’m pretty sure manual re-entry control died some time in the 60s.
Not nearly as bad as this re-entry
Sorry, typo in the link. Let’s try again:
Not nearly as bad as this re-entry
Careful, there’s a lot of sensationalism going around. I’m a bit disappointed to see universe today and BA jumping on it.
There was clearly a malfunction, but until the results of the investigation come out, the “almost killed” line is quite unjustified.
The Russian officials unfortunately not very open in their communications, which encourages rumors and sensationalism, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are covering up something dire. This response appears to be a institutional habit, probably acquired under years of the soviet system. That doesn’t make it right, but you need to keep it in perspective. The Russian press (which is the source of many of the “near catastrophe” rumors) has an equal tendency to play fast and loose with the facts in the interest of sensationalism.
Concern and displeasure at the obfuscations are warranted but conclusions about what actually happened are premature.
It’s also worth noting that the Soyuz, unlike the shuttle doesn’t have a lot of real time telemetry during deorbit and reentry, so any final conclusions have to wait until the capsule has been shipped back to RKK Energia and analyzed.
Jim Oberg has a pretty decent story
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24243569/
So does spaceflight now
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/station/exp16/080422descent.html
Does anyone know if this is a problem with the TMA-11? There’s something I can’t quite remember about it.
There needs to be a Congressional hearing. Right now, before the November elections, is a good time. All we need is a congressman or woman who needs to look good for his or her constituents. And they need to stress that when we decommission the shuttles, the *only* way for astronauts to go into space is aboard a Soyutz.
And someone needs to tell NASA to get off the stick, forget about blankety-blank solid rocket boosters that’s causing vibration problems in the simulations and think about putting an Orion capsule on top of a conventional rocket. Good stinking grief - put that old five-man Apollo capsule planned for a Skylab rescue mission on a Saturn III booster until NASA can get their ducks in a row with the Constellation system.
@ count iblis
I think this or this may have been worse landings.
@lintsniffer
the Soyuz 11 landing was fine.
Soyuz 5 OTOH, was a wild ride
@KC
Not sure what you question is. Obviously there was a problem with TMA-11. There is suggestion that the same problem existed on TMA-10, which also had a ballistic descent and some separation issues. Note that TMA-11 was already on orbit at this point, so ability to inspect it for the same issue was limited. See this space.com story for some related commentary http://www.space.com/news/080422-nasa-russia-soyuz-update.html
What’s interesting is that our local paper, the Seattle Times, has a version of the story (credited to “wire services”) in this morning’s print edition with a final line pointing out that the malfunction in Soyuz is problematic since it’s meant to be the cornerstone of NASA’s manned space program in T-minus a year and a half. I couldn’t find that line in any online versions of the same story and was wondering if NASA had it hastily scrubbed.
I’m not sure I see how this poses a problem for the handoff from the Shuttle. As far as I can tell Soyuz has a better safety record than the Shuttle, and would have even if this capsule had, say, blown up on reentry killing everyone aboard.
As for “cover-ups”, I’d wait until the facts are out before assuming this is any more than a reporter working hard to squeeze some kind of answer out of an official who didn’t know anything yet. (And does anyone remember Feynman’s report on the Challenger disaster where he describes talking to people at NASA and finding that the further they were from actually working on the hardware, the safer they thought the Shuttle was?)
Reed:
You may not have been sure of my question, but you answered part of it. I thought TMA-11 was a type of Soyuz craft. Is it closer to a mission designator, like NASA uses STS for shuttle flights?
I thought I remembered a story about the Russians having a problem with a new model Soyuz and wondered if this was it.
Anne
Statistically, it’s a wash. Both Shuttle and Soyuz have lost two crews, Soyuz has somewhat less flights, and had a number of incidents that resulted in complete mission failure and/or crew injury. OTOH, the Soyuz fatalities happened earlier in the program, which might indicate lessons learned and fixed. Shuttle has had it’s share of close calls as well, although they aren’t as dramatic as some of the Soyuz incidents.
You can argue various points either way, but IMO, they are close enough that you might as well call it even. One more fatal incident for either vehicle would give it the “worse” record.
Peter F
NASA has no capability to cause press reports to be “hastily scrubbed”, and it is common knowledge that we will be relying on Soyuz during the gap between the Shuttle and Orion. No one likes it, but there aren’t any other options that don’t involve miracles or not flying.
KC
Soyuz TMA is the spacecraft model, 11 just means it’s the eleventh vehicle of this model. The TMA model has suffered 3 ballistic re-entries, including the last two. Unlike the Shuttle, it’s a one use item.
The earlier models of Soyuz have had their share of off-nominal re-entries, but these tended note to be mentioned by Soviet and Russian officials. Jim Oberg has a partial list here: http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html
You know, the Soviet hardware must be awesome to be able to withstand this sort of thing. Imagine what would happen to an Apollo capsule if the CM and SM modules didn’t separate and it re-entered nose first.
And if the the shuttle started to re-enter backwards…
I guess if TMA-12 comes down hard in 6 months we will know then if there is a systematic problem.
[…] mishap in a row for the Soyuz. That in and of itself is a concern for NASA, but Phil Plait, he of Bad Astronomy, feels that Congress should be involved. Though I reflexively recoil at the idea of Congress […]
To paraphrase: Any re-entry you walk away from is a good one.
Reed:
Thanks for the link. I knew the Soyuz was one-use, like the U.S. capsules, but I had started thinking TMA was a nomenclature similar to STS. Thanks for the correction.
Guess I was looking for a common design flaw.
Reed and Anne:
The version of the story that ran in print in this morning’s Seattle Times ends in this (tortured) sentence, that I am transcribing as it appears on page A9:
“As engineers on both sides of the world looked for answers, one thing seemed clear: The ship NASA is relying on to ferry astronauts to space after the shuttle retires has a serious problem, bad enough, some critics said, that NASA should reconsider its plans for human spaceflight after 2010.”
The Seattle Times credits the story to “Material from the Associated Press and The Orlando Sentinel”. I missed the Orlando Sentinel credit this morning and was trying to figure out why none of the hundreds of versions of the AP wire story I found online contained that alarming final paragraph (the online Seattle Times doesn’t have the story at all)…
I understand the concern for manned flight safety, but as a short time US naval
aviator a long time ago, I don’t recall being forced to become one. And I am
quite sure that all astronauts know the risks involved, so I don’t believe that this
needs a Congressional investigation.
Let the pros do the investigating.
Congressional investigation is handy as as tool to accomplish other things. Maybe an aerospace company competition for a man-rated launch vehicle and capsule by 2010? Hmm?
The way it stands now, there’s only *three* human launch vehicles in the world: The shuttle, the Soyuz, and the Chinese design. That’s one heck of a way to run a fleet. If you have to ground one, you’re essentially out of business - as we’ve seen when we’ve had to ground the shuttle fleet. We need a variety of launch vehicles instead of this all eggs in one basket approach. We can do it, too, by waving the carrot of jobs in front of politicians.
I thought ballistic re-entry, while obviously very uncomfortable for all concerned, was still within “acceptable” parameters. Hasn’t this happened quite a few times before? “nearly killed” seems a tad too strong.
The ballistic reentry has happened three times now since 2003 and twice in the last two missions so there is a question of quality control in production. This is an issue which needs to be addressed, and even if it is, there’s a Soyuz docked to the ISS right now that won’t be fixed.
The ‘nose-first’ reentry hasn’t happened in a long time (the other time I’m aware of was Soyuz 5: http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz5.htm), and (assuming reports are true) its return is troubling and requires investigation.
Delayed/confusing reporting from Russia through NASA has, unfortunately, become par for the course. I’m not sure if the political will exists to fix that problem.
Hyperbolic (dare I say ‘non-skeptical’?) reporting has become the norm around here.
Perhaps ESA needs to hurry along and upgrade its new ATV ISS cargo ship to manned launch capable as it is already human rated and is ultimately expected to become a manned vehicle, or at least the basic chassis for a future manned vehicle. But whether it can do it in the necessary time scale is another matter assuming the politicial will to do it.
Whatever it is, it shows the folly of the ISS programme, and manned space flight in general, now that we have robots.
On the ISS and manned space flight:
- It’s not much into space, just above ground by the
distance from Washington. DC to Baltimore or less, so
there isn’t much about space to be learned there at this
altitude.
- Its main program seems to be to keep the astronauts alive;
with the canceling of AMS (AntiMatterSearch), there isn’t
much groundbreaking research being done (other than on
keeping astronauts alive); it is not that the most pressing
problem in materials science is to see how crystals form in
weightlessness, or how to make better spherical spheres,
especially for the cost.
- The cost of the ISS kills many real space science programs,
which are cut back to pay for space shuttle/ISS.
Including the Earth Observing missions, which might have
given useful data on global warming (but we don’t want to
know, do we? )
- It does indeed endanger the lives of the brave astronauts/
cosmonauts. Needlessly.
- We do have robots (Mars Discoverer etc.) which can do it
all at a fraction of the cost (no need to lift up tons of
life-support equipment), and using them does not
endanger any humans! That’s what robots are for! Namely, doing work that’s undesirable or too dangerous for humans.
“It’s not much into space, just above ground by the
distance from Washington. DC to Baltimore or less,”
Google maps says that Washington DC and Baltimore are 39.0 miles apart.
The orbit of the ISS is roughly 210 miles.
Its main program seems to be to keep the astronauts alive
Yes, a minor small consideration in planning manned voyages to Mars.
The cost of the ISS kills many real space science programs
Which is only an opinion, others may have dissenting viewpoint.
It does indeed endanger the lives of the brave astronauts/
cosmonauts. Needlessly.
Which is their choice to make and not yours or anyone else’s. I realize that Nanny State-ism is creeping across the globe, especially in Britain, but people can and do make choices that involve the risk of losing their life. That they do so is their personal choice and quite honestly, if they are sane and willing, none of your business.
We do have robots (Mars Discoverer etc.) which can do it
all at a fraction of the cost (no need to lift up tons of
life-support equipment), and using them does not
endanger any humans!
Please name a single machine ever constructed that has the dexterity and reasoning power of a human being. You cannot, because one does not exist.
using them does not endanger any humans! That’s what robots are for! Namely, doing work that’s undesirable or too dangerous for humans.
This basically sums up the crux of your argument. It’s dangerous. It’s scary. It’s undesirable.
If that’s what you think, then stay on the ground. If others want to take the risks and see benefits beyond your site then you should respect their judgement.
QUÉ?WHAT?
NO DECIAN QUE LOS COHETES RUSOS ERAN LOS MEJORES?
VAYA PEDO DE NAVES, QUE VUELVA EL APOLO….
“You know, the Soviet hardware must be awesome to be able to withstand this sort of thing. Imagine what would happen to an Apollo capsule if the CM and SM modules didn’t separate and it re-entered nose first.”
Nose-first is ultimately fatal, because the nose lacks a heatshield. The only protection is the hatch, and that can’t survive a complete reentry. Since the crew are still with us, obviously it wasn’t nose first very long; the service module broke away and the vehicle reoriented. The Soyuz descent module aerodynamics are such that in a complete loss of control, it will naturally assume a heatshield-first posture — but only if the service module has separated. With the service module in place, the vehicle will assume a nose-first position, which is deadly. (Progress enters nose-first, for instance, and you probably know how that turns out. The difference there is that Progress is supposed to burn up.)
This happened on Soyuz 5, but it sounds as if it took much longer for the service module to break away that time; the cosmonaut reported the uncomfortable feeling of hanging in his straps rather than being pushed into his seat, whereas the Soyuz TMA-11 crew only mentioned the spinning of the vehicle. (On a ballistic reentry, the module spins for stability.) So I would guess that it wasn’t nose-first very long. Still, it’s very concerning.
Stark said:
“…to minimze aerodynamic heating from friction …”
This set off my Bad Astronomy detector. The bulk of the heating is not from friction, but from compression of the air in front of the capsule.
Well, let’s see…………………….
The russians have used their soyuz since 1968 upgrading the design with time, so far it was used in over 100 launches, with 99 manned launches .
Total of casualties, 4, one on soyuz 1 and three on 11, and that was in 1971.
After that they have worked every time.
If we compare with the space shuttle and even Apollo (what I consider a much better spacecraft) it will be first in reliability.
Using the words of Chris Kraft , machines do fail and projects have flaws, the function of space engineers is to study, fix and get it ready to fly again.
When was it said ? After apollo XIII …………. where a simple thermostat failed and due to several small “mistakes” turned a moon mission that was becoming “common” into a media circus.
Yes, congress may investigate this.
Yes, if there is a failure it has to be fixed, and probably the russians will do that.
And no, the soyuz isin’t a mousetrap, but a quite reliable machine that has been well proven, well used and probably will be the workhorse of any man in space program for quite some time as things look right now.
Let’s not make it a witch hunt.
Regards
Christian
@Christian Maciel
“After that they have worked every time.”
This is not correct, unless your definition of “worked every time” includes complete mission failure (i.e. not getting to orbit) and serious crew injury (Soyuz 5, Soyuz T-10-1, Soyuz 18-1).
“If we compare with the space shuttle and even Apollo (what I consider a much better spacecraft) it will be first in reliability.”
That is a very strange conclusion.
Shuttle: 2 crews lost in ~120 missions. No other serious injuries, some missions reduced capability (ATO or ended early due to malfunction), but no TAL or RTLS aborts.
Soyuz: 2 crews lost in ~100 missions + 2 failures to reach orbit, multiple injured crews.
Note that when Shuttle the number of missions that Soyuz currently does, it had only one fatal incident in it’s history.
@Reed
Why you count in “crews”, not actual human beings? How much human lives was lost in both accidents of shuttle and in Soyuz?
Life is cheap. Rocketships aren’t.
Mader
Fatal incidents per flight attempt seems like the figure of interest if you are talking about failure rate. The shuttle has killed more people, but it has carried more people by approximately the same factor. In other words, going purely by historical rates, your chances of dying on either vehicle are about equal.
Assume that faliure rate of shuttle is equal to soyuz. Shuttle is still more dangerous, because in case of accident it will kill more people than soyuz. In other words, shuttle have (or at least should have) higher and more demanding criteria of crew safety.
And one more thing. Anyone with common sense will use actual number of casultaties instead of strange, unheard unit called “crews”.
Well, anything (including statistic cheating) to fulfill agenda that safety of shuttle == safety of soyuz, eh?
Well if we go by the numbers
The suttle killed a total of 14……………… against 4 of soyuz.
The Soyuz capsule has been upgraded and modified acording to the needs of the moment.
There is quite limited capability to modify the shuttle ………………..
The Soyuz capsule fullfills its design proposal (cheap and reliable capsule), something quite far from the shuttle that was designed to work around the clock and ended up being what is called in the aircraft industry as a “hangar queen”.
So, if you want to have something to get men in space in order to work there the best still soyuz.
By the way, there has been a lot of incidents in the US space programs where astronauts where injuried, due to design failure, lack of care and several other problems (at least 5 hidrazine contaminations have been reported after shuttle landings).
A point well given is that the shuttle has shown design limits quite limited on safety, making several potencial failures prone to major failure.
It fells like the Soyuz is an old jeep, its rough to ride, bad to drive, uncorfortable and limited, but it takes you wherever you need to go.
My dream would be to have two crafts, another reusable shuttle mode in acordance with Nasa’s original design (that was about half the size of the actual one) using russian’s hipergolic fuels in the boosters, and an upgraded soyuz using a lot of Apollo’s solutions.
That’s my two cents, I think our future may lay in space, and it won’t come from one country, but from a planet where we learn to use the best expertise and solutions from everywhere instead of keep saying “my spacecraft is better than yours”.
I am planning to go to one of the next shuttle launches, I was a ten years old kid when it was first launched, and I still thinks it is a technological marvel, but we have got to get something better there or it will be a waste money, time and resources.
Best regards
Christian Maciel
Mader: Use “fatal incidents per flight attempt” if you prefer. *shrug*
If you wanted to talk about how reliable a car was, you’d measure it based on mileage or time run, not by how many people it could carry. By your (and Christians) logic, an airliner that could carry 200 people and crashed once in 1000 flights would be less reliable than a light plane that carried 2 people and crashes once every 100 flights.
I’m not saying Soyuz is bad. Statistically, it’s comparable to, or better than any other vehicle flown. It’s a great machine, and a credit to the people who build an operate it, especially when you consider the budget and other conditions they have to work with. Give me a chance of riding on the Shuttle or Soyuz, I’d jump on either one. I’m just sick of people repeating the myth that Soyuz is especially reliable, when it is clearly unsupported by the evidence.
Christian Maciel
Do you have documentation of shuttle astronauts being injured in flight or landing ? I know ground crews have been killed and injured in various incidents (as they have in other countries programs) but I’ve never heard of astronauts being seriously injured on a mission (excluding Challenger and Columbia obviously)
@Christian
Well, “[Shuttle] 2 crews lost in ~120 missions (…) [Soyuz] 2 crews lost in ~100 missions” souds a lot better than “[Shuttle] 14 lives lost vs [Soyuz] 4 lives lost”, if someone (like Reed) want to “prove” that shuttle is at least equally safe than soyuz.
@Reed
“By your (and Christians) logic, an airliner that could carry 200 people and crashed once in 1000 flights would be less reliable than a light plane that carried 2 people and crashes once every 100 flights.”
Chance of dying for one people in airline would be 1/5. Chance of dying one people in plane is 1/50. And note that I NOT said “more/less reliable”. I said “more/less dangerous”. So while by succesful flights airliner wins, it is clear that still their safety solutions are well, bad.
BTW your example is different than soyuz and shuttle. Shuttle is even more dangerous, because number of flights are close, number of catastrophe falures are same, but more people died.
Summary:
Saying that machine that killed 14 people is equally safe as machine that kills 4 people only because both killings occured in two accidents for each machine and each machine preformed close number of runs is pure, extracted and ratified BS.
Both vehicles have a historical fatal accident rate of approximately 1:50
Therefor, if you fly on either vehicle, your chances of dying (based purely on historical failure rate) are about 1:50.
The fact that more or less people will live or die with you should an accident occur says nothing about the safety of the vehicle, it’s purely a product of how many they carry. If soyuz flew as many people as the shuttle, it would have to fly more than 2x as often, and assuming the same failure rates, it would kill as many people.
Again, you are claiming if a van and a car have exactly the same chance of crashing and killing everyone on board, the van is more dangerous. That is utter nonsense.
OK, here we go………………………..
1- Reed, I would also fly either of those spacecrafts, no questions asked.
2- I don’t think Soyuz is a marvel, and Shuttle a mousetrap, but ……….
3- ………….I don’t think either that Soyuz is a “second class, unreliable spacecraft” and the shuttle a first class untouchable marvel.
4- I think politics and science should not mix, ussually it gives us bad results.
5- The Nasa ground crew accidents are well documented, I would have to look for the paper about Hidrazine leakages, but those are there (by the way, I meant ground crews, by mistake I wrote astronauts as I was thinking about the last of the Apollo’s flights when Deke Slayton’s crew got one of those leaks (1975 ? ), that was also documented, as almost anything else on Nasa’s program……………… even Alan Bean being almost knocked out by his own Camera.
6- Statistics by itself don’t use to be reliable (using Napoleon Bonnaparte words “You can use statistics as it pleases you”), looking by the numbers the safer spacecrafts flown would be the early series in the 60’s (Vostok, Mercury and Gemini) that never had a fatal accident.
7- What defines “seriosly injuries” ? I recall my old army Seargent that considered anything but losing a limb as a “minor injury”, my sister in law considers anything bigger than a paper cut a big wound.
8- The point I always wanted to make clear is that we should keep an engineering eye on the question, machines do have problems, and they must be fixed. LET’S NOT START A WITCH HUNT.
Best regards
Christian Maciel