totm dec 2019 Russian Launch and Mission Thread

[MaverickSawyer]

Anyone care to wager in how long it takes Elon Musk's saviour complex to kick in and accelerate the first flight of the Crew Dragon?

[Space_Coyote]

Balkanour, we have a prioblem...

Seems the MS 10 Soyuz mission to the ISS didn't go the way it should have..

Apparently the 3rd stage booster failed and the crew (Both an astronaut and a Cosmonaut) had to abort the flight and land back on the ground

 

Luckily no one wa injured or killed.. 

 

 

[sh1pman]

According to Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov, quoted by TASS, the emergency escape system was activated at T+123 seconds in flight. As a result, the escape began after the separation of the emergency rockets (at T+114.6 seconds) and the first stage at T+117.80 seconds at an altitude of around 50 kilometers.

A few hours after the accident, RIA Novosti quoted industry sources as saying that telemetry analysis had pointed toward possible pyrotechnics separation problem between the first and second stage. According to industry sources quoted on the Novosti Kosmonavtiki web forum, the pressurization cover on one of the strap-on boosters of the first stage failed to open as scheduled to push it away from the second stage during separation and it led to the collision of the empty booster with the firing second stage and damaging or pushing it off course.

http://russianspaceweb.com/soyuz-ms-10.html#scenario

[RedKraken]

Ovchinin and Hague are now famous for surviving a launch failure.

[DAL59]

7 hours ago, tater said:

 

"One of the 4 strap-on first stages failed to separate properly, and struck the central second stage"

That's happened to me a lot in ksp

[Nightside]

I’m very confused about the timing of all this. Did the abort procedure go as planned? Was the LAS jettisoned early?

 

[CatastrophicFailure]

6 minutes ago, Nightside said:

I’m very confused about the timing of all this. Did the abort procedure go as planned? Was the LAS jettisoned early?

 

THAT much went normally, the LAS tower is supposed to be jettisoned just before booster sep, but there’s another set of abort motors on the fairing that pulled the capsule away.

You see, Ivan, when put abort motor on abort motors...

[Scotius]

Ah, dangit. Not the kind of news i want to find after coming home from work. At least crew is safe. RIP Soyuz - big thanks for not exploding violently.

[James Kerman]

Three cheers for the crew, three cheers for Soyuz bringing them home safely and three cheers for @kerbiloid for letting us know about the safe landing minutes before NASA. 

Note to self: don't invite your kids to watched manned launches anymore.

A question:  What is the furry object, seen hanging by a string, above Aleksey Ovchinin during the launch?  Is it some kind of inertial indicator or the Russian version of furry dice on the rear vision mirror of a hotrod?

[Ultimate Steve]

13 minutes ago, James Kerman said:

 

A question:  What is the furry object, seen hanging by a string, above Aleksey Ovchinin during the launch?  Is it some kind of inertial indicator or the Russian version of furry dice on the rear vision mirror of a hotrod?

On the Soyuz it is a tradition to hang one or two soft objects from the ceiling as gravity indicators. I wonder if we'll ever get the full cockpit view, it must have been bouncing like crazy!

[Nightside]

52 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

On the Soyuz it is a tradition to hang one or two soft objects from the ceiling as gravity indicators. I wonder if we'll ever get the full cockpit view, it must have been bouncing like crazy!

You can see them starting to bounce just before the crew starts to feel it in the video upthread.

[sevenperforce]

Incidentally (and not to SpaceX fanboi), this is yet another reason why liquid-based crewed launches are intrinsically safer than using SRBs with human cargo.

Even though the LES tower was jettisoned before failure, the core stage engine (I refuse to call it the second stage on principle) shut down nominally and the crew capsule separated using only small liquid thrusters.

Liquid boosters are more complex, but I'll be damned if they don't fail in delightfully clean and safe ways. Even CRS-7 incurred 0% damage to the capsule despite utter lack of LES.

[Ultimate Steve]

39 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

 

Even though the LES tower was jettisoned before failure, the core stage engine (I refuse to call it the second stage on principle) shut down nominally and the crew capsule separated using only small liquid thrusters.

 

I'm pretty sure the tiny fairing LES that they used was solid, but not 100% sure.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

On the Soyuz it is a tradition to hang one or two soft objects from the ceiling as gravity indicators. I wonder if we'll ever get the full cockpit view, it must have been bouncing like crazy!

I assumed it was some sort of mascot, but using it to indicate 0g makes perfect sense. 

[CatastrophicFailure]

Just now, magnemoe said:

I assumed it was some sort of mascot, but using it to indicate 0g makes perfect sense. 

Kinda like how, instead of spending obscene sums of money to invent a space pen, they just used a pencil... 

[Ultimate Steve]

Okay, some people on the NSF forum did the math... Judged by the very next few frames of the CGI, a few seconds after the failure, the rocket was travelling at about 1.8km/s at an altitude of about 50km at an angle of about 24 degrees... Which unfortunately nets an apogee between 70 and 90 kilometers, dependent on drag and other sources of error.

So that means that Nick Hague is not an astronaut.

[Nightside]

35 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Okay, some people on the NSF forum did the math... Judged by the very next few frames of the CGI, a few seconds after the failure, the rocket was travelling at about 1.8km/s at an altitude of about 50km at an angle of about 24 degrees... Which unfortunately nets an apogee between 70 and 90 kilometers, dependent on drag and other sources of error.

So that means that Nick Hague is not an astronaut.

I'm sure he couldn't be happier to not be an astronaut today.

[53miner53]

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Kinda like how, instead of spending obscene sums of money to invent a space pen, they just used a pencil... 

And then realized that the shavings from sharpening and erasing would get everywhere in 0g, and then (probably) made their own space pen

[insert_name]

44 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Okay, some people on the NSF forum did the math... Judged by the very next few frames of the CGI, a few seconds after the failure, the rocket was travelling at about 1.8km/s at an altitude of about 50km at an angle of about 24 degrees... Which unfortunately nets an apogee between 70 and 90 kilometers, dependent on drag and other sources of error.

So that means that Nick Hague is not an astronaut.

this site says separation occurred at 140km, which would put him over the Karman line

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/10/11/soyuz-ms-10-crew-lands-safely-in-kazakhstan-following-launch-vehicle-failure/

[tater]

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Kinda like how, instead of spending obscene sums of money to invent a space pen, they just used a pencil... 

NASA spent nothing at all on the space pen.

Fisher Pen Company spent a million or so of their own money developing it. NASA paid $2.39 for each pen (they had been paying over $100 each for mechanical pencils).

BTW, the Soviets ended up buying Fisher pens starting in the late '60s.

 

 

It sounds like they have a decent idea what caused the failure. Looks like a pyro failed to fire. I reckon they get back to business pretty quickly.

Edited October 12, 2018 by tater

[satnet]

1 minute ago, tater said:

NASA spent nothing at all on the space pen.

Fisher Pen Company spent a million or so of their own money developing it. NASA paid $2.39 for each pen (they had been paying over $100 each for mechanical pencils).

The Russians also use Fisher space pens. Also the pens are cheaper than the mechanical pencils that NASA was using to replace wooden pencils (wood being a fire hazard).

On a more serious note I'm glad the crew is safe.

[Ultimate Steve]

11 minutes ago, insert_name said:

this site says separation occurred at 140km, which would put him over the Karman line

http://www.americaspace.com/2018/10/11/soyuz-ms-10-crew-lands-safely-in-kazakhstan-following-launch-vehicle-failure/

That quote was in reference to an earlier failure from several decades ago. My numbers are from the launch simulation.

Quote

n April 1975, Soyuz 18A cosmonauts Vasili Lazarev and Oleg Makarov suffered a booster malfunction a few minutes after launch, when the central core failed to separate from the third stage.

Alexei Ovchinin (lower) and Nick Hague were shaken around quite violently in the Soyuz MS-10 cabin during the abort. Photo Credit: NASA, via David M. Harland

At an altitude of 90 miles (145 km), the spacecraft separated from the rocket and for a second or two the cosmonauts experienced weightlessness, before beginning a steep, ballistic descent. It was noted at the time that Lazarev and Makarov would ordinarily have endured up to 15 G, but actually experienced 21.3 G of deceleration, whose gravitational effects the crew described as “creeping and unpleasant”. Soyuz 18A’s descent module touched down in the Altai Mountains, about 515 miles (830 km) north of the Chinese border.

 

[tater]

Yeah, the space pen vs pencil myth needs to die.

[Ultimate Steve]

Okay, let's talk about implications... If Soyuz is not cleared for flight before December (or early January if we want to be a bit risky) then the fuel tanks of Soyuz MS-09 will be dangerously corroded by the fuel they carry and the crew will have to come home, which is not good for the station, as a lot of the crew's work is maintenance. Also this isn't as important but I think we'd all like to keep our streak of having someone in space at all times.

So we need to keep the station constantly manned. We have a few options. Generally the list becomes more impractical as you go further down, but that's a trend, not a rule.

1 - Just send Soyuz MS-11 according to schedule. Soyuz is really reliable. If the investigation is finished in time, or even if it's not fully concluded, the failure is probably a related to a manufacturing defect. Increasing inspections at the factory should be sufficient. Chances are that MS-11 will not fail. But the chance is there.

2 - Send Soyuz MS-11 on schedule but unmanned. If we're being really risk averse or the investigation takes too long, MS-09 will have exceeded its warranty and will need to be jettisoned. An unmanned MS-11 could serve as a return vehicle and a buffer until more crew could arrive, although the crew of MS-09 would be in for a really long mission. And it would cause more crew scheduling issues, notably a big wave for the crew lineup and pushing of the last American bought seats to later flights.

3 - Jettison MS-09 and wait with no escape ship. There has not been an incident on the ISS causing need for an evacuation. There have been a few close calls, though. Simply waiting for a spacecraft with return seats to arrive is an option, the chances that something catastrophic will happen are rather low. This also extends the MS-09 crew mission time. And also will make the officials wary.

4 -  Jettison MS-09 and wait with CRS-16 as an escape ship. Wait for unmanned MS-11 to return the crew. Dragon 1 is a proven re-entry platform with 15 CRS re-entries and IIRC 2 test flight re-entries with no failures (but possibly some parachute anomalies). In the event that the crew need to go back while waiting for a proper return module, they could borrow CO2 scrubbers and oxygen replenishers from MS-09 if they can get them out and rig up some padding for use as seats. They might not even need extra oxygen if they can land quickly enough. But Dragon 1 was never intended for crew, this will again make the officials wary. If needed, instead of only being used as an emergency descent vehicle, CRS-16 could be the planned descent vehicle, but there is no way that would clear NASA review. If this does, then it could also be fitted with seats and scrubbers before launch.

5 -  Jettison MS-09. Keep an escape ship on standby (Dragon 1), send MS-11 manned, return crew of MS-09 on MS-11, MS-11 on MS-12, and MS-12 on DM-2. Same idea as 4, but chaining the Soyuz return times until DM-2, with its up to 7 seats, would arrive with only 2 on board, providing ample return room. Same cons as 4. Dragon 2 will have been tested on DM-1 and the inflight abort so it will be proven by now.

6 - 4 but with DM-1 as an escape ship. Slightly better than 4, actually, as Dragon 2 was designed to carry crew, but will not have undergone a re-entry test.

7 - 5 but with DM-1 as the return ship. The daisy chaining of Soyuz descent flights could be ended earlier using DM-1 as the planned return pod. Same cons as 6.

8 - Fast-track commercial crew and launch a replacement crew on DM-2 or the second flight of Starliner. Very possible, Boeing was in talks for this before the launch failure even happened. Both Dragon and Starliner can seat 7 if need be. You'd have to get them up before 2019 (not happening) or else use an interim spacecraft as an emergency descent pod, like in option 4. It could be CRS-16 or DM-1. If the need extremely arises, the inflight abort could even be launched as DM-2. Boeing isn't doing an inflight abort, and SpaceX did a pad abort already, although that was ages ago.

9 - REALLY fast-track CC and launch a replacement crew on DM-1 or Starliner flight 1. Not happening. Legislation and common sense will not allow SpaceX or Boeing to fly crew on the first flight of an unproved vehicle.

10 - Vent propellant tanks on Soyuz MS-09 and refuel later. If the problem is corrosion and the spacecraft can last longer if it weren't for the fuel, either vent or burn all of the fuel (ISS hyper-reboost?) but keep it attached and refuel it later. I don't know if this is possible. It certainly wasn't designed for in-orbit refueling so I doubt this will be considered. But, if the Soyuz/Progress ports are androgynous then you could use another Soyuz or Progress to de-orbit MS-09.

11 - Ask China to launch a Shenzhou. I read that the docking ports on Shenzhou are similar to the APAS-89, which are similar to the APAS-95, which are similar to the IDA... I think. I could be wrong. If (very big if) the Chinese have a Shenzhou lying around, then the docking port might be able to be ripped out and replaced with an ISS compatible one, or even modified. An adapter could also be built, going Chinese port on Shenzhou -> Chinese port -> Adapter structure -> ISS compatible port -> ISS. But at this point I'm grasping at straws, and IIRC NASA is banned from collaborating with China. China would also need to be paid somehow. And Shenzhou can only carry 2.

12 - Launch Orion on a Delta-IV Heavy with crew to replenish ISS crew. REALLY not going to happen, but if aliens came and told us to do this or the world would be destroyed then we could pull it off... I know that the Orion for EM-1 is at least somewhat near to being done, but I don't know how close the next D-IVH is... And D-IVH is not man rated. But it has gone its whole life without a big failure and has carried Orion (albeit without a service module - a big deal, probably can't dock without one) before. The service module for EM-1 is in storage IIRC, and you could launch it with only a little bit of fuel as to not overwhelm D-IVH.

13 - Launch Orion on D-IVH with 1 or 0 crew. Same as the above but just as a return vehicle for the crew of MS-09.

14 - 12 but with Falcon Heavy. Advantages: the next FH is probably going to be ready before the next D-IVH. Disadvantages: FH is not man-rated (although F9 will be), FH has only flown once, and FH has not carried Orion, nor was it designed to.

15 - 13 but with Falcon Heavy. Self explanatory.

14 - Launch crew on CRS-16. Like the options for using CRS-16 as a return ship, except modifying it on the ground to add seats, basic ECLSS, and other basic amenities, many of which can probably be ripped from Dragon 2. It's better than crewing DM-1 because it's a proven platform, but worse than crewing DM-1 because it wasn't designed for this.

 

I think I covered most of the possible options... Almost none are actually practical, though given all the unwillingness to take risks (not necessarily a bad thing). I know more than half of these are utterly ridiculous, but thoughts?

[CatastrophicFailure]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Yeah, the space pen vs pencil myth needs to die.

...or be kept around and subjected to ridicule...