totm dec 2019 Russian Launch and Mission Thread

[magnemoe]

27 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Dragon 1 cannot unberth without someone on the station closing the hatch and controlling the arm, so any options involving Dragon 1 are a no go -

Any option involving leaving the crew without an evacuation route are a no go.

Any option involving a vehicle that is not yet ready to transport crew (Dragon 2, Starliner or Orion) or to operate in vicinity of the ISS (Shenzhou) is a no go.

The shelf life problem with MS-09 is not just about fuel, so #10 is a no go.

In your list, only #1 and #2 are options at this point. There are other opportunities that involve shuffling around the Progress launch that was scheduled for November.

However, resuming Soyuz launcher operations assumes that the investigation determines that the problem was a one off and is not systemic. Given the reliability issues that Russia has been having over the past years, I wouldn't be very confident with that sort of conclusion, and neither would NASA. There seems to be a deep-rooted systemic problem with Russian quality control that has to be addressed, and that can take a lot of time.

 

This its an 1 or 2 option, note that the booster fall down over land so studying them would be an priority. 
And its either an freak accident or an production / assembly fail who is far easier to correct than say the falcon 9 fails there it was harder to figure out the reason for fail. 

Replacing the progress with an manned mission should probably work, its ambitious but again this is probably an easy fix. 

[kerbiloid]

Probably the valve pyrotechnics failed

https://translate.google.com.tr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.interfax.ru/russia/633069&edit-text=

(As always as "emergency" google means "failed", as both are "аварийный")

Edited October 12, 2018 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Hence, we send the crew up a new station. Clearly. 

BFR is more than enough to be a space station on it's own.

Still not modular though. And don't even exist yet.

1 hour ago, BNSF1995 said:

Cobble together some surplus Apollo hardware and adapt the CM to use the APAS system

Lol  Still better to fly up the Shuttle !

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

However, resuming Soyuz launcher operations assumes that the investigation determines that the problem was a one off and is not systemic. Given the reliability issues that Russia has been having over the past years, I wouldn't be very confident with that sort of conclusion, and neither would NASA. And don't forget the concerns about hole in the MS-09 for which there still hasn't been a satisfactory explanation. Who knows if Soyuz is still safe at this point? What if there is another hole (or other manufacturing problem) on the next Soyuz ?

Give it more funds perhaps ?

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Who knows if Soyuz is still safe at this point? What if there is another hole (or other manufacturing problem) on the next Soyuz ?

So, they will be flying with the hope in heart and crossed fingers.

At least Soyuz has LES which has helped three times.

Edited October 12, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

Well, who knows if the Falcon 9 is safe at any point (it probably isn't) ? Or the Delta ? Atlas ? Ariane 5 ? Or any of the others ? Though some of them have formidable flight records and may with modifications and a crew module with emergency stuff be regarded as human transport capable, they all can fail.

Soyuz has just (after 35 years, see you in 2051, SpaceX) proved that it can handle a failure like an impact in flight.

Mocking doesn't help to solve any problem. Even if, at one day, Falcon or any other can as well transport crews to leo, NASA or any other space agency would be good advised to keep a backup option. And supervise it's contractors intensely after the fireworks to do a thorough investigation to solve and avoid related future problems.

And btw., BFR does not exist. Yet. Whatever sketch is actually valid ...

Edited October 12, 2018 by Green Baron

[Xd the great]

The space industry needs more money.

Sounds suspiciously like sabotage... ms09 a hole, ms 10 a valve.

A single mad engineerer can do this easily...

[sh1pman]

10 minutes ago, Xd the great said:

 

Sounds suspiciously like sabotage... ms09 a hole, ms 10 a valve.

A single mad engineerer can do this easily...

Soyuz spacecraft and rocket are built and assembled in different facilities and are integrated just before launch. There have to be several mad engineers working independently for this to happen.

[Xd the great]

3 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Soyuz spacecraft and rocket are built and assembled in different facilities and are integrated just before launch. There have to be several mad engineers working independently for this to happen.

Or a single mad bill kerman liquided off by jeb and is working in the integrated facility.

[YNM]

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

Well, who knows if the Falcon 9 is safe at any point (it probably isn't) ? Or the Delta ? Atlas ? Ariane 5 ? Or any of the others ? Though some of them have formidable flight records and may with modifications and a crew module with emergency stuff be regarded as human transport capable, they all can fail.

When you have two failures in a row, you might want to really check again.

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, YNM said:

Give it more funds perhaps ?

I'm not sure that the problem with Russian space is due to funding. I think it's mostly a problem with workforce qualifications. Russia is suffering from a brain-drain, where skilled engineers and technicians tend to either flee Russia or go work in more lucrative businesses (gas and petrol for example). I suspect that a large part of the Russian space program is made of poorly qualified technicians, with a high turnover rate. Also, the fact that many of the materials and processes used are obsolete doesn't help.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Nibb31

[Green Baron]

1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

... Russia is suffering from a brain-drain, where skilled engineers and technicians tend to either flee Russia or go work in more lucrative ...

Can you offer a source for that ?

The USA suffer from geo- and climate scientists brain drain.

[YNM]

10 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

I suspect that a large part of the Russian space program is made of poorly qualified technicians, with a high turnover rate. Also, the fact that many of the materials and processes used are obsolete doesn't help.

All of which would've been fixed properly if they had the money to keep it up.

Anyway, I hope they can finish the investigation, they can build the next soyuz perfectly (and quickly), and they can pay people to actually do all the work properly (and if they can't I hope partners of the ISS would be willing to help them.)

7 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

The USA suffer from geo- and climate scientists brain drain.

I think that's less of a brain drain and more of exporting highly skilled work service. Many developed countries sell more of their work on foreign markets rather than local markets as there's simply not enough work to do to keep the large industries they've built.

Edited October 12, 2018 by YNM

[Green Baron]

14 minutes ago, YNM said:

I think that's less of a brain drain and more of exporting highly skilled work service. Many developed countries sell more of their work on foreign markets rather than local markets as there's simply not enough work to do to keep the large industries they've built.

There is more than enough work. But explaining this touches politics. I exaggerated a bit (but not much), but concerns are expressed in the journals (like Science and Nature).

Edited October 12, 2018 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

All stages are found
("steps" = "stages" in Googlish)

https://translate.google.com.tr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.interfax.ru/world/633136&edit-text=

[YNM]

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

But explaining this touches politics.

Yeah, it's pretty dripping wet.

[DECQ]

In this incident, there is one plus, Soyuz again proved that this is the best and safest manned platform for all time, another thing is a drilled ship in orbit, this is idiocy.

[kerbiloid]

11 minutes ago, DECQ said:

a drilled ship in orbit

Just got it...
 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Ultimate Steve]

I realize that most of the items on my list were wildly impractical, risky, or in cases borderline impossible, but my intent was to cover all of the possible options, not the probable ones, so sorry if I made it look like I was seriously advocating most of that.

[Kerbinchaser]

So yesterday a crew had to bail from MS-10 on liftoff, now halting future missions to the ISS until further notice. 

What are your thoughts on the subject? I think it opens up a whole world of possibilities for Boeing, SpaceX, and other countries, considering that the Soyuz is aging fast, and we need a new space-taxi. 

discuss away. 

Edited October 12, 2018 by Lo Var Lachland

[Mitchz95]

Already being discussed here.

[Gaarst]

13 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

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.

It depends on what is found. If it was a one time defect then Soyuz should be cleared for launch, if it's a symptom of a deeper quality/supply/assembly problem, it could take months before it can fly again. Unfortunately recent events make the second option more than likely (see Progress MS-04). Maybe MS-11 could be exceptionally cleared to launch if they found the source of the problem on the rocket even if the investigation is not finished.

Quote

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.

If Soyuz is not cleared to launch manned, it won't launch unmanned to bring down astronauts. Even if you eliminate the risk of a LOC at liftoff, in case of a failure you still have stranded astronauts on the ISS.

Quote

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.

Not going to happen. Leaving astronauts on the station without a way back down is a big no-no, even more so since Columbia.

Quote

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.

Even more not going to happen. In addition to leave the crew without a way down, this would mean you would bring astronauts down on a cargo spacecraft which, even though its architecture is common with a future manned craft, is not itself manrated and was never intended to be. Besides being pressurised, Dragon 1 has nothing to support a crew; the DIY part of this plan is ludicrous, it's not an Apollo 13 situation where they are on their way to outer space and their main vessel is severely damaged.

Quote

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.

Same cons as 4. The other expeditions can be delayed by one launch, so you don't have to pack Dragon 2 to the brim.

Quote

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.

An unproven to-be-manrated spacecraft is marginally better than a proven non-manrated spacecraft. It would make the flight home more comfortable for the astronauts, but they are not going to fly on an untested spacecraft.

Quote

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.

Same cons as 6, but worse since DM-1 is no longer only a contigency.

Quote

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.

Same cons as the few above, only adding the risks of a rushed manned program.

Quote

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.

Not happening.

Quote

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.

Soyuz is not designed to be refueled, in space engineering this means that it is impossible to refuel Soyuz.

Quote

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.

China is not part of the ISS collaboration; and even though the ports are similar to that which is similar to that which is similar to that, this amounts to them being completely different. Ripping the docking port and replacing it amounts to flying an untested upgrade of a spacecraft, so no again. An adapter could not be built and tested within the timeframe that this option could be possible.

Quote

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.

Untested spacecraft, non-manrated rocket, rushed assembly...

Quote

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.

Still nope.

Quote

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.

Same, except the rocket is even less ready, less tested, and putting an Orion on top of an FH amounts to creating a completely new rocket+spacecraft system.

Quote

15 - 13 but with Falcon Heavy. Self explanatory.

Same.

Quote

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

CRS-16 is not designed to hold crew. Modifying it would take a lot of time and testing: either you're too late, or you might as well fire up MS-11 untested and without opening an investigation at all.

 

I personally think the most feasible option, depending on the details brought up by the investigation, is to bring the ISS crew down with MS-09 as intended and leave the ISS unmanned for a while until MS-11 (or another mission if MS-11 is delayed by the investigation) gets there. If the investigation rules that MS-11 is safe to fly, they could maybe bring it forward a bit to overlap with the current crew, even for a day, if they really don't want to leave the ISS unmanned.

[Gargamel]

17 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

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

Probably been already mentioned, but that was a total failure.   As soon as they realized pencils gave off insane amounts of graphite dust, which got into the cosmonauts eyes and lungs, not to mention possibly shorting out the electronics, they switched over to pens.  

16 hours ago, 53miner53 said:

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

 

15 hours 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).

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.

 

15 hours ago, satnet said:

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.

Yup already mentioned.   I see now now that I am late to this bandwagon. 

[Vanamonde]

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Scott Manley just made two videos about this:

(That one has some mistakes in it)

This one corrects the mistakes and goes over a possible failure cause.

[K^2]

4 hours ago, Gaarst said:

If Soyuz is not cleared to launch manned, it won't launch unmanned to bring down astronauts. Even if you eliminate the risk of a LOC at liftoff, in case of a failure you still have stranded astronauts on the ISS.

Latest incident puts question on Soyuz rocket, not the ship. Ship performed phenomenally, bringing the crew down safely despite failure happening at just about the worst possible moment. Granted, if the ruptured tank had actually blown, we could have had much sadder news, but like I said, it was a very bad timing for failure. All in all, safety of the ship is not questioned by ongoing investigation. Just that of the rocket.

Given that, there is no reason not to send up MS-11 unmanned. Its a big expense and an even bigger financial risk if the rocket fails again, but leaving ISS unmanned is a greater risk. I think Roscosmos and NASA should bite the bullet and send MS-11 unmanned before MS-09 is due to return. If it makes it, jettison MS-09 and extend mission of the current crew. If it doesn't, have the crew come back down on 9, and take a risk with unoccupied ISS.

It's not a great option, but it's the best one all around. The only other viable alternative is just to abandon ISS and hope it's still there when investigation concludes or Dragon and/or Starliner are ready for a manned mission. That's strictly worse than taking a chance with an unmanned launch right now.

P.S. Strictly opinion.

Edited October 12, 2018 by K^2