Sensors Failed on TMA-08M

[Mr Shifty]

Wow, when Expedition 36 returned to Earth a couple days ago, apparently the descent was pretty hair-raising:

http://zeenews.india.com/news/space/spacemen-flew-blind-from-space-station-as-sensors-failed_876303.html

[DerekL1963]

Actually, system failures of one kind or another during Soyuz landings are depressingly common.

[Mr Shifty]

Actually, system failures of one kind or another during Soyuz landings are depressingly common.

Huh. I didn't know that. This document is 15 years old, but suggests that in 1997, the last failure during undocking, module separation, and landing (not counting the de-orbit burn) had occurred in 1980:

http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html

I know there were a couple off-course landings 5-6 years ago, but I thought that had been resolved. What other kinds of failures are there?

[DerekL1963]

Huh. I didn't know that. This document is 15 years old, but suggests that in 1997, the last failure during undocking, module separation, and landing (not counting the de-orbit burn) had occurred in 1980:

http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html

Did you actually read the document? Keep scrolling past 1980 for an ongoing litany of failures and errors.

I know there were a couple off-course landings 5-6 years ago, but I thought that had been resolved. What other kinds of failures are there?

"Off course" is such a gentle way of saying "the controls and/or the computer failed" that it obscures the facts. There have been several such "off course" landings in subsequent years, plus an undocking failure. Plus at least one rumored failure of the orbital module to detach. (This comes from very credible sources.... but finding out any facts about the Soyuz failures is very hard. The Russians still tend to treat such things as state secrets.)

[Mr Shifty]

Did you actually read the document? Keep scrolling past 1980 for an ongoing litany of failures and errors.

Almost all of those were de-orbit failures or were due to landing on a hillside or during windy conditions.

"Off course" is such a gentle way of saying "the controls and/or the computer failed" that it obscures the facts. There have been several such "off course" landings in subsequent years, plus an undocking failure. Plus at least one rumored failure of the orbital module to detach. (This comes from very credible sources.... but finding out any facts about the Soyuz failures is very hard. The Russians still tend to treat such things as state secrets.)

I wasn't trying to obscure the seriousness of the failures. I honestly didn't know there was such a spotty record with Soyuz. (If the orbital module didn't detach, how did the crew return?) Was the Shuttle any more reliable?

[dharak1]

Have the failures ever resulted in death? I remember hearing about something with vacuum being met in an the crew having died as a result. If there were no deaths and they can expect a problem I see barely any problem. Of course they should still fix it but as long as there are no issues like the heat panels on the shuttle.

[rodion]

Have the failures ever resulted in death? I remember hearing about something with vacuum being met in an the crew having died as a result. If there were no deaths and they can expect a problem I see barely any problem. Of course they should still fix it but as long as there are no issues like the heat panels on the shuttle.

The fatal incident you're thinking of is the mission Soyuz 11. As the re-entry capsule was decoupled, the explosive bolts fired with incorrect timing and popped open a small valve that was supposed to let fresh air in for the crew when the capsule reached the ground. The cabin immediately depressurized and the crew all suffocated within a minute. After this Soviet and Russian crews started to wear pressure suits inside the vehicles, too.

As it happens, it's the only time in history anybody was actually killed in outer space proper, as opposed to on launch or in the atmosphere during re-entry.

[Tiberion]

The very first Soyuz (Soyuz1) crashed and killed its solo pilot in 1966

Soyuz 11 depressurized in 1971 and its crew of 3 died.

As for the shuttle being more reliable, no. Both experienced 2 fatal accidents, with 4 total deaths for Soyuz and 14 for the shuttle (13 Americans and 1 from Israel)

Soyuz has had far more anomalies but its also flown far more times than the Shuttle did. Its also safer because it has a launch abort system to save the crew in case of lissues during liftoff. The shuttle had no backup once it launched; if it couldn't return on finish its flight on its own, the crew had no real contingencies. In the end thats why the shuttle wasn't suitable to be a 'space taxi' and was far more useful as a work platform for the crew.

Here's a list of space-related incidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

[AlamoVampire]

sad part is, the Soyuz system is older than the Apollo system that was retired in the late 70's early 80's <IF you count SkyLab lol>. That alone makes it so depressing that we must rely on about 5 decade old tech to get us up to the ISS.

[AlamoVampire]

The very first Soyuz (Soyuz1) crashed and killed its solo pilot in 1966

Soyuz 11 depressurized in 1971 and its crew of 3 died.

As for the shuttle being more reliable, no. Both experienced 2 fatal accidents, with 4 total deaths for Soyuz and 14 for the shuttle (13 Americans and 1 from Israel)

Soyuz has had far more anomalies but its also flown far more times than the Shuttle did. Its also safer because it has a launch abort system to save the crew in case of lissues during liftoff. The shuttle had no backup once it launched; if it couldn't return on finish its flight on its own, the crew had no real contingencies. In the end thats why the shuttle wasn't suitable to be a 'space taxi' and was far more useful as a work platform for the crew.

Here's a list of space-related incidents:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents

As far as deaths go, only the Gemini and Mercury programs along with the 2 stations the US has sent up, are fatality free, but, sadly the clock is still young on the ISS. yes, I am aware of the fact that the ISS is in fact a global system and not just american. but, it is part of NASA, so, it gets to toss its hat in XD

[gloowa]

As far as deaths go, only the Gemini and Mercury programs along with the 2 stations the US has sent up, are fatality free

And what a miracle that was.

I like the parachute opening as a final insult to injury.

[Camacha]

sad part is, the Soyuz system is older than the Apollo system that was retired in the late 70's early 80's <IF you count SkyLab lol>. That alone makes it so depressing that we must rely on about 5 decade old tech to get us up to the ISS.

Well, please do remember that that also means five decades of refining and further development. By now they are reliable as anything. If you want to go to space with some decent garantee you come back alive, the Soyuz is the craft of choice.

[nothke]

And what a miracle that was.

I like the parachute opening as a final insult to injury.

LOL!! Read the top comment of the video! xD

About the failures, you have to realize that spacecraft are much more complicated systems than cars xD Lot more systems, lot more things that could go wrong.. It's really strange when you hear causes of failure like "sensors were placed up-side down" (like on recent Proton GLONASS crash), or "the software had a wrong date" (like on the Cygnus orbital maneuvers these days), you get struck by the fact that these sound like simple things, but actually are easily overlooked in such a huge and complicated systems.

Now both the Shuttle and Soyuz had a benefit of being experienced (lets not use the word "old"), so the most common failures were getting known and checks were improved over time. The inspection after Challenger said there was a 1 in 9 chance of total failure, it was pure luck for the STS to last 25 missions.

On the other hand, the foam tearing off the orange tank of the Shuttle was a well known thing but NASA did the "lets cross our fingers and pray", until Columbia happened. And you need to know that there is still a lot of "lets cross our fingers and pray" moments in any launch.

But Soyuz is a much more robust and reliable design and even some systems failures are not as deadly as the Shuttle. That's generally how Russians do it xD In my opinion Soyuz robust design should be improved and not made into some new Apollo like craft as Russians are proposing (but I highly doubt it will happen).

Well if you just look at any launch vehicle history you can see that most beginnings were failures. Just like in KSP xD

Edited September 25, 2013 by nothke

[theonegalen]

Failures like that are why it's important to have actual pilots on space missions. I've recently read The Right Stuff, where I learned about Gordon Cooper's manual reentry and landing flying after all the spacecraft automatic systems quit on him in the last Mercury mission - if he hadn't had the manual controls the astronauts demanded, he would likely have died and that could have been it for NASA. If there are human beings onboard, one of them needs to be able to have the necessary skills to bring the craft home.

[Guest]

sad part is, the Soyuz system is older than the Apollo system that was retired in the late 70's early 80's <IF you count SkyLab lol>. That alone makes it so depressing that we must rely on about 5 decade old tech to get us up to the ISS.

I find that comforting, actually, given the reliability of the system. As others have said, that's fifty years of refinement.