Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: Soyuz Emergency landing.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,314
    Last thought. The RT channel spent most of thursday on this story. BBC please note.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,014
    Any definite word on whether they used the escape tower or not yet? The mishap seems to have happened at booster separation, the abort very shortly after that, if that can help to find out.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,407
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    The launch failure has highlighted that Russia is the only option for the US to get into space currently. The report acknowledges China as an alternative but dismisses it with the comment "China has successfully put its astronauts into orbit, but its space program is still in relative infancy."

    https://www.rferl.org/a/soyuz-mishap.../29540427.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I would go so far as to say, SpaceX will reach NASA human-rated standards before a Chinese vessel will... Not out of any lack of technical skill on the part of China's space program, but because of that very reluctance to share information and responsibility, as well as the complexity of US/China relations.
    Some reluctance to share is understandable, but we have NASA TV and the internet, which China makes great use of. Engineers all around the world probably watch and read that stuff, which must lead to a lot of "Let's not rebuild the wheel" thinking. If docking systems are different, it is more likely that someone added some bells and whistles that make them different rather than a complete redesign of basic features.

    I am pretty sure that a lot of things don't work together because the users view bells and whistles as "necessary" and are unwilling to design them away. A modern astronaut will tell you Apollo era equipment is great, but won't really want to ride in one if given a second option of a far superior machine, like a Soyuz. Astronauts who get to see other countries vehicles probably get into a lot of shop talk, arguing the pros and cons of each. That would be interesting TV. At least, I'd watch it.
    Solfe

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,879
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Read somewhere that the Chinese docking mechanism was compatible with the Russian one.
    That makes sense; I believe the Chinese designs were originally based on Russian ones.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    35,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    Some reluctance to share is understandable, but we have NASA TV and the internet, which China makes great use of. Engineers all around the world probably watch and read that stuff, which must lead to a lot of "Let's not rebuild the wheel" thinking. If docking systems are different, it is more likely that someone added some bells and whistles that make them different rather than a complete redesign of basic features.

    I am pretty sure that a lot of things don't work together because the users view bells and whistles as "necessary" and are unwilling to design them away. A modern astronaut will tell you Apollo era equipment is great, but won't really want to ride in one if given a second option of a far superior machine, like a Soyuz. Astronauts who get to see other countries vehicles probably get into a lot of shop talk, arguing the pros and cons of each. That would be interesting TV. At least, I'd watch it.
    Unofficial casual conversation is one thing, but it's not the main thing. Designs have to pass through committees and the like, and SpaceX has a close working relationship with NASA and Congress.
    Last edited by Noclevername; 2018-Oct-14 at 02:15 PM.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Any definite word on whether they used the escape tower or not yet? The mishap seems to have happened at booster separation, the abort very shortly after that, if that can help to find out.
    According to the Scott Manley video I linked to above, they did not. There are rockets on the escape tower and there are rockets on the shroud over the capsule. The escape tower had already been jettisoned by the time of the accident, but the shroud had not been and the rockets on it fired to pull the capsule clear.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    Some reluctance to share is understandable, but we have NASA TV and the internet, which China makes great use of. Engineers all around the world probably watch and read that stuff, which must lead to a lot of "Let's not rebuild the wheel" thinking. If docking systems are different, it is more likely that someone added some bells and whistles that make them different rather than a complete redesign of basic features.

    I am pretty sure that a lot of things don't work together because the users view bells and whistles as "necessary" and are unwilling to design them away. A modern astronaut will tell you Apollo era equipment is great, but won't really want to ride in one if given a second option of a far superior machine, like a Soyuz. Astronauts who get to see other countries vehicles probably get into a lot of shop talk, arguing the pros and cons of each. That would be interesting TV. At least, I'd watch it.
    That isn't my understand. The US and the Russian are very different, and were developed independently. It is a lot more than "bells and whistles" that are different.

    This forum has a couple of posts with an extensive discussion.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,284
    Any cooperation with China would involve sharing of technology both ways, and would likely run afoul of ITAR, which is restrictive and far reaching, even for "civilian" technology, vis a vis NASA. ITAR is a complicated and confusing set of "arms" regulations that international satellite and ISS related missions must comply with. Since China is officially a hostile foreign power, the US has been very reluctant to grant any compliance to Chinese technology or any US sharing of technology. That's not to say it can't or won't happen, but it will be a slow process.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...ms_Regulations
    https://gov-relations.com/itar/
    https://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/nasaecp/Webbrfg/sld001.htm (old and terribly formatted slide show)

    CJSF
    "Find a way to show what would happen
    If you were incorrect
    A fact is just a fantasy
    Unless it can be checked
    Make a test
    Test it out"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Put It To The Test"


    lonelybirder.org

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    According to the Scott Manley video I linked to above, they did not. There are rockets on the escape tower and there are rockets on the shroud over the capsule. The escape tower had already been jettisoned by the time of the accident, but the shroud had not been and the rockets on it fired to pull the capsule clear.
    OK, and from what I understood those have a far lower acceleration than the tower does. They stated something in the 7G range, where from the top of my head the tower momentarily goes above 20G.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    OK, and from what I understood those have a far lower acceleration than the tower does. They stated something in the 7G range, where from the top of my head the tower momentarily goes above 20G.
    I don't know the values, but yes, the tower acceleration is much higher.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon
    Posts
    6,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I don't know the values, but yes, the tower acceleration is much higher.
    Also from the Manley video, my understanding is the tower has a much bigger thrust because the assumption is it may be needed earlier when the boosters are attached to the rocket and are pushing hard themselves. So to achieve rapid separation, the tower rockets are more powerful than those of the shroud.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,997
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    Since China is officially a hostile foreign power, the US has been very reluctant to grant any compliance to Chinese technology or any US sharing of technology.
    I'm just curious, but can you clarify where that is officially stated? You mean by the State Department?
    As above, so below

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,284
    Ok, "officially" was probably the wrong choice, but those of us who work with ... data concerning China have to handle ... things a certain way, differently than other powers. So... it's sort of de facto. And it certainly is on the list for ITAR.

    CJSF
    "Find a way to show what would happen
    If you were incorrect
    A fact is just a fantasy
    Unless it can be checked
    Make a test
    Test it out"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Put It To The Test"


    lonelybirder.org

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    10,929
    Some discussion here:
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/in...?topic=46546.0

    "The report quoted on Russianspaceweb.com states initial telemetry shows the pyro did not fire and rupture the pressure membrane on one booster. This resulted in the booster not separating at the ball socket. The lower part of the booster under the effects continuing core stage thrust then was pulled into and slammed into the core stage resulting in a breach of the core stage and deviation of the launcher from the flight azimuth (It is visible in some video). The breach forcibly ejected the remaining booster."
    http://russianspaceweb.com/soyuz-ms-10.html

    All about booster sep' incidents....
    https://translate.google.ru/translat...htm&edit-text=
    Last edited by publiusr; 2018-Oct-15 at 10:35 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •