[Deepwater6]

I read an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer today. The title is "Russian launch failure rattles NASA". The story was written by Marcia Dunn and Jim Heintz of the associated press.

The story begins by describing the thunderous boom into Siberia. It then goes on to say that this occured barely a month after NASA moth balled the shuttle program. While the station has more than enough supplies for the occupants it could delay the launch of the new station crew just a month away. It also states that the upper stage of the Soyuz rocket that failed is similar to the ones used to launch astronauts.

There is concern for the safety (due to cosmic rays) of the two Russian and one American that have been in space since April. The Soyuz capsule which is docked at the station can remain in orbit for seven months.

Another Russian supply ship is due to blast off in October. A European freighter in March, and a Japanese one in may.

Taking all this in I am very surprised that NASA decided to take this route. Depending on other countries for these trips. It seems a lot less cautious then the agency usually operates. If I was one of the occupants or one that was scheduled to launch next after this failure I would have some serious apprehensions.

Yes, astronauts know there is always risk in what they do, but I think NASA could have handled this differently. I'm surprised better planning wasn't used to avoid the situation we are in now. Have they considered what to do if the next attempt fails? Are they planning that far ahead?

I don't know much about the massive logistics involved in launching a shuttle, but I hope for the sake of the occupants and awaiting crews that no more missions run into to trouble. Perhaps funding, or logistics, or age was a factor in letting the shuttle program disolve before we had a viable replacement vehicle on standby? If not and going by the old axiom "if it can happen it will" I hope what's left of the agency can come up some miracle solutions one more time before Congress gives it completely to the under regulated outside companies who have the bottom line as their goal.

[CraigD]

Manned spaceflight may be safer than ever, but it's lost a lot of Sexiness
I believe Deepwater’s referring to this article.

Deepwater6, on 25 August 2011 - 09:17 AM, said:

Taking all this in I am very surprised that NASA decided to take this route. Depending on other countries for these trips. It seems a lot less cautious then the agency usually operates.

Well, the ISS is the International Space Station, with modules built and launched by several national space agencies. About 30% of it, by mass, has been launched by Russian Proton-K and Soyuz-U rockets, while the rest was launched by American Space Shuttles. For the entire history of the ISS, Both America and Russia have depended on one another for transport to and from the ISS, and other nations, on these two.

While I, and I believe most space enthusiasts, have uncertainties about NASA’s decision to no longer operate a man-rated spacecraft, those concerns are mostly about the cost and effectiveness of future spacecraft, not about current ones.

Quote

If I was one of the occupants or one that was scheduled to launch next after this failure I would have some serious apprehensions.

Spaceflight remains significantly more dangerous than most forms of transportation. However, with a perfect safety record since 1971 and ongoing improvements, the Soyuz TMA is by most expert analyses the safest manned spacecraft that has every existed, so I don’t think Deepwater’s worries are well-founded.

About 2/3rds (54 of 80) of the expedition crew flown to date to the ISS were flown on Soyuz TMA spacecraft atop Soyuz booster stacks. The rest were flown on space shuttles.

Both the Soyuz and the Shuttle have perfect safety records for transporting crew to and from the ISS. Although STS-107 (Columbia) disintegrated upon reentry, killing all 7 crewpeople, it didn’t visit the ISS. Although Soyuz has not had only 4 crew fatalities, none since 1971, while the Shuttle has had 14, Because the shuttle has carried more people over its shorter history, both vehicles have about the same fatality rate, 2%

Quote

Yes, astronauts know there is always risk in what they do, but I think NASA could have handled this differently. I'm surprised better planning wasn't used to avoid the situation we are in now. Have they considered what to do if the next attempt fails? Are they planning that far ahead?

I don’t believe the current situation – the failure of an unmanned resupply vehicle - was unplanned for. As the article states, the ISS has sufficient planned-for supply reserves that none of its planned activities need be altered because of this failure.

As the failed Soyuz-U booster is a mainstay of Russia nationally important and lucrative heavy lift-to-orbit program and business, I’m certain that this failure will be analyzed thoroughly by the most capable engineers in the business, and almost certainly prevented from occurring again.

I don’t know enough to more than speculate, but had this mission been a manned one rather than unmanned, maybe the computer program that shut down the 3rd stage of the Soyuz, resulting in it failing to reach orbit, might not have behaved this way. I suspect that the program was designed to assure that failed stage and its payload crashing in an unpopulated area, rather than an unpredictable place had the 3rd stage motor been ignited, then failed without reaching orbit.

As a spacecraft enthusiast since childhood, I’m personally distressed that nobody – not NASA, FAK, JAXA, or any viable private entity – has a big reusable return vehicle like the now retired Space Shuttle. While the Soyuz TAM-M may be the best vehicle of its kind ever flown, it’s little essentially different from the Vostok that Gagarin orbited in 1961.

The Soyuz is strictly a 3-person spacecraft. The shuttle usually carried a crew 7, but with a proposed but never built cargo bay module, have carried over 70 passengers. Comparing the Soyuz to and the shuttle is like comparing a sport car to a tractor-trailer

This picture, from Wikipedia, shows their size difference clearly:


Development of the reusable Kliper reentry vehicle and long-orbiting Parom “space tug”, appears to have stopped forever. A few wild and beautiful concepts, like the Skylon, have been around for decades, but haven’t even reached the stage of development of Kliper and Parom.

The near future of manned spaceflight look much less sexy and cool to me than it did as little as 5 years ago.

[CraigD]

CraigD, on 26 August 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

As the failed Soyuz-U booster is a mainstay of Russia nationally important and lucrative heavy lift-to-orbit program and business, I’m certain that this failure will be analyzed thoroughly by the most capable engineers in the business, and almost certainly prevented from occurring again.

This 29 Aug 2011 WSJ article quotes FKA’s head of manned programs Alexei Krasnov as planning to delay the next launch of a manned Soyuz until after 1 or 2 successful unmanned launches, including a replacement for the Progress resupply ship that was lost last week.

Perhaps they’re being especially cautious, or perhaps they’ve concluded that they can’t determine precisely what failed with Progress M-12M, and must be cautious. Still, I’d feel pretty confident of my safety riding the next manned Soyuz.

[Deepwater6]

Yes, I read it as well. I meant to post it, but got tied up at work. I agree that they probably have nothing to worry about on the next manned launch. If I worked my whole life to achieve that goal something like that would not stop me either. I do think however that it will be in the back of their minds when sitting on the launch pad. I'm pretty sure the missions that followed the space shuttle disaster's had occupants who had those incidents on their minds as well.

[Deepwater6]

I found this article to be along the lines of what we have been discussing. I didn't realize that hydrogen peroxide degradation makes the return capsules stay limited to time as well as supplies. I also didn't know that the station could be run completely from the ground if need be. I hope it doesn't come to that for the sake of the experiments they are conducting up there.

Philadelphia Inquire
"Astronauts may have to abandon space station"



http://philly.newspa...9&previewmode=2

[CraigD]

Deepwater6, on 30 August 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

Philadelphia Inquire
"Astronauts may have to abandon space station"
…

Your Phily Inquirer article link wouldn’t let me in without a subscription. this NY Times article seems to be about the same article.

Quote

I found this article to be along the lines of what we have been discussing. I didn't realize that hydrogen peroxide degradation makes the return capsules stay limited to time as well as supplies.

I’ve long been amazed that Soyuz TMs can be safely “parked” for as long as they routinely are at the ISS, even if the certified limit is “only” 200 days. As that limit can likely be exceeded slightly without much additional risk, I wouldn’t be too surprised if that’s what’s decided to be done.

Quote

I also didn't know that the station could be run completely from the ground if need be. I hope it doesn't come to that for the sake of the experiments they are conducting up there.

Not only that, but while the ISS can be remotely controlled, its ability to recover from an unexpected failure is much increased by the presence of a crew. Given that’s it’s a really big jumble of big pieces that we really don’t want crashing to Earth in an uncontrolled way, I think there are credible arguments that a crew must remain on board until it’s disassembled (for predictability reasons, it’s unwise to attempt deorbiting a structure like the ISS intact) and deorbited in a controlled way.

Plans to deorbit the ISS have been around for a while: NASA gave 2016 as a possible deadline, revising it in 2010 to at earliest 2020.

An interesting twist on these plans is that, by treaty, each nation is responsible for the pieces of the ISS their space agencies launched. Russia has hinted that, were the ISS broken up too early for their liking, they might use the pieces they built (including ones launched by the US Space Shuttle, and ones largely funded by the US) in a new station to be named OPSEK. The politics of this have something of the character of a yard sale in space.

Personally, I’d feel an emotional letdown if we gave up on the continuous human presence in space. I was disappointed When Mir was left empty 28 Aug 1999, as had it remained occupied for another year and a month, until the first ISS expedition 31 Oct 2000, our continuous presence in space would now be at 8027 days (nearly 22 years) instead of 3956 days (nearly 11 years).

Though it’s not scientific or very rational, I have a dread that, if the small number of humans living in space is allowed to fall to zero, it may stay that way for a long time, or even forever. This is the domain of politics, emotions, and zeitgeist, not science, but for us humans, this too is a domain in which we exist.

[Deepwater6]

Another article, this time indicating the US may start space missions with China.

CNN story





http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

[CraigD]

Deepwater6, on 01 September 2011 - 06:35 AM, said:

Another article, this time indicating the US may start space missions with China.
...
http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

Interesting OpEd article. I’m puzzled why the editors inserted a note about 2nd generation Chinese-American astronaut Leroy Chiao mentioning his 4 shuttle missions, but failing to mention that he spent 190 days on the ISS as commander from 2004 to 2005, as knowing his experience gives weight to his opinions on the subject: few people know the ISS better than Dr. Chiao!

While I expect some people in the Chinese space program would like to see it as a serious competitor for launch services with Russia, the Chinese program, with 3 manned flights in 2003, 2005, and 2008, has much less experience than the Russian. China’s manned spacecraft, the Shenzhou (which is usually translated to “divine craft”, but I prefer “magic boat”), follows the Soyuz 3 module (service, reentry, orbital) design, but is larger and designed from scratch, not, as some early commentators suggested (based at least in part on China admittedly having purchased and studied a Soyuz early in the Shenzhou’s design project), a “Soyuz knockoff”. (sources: http://en.wikipedia....henzhou_program; http://www.jamesober...atleap_chi.html)

I found this short 2010 article interesting. In it, FKA’s now-retired director Anatoli Perminov comments that they are interested in “obtaining a backup China could provide” to their Soyuz and Progress programs.

It also notes that China was invited to participate in the ISS, but has so far declined – or, according to some sources (eg: http://web.archive.o...ion/oe-manber16), been rebuffed from joining by the US. My personal suspicion is that China prefers and intends to keep their own space program as separate from possible from others. Launch of the first of 3 planned modules for China’s own space station, Tiangong, is scheduled for this month (9/2011).

At 60,000 kg, Tiagong will be about half the old Mir’s 129,700 kg, which is itself less than a third that of the ISS’s current 417,289. In mass, it’ll be comparable to 1973-1979’s single module Skylab, which massed 77,088 kg.

[Deepwater6]

This article although interesting has me upset at both goverments. Like most policies the Bush White House used, it is completely opposite of the way this American would want my elected officials to represent me in regards to cooperation with China. I know there was a thread claiming that the Bush admin. may have been the worst ever. In my opinion it was utterly disasrous and a big step backward for the reputation of America. I don't know how humans can live together and have such opposite views of things? But that's the way it is this country. All I can do is keep voting for my choices and letting others know why I do.

As far as China's military exploding all the space junk into orbit. It is in my opinion beyond ignorance.

Tell me if you can Craig, in this country and China, how much space policy is controlled by scientists? Do politicians in either country go with the recommendations of experts in the field, or is policy shaped only by current relations between the two countries? Is there a certian committee that handles these decisions like the ways and means committee? Does the White House dictate current policy and why? Either way it's very troubling on both sides.
,






http://web.archive.o...ion/oe-manber16

[CraigD]

Deepwater6, on 02 September 2011 - 04:44 PM, said:

As far as China's military exploding all the space junk into orbit. It is in my opinion beyond ignorance.

China’s 11 Jan 2007 destruction of its FY-1C weather observation satellite, was, IMHO, both a technical test of its anti-satellite warfare capability, and a demonstration of that capability to the US, Russian, and other powerful militaries. I believe war is terrible, but the reality of our time is that our governments still both fear and encourage it. As long as this fear and enthusiasm persists, tests and demonstrations like this will persist – despite official claims that it was done to protect the public from the remote possibility of being injured by the falling satelite or the release of its toxic propellant, IMHO the US’s 20 Feb 2008 shootdown of its USA-193 spy satellite was a similar test and demonstration.

Though IMHO their militaristic motivations are similar, the consequences to the near-Earth space environment of these two ASAT missile strikes are not. USA-193 was destroyed only weeks before it would have had an uncontrolled atmosphere reentry, so most of its debris left orbit within weeks, and never rose above very low orbits. FY-1C was in a stable, 865 km altitude polar orbit that will result in most of its debris remaining a hazard to nearly all spacecraft for several hundred years. (source: http://celestrak.com/events/asat.asp)

Display of military might or not, this is terribly irresponsible, perhaps taking Earth space one step closer to the Kessler syndrome.

Quote

Tell me if you can Craig, in this country and China, how much space policy is controlled by scientists? Do politicians in either country go with the recommendations of experts in the field, or is policy shaped only by current relations between the two countries?

That’s a mighty complicated question!

As best I can tell, in general and with some exceptions, yes, politicians respect and follow the advice of experts. Moreover, few politicians follow the detailed decisions that make space programs happen, especially the “unsexy”, unmanned missions that are most important to real, working science – solar and planetary astronomy, basic physics, etc.

Manned spaceflight doesn’t directly contribute much to this science. It does, I think, advance the spaceflight engineering that makes the smaller, cheaper, less glamorous space science possible. Getting all this to happen appears to me a mind-boggling complex technical and political dance, in which there are no easy, simple steps.

Quote

Is there a certian committee that handles these decisions like the ways and means committee? Does the White House dictate current policy and why? Either way it's very troubling on both sides.

NASA is an agency of the US executive branch, so in essence, yes, the President dictates its policy. Its director is cabinet-level, so must be confirmed by Congress.

NASA’s budget, like most federal programs, is recommended to Congress by the President, but actually allocated by one or more spending bill passed by congress each year. Per the usual give-and-take between the branches, sometimes Congress authorizes less than the Executive asks, sometimes more.

Like all federal agencies, most of the important people work there much longer than a given President, and many Congresspersons, are in office, so while technically the Executive dictates their policy, there’s a lot of lower-level influence and inertia. Throw in that most the money NASA spends employ people and profit companies in states and districts that vote for the Congresspersons who determine its budget, and the process becomes complicated. For example, a program that scientists and engineers want to abandon for technical reasons may be continued for political ones.


As astra.

[Deepwater6]

Apparently Russia had another mishap with a returning capsule.

BBC article




http://abcnews.go.co...nerves-14532727

[samantha360]

There teaming up with some space hotel as well. So citizens will supposedly soon be using the same rockets to get up there. I understand things happen but it's still scary if you've got the cash to go up there on Vaca.

http://www.cbsnews.c...n20096053.shtml

[CraigD]

Deepwater6, on 16 September 2011 - 03:53 AM, said:

Apparently Russia had another mishap with a returning capsule.

http://abcnews.go.co...nerves-14532727

(The abcnews link seems broken, so I found the story about the 9/16/2011 Soyuz return mission here at washingtontimes.)

“Mishap” is, I think, too strong a word for the unexpected communication failure Garan, Borisenko and Samokutyayev experienced on the Soyuz TMA-21 return mission. They landed safely, on target, and on schedule, but voice communication between the astronauts and Korolyov mission control wasn’t reestablished after reentry, as was planned. According to the article, the crew contacted a recovery command center aircraft after parachute deployment.

While certainly nerve-racking for mission control, there doesn’t appear to have been a safety-threatening mechanical or electronic failure on the Soyuz.

With the exception of the tragedy 1971 Soyuz 11 tragedy, where mistiming of the detonation of the bolts separating the descent and service modules caused an air leak that asphyxiated cosmonauts Dobrovolski, Volkov, and Patsayev, the Soyuz has a perfect safety record.

samantha360, on 11 October 2011 - 08:03 PM, said:

There teaming up with some space hotel as well. So citizens will supposedly soon be using the same rockets to get up there. I understand things happen but it's still scary if you've got the cash to go up there on Vaca.

http://www.cbsnews.c...n20096053.shtml

Welcome to hypography, Samantha!

I’ll be curious to see if RKK Energia gets enough takers at their price – something like US$60,000,000 for a 5-day orbital stay! – to actually fly any of these space vacations. Virgin Galactic’s $200,000 suborbital flights still seem to command the “bargain niche” for space tourism.

[Deepwater6]

OK, "Mishap" may be the media's hope for eye catching headlines, but the point is things remain very dangerous for space travelers. This article below is about NASA/ESA asking Russia to help with the un-manned mission to Mars. Apparently they are trying to hit the 2016 window?? You probably know more about it than I do, Is it feasible? Low budgets and against a deadline glad were not sending humans on this one, but if they are successful in getting a satellite around Mars it would be amazing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-14979267

[Qfwfq]

CraigD, on 13 October 2011 - 05:27 AM, said:

– something like US$60,000,000 for a 5-day orbital stay! –

Actually, the video says a million a night, though it doesn't say how much to get up and down. Where do you get that figure from?

If perchance one could have a 1 day stay in actual orbit for a million or so, it is maybe a better bargain than Virgin's mere suborbital flight.
For those with enough spare change, that is.