Thanks for the tip about his site. Keyword search there on "Soyuz" returns what I'm sure will be much interesting reading material.Hasn't anyone watched this great video? Here are my favorite Soyuz problems from Obergs site.
That Soyuz-5 incident was well covered in a very recent TV documentary series that was about manned space accidents. Anyone recall the name of the series because I want to buy it if it shows up on DVD?Hasn't anyone watched this great video? Here are my favorite Soyuz problems from Obergs site.
Roll the dice.............Fly SOYUZ!
10. Soyuz-5. 1969 Jan 18. Major life-threatening failure kept secret for quarter century. "During descent of Soyuz-5, a dangerous deviation occurred: the connecting latches between the descent module and the equipment module (SM) did not separate and the motion went forward on the bare surface of the descent module. Layers (polki) of the shell peeled away under action of heating during entry into the thick layers of the atmosphere and internal pressure in the DM, but the shell (shpangout) endured these unforeseen conditions. As a result of the heating of the construction of the transfer module, the connections were broken, the DM broke free from the SM, and returned to the normal orientation. Descent went on along a ballistic trajectory, the landing system ensured a soft landing. This situation confirmed the correctness of the project decision for a titanium shell."
12. Soyuz-10 undocking. 1971 Apr 23. Probe/cone mechanism failed during docking with Salyut-1. Undocking command failed, probe was jammed. Crew jumped back and forth inside Soyuz to shake jam loose.
18. Soyuz-23. 1976 Oct 16. After successful launch, the space station rendezvous failed and a mission abort landing was declared. By freak chance, DM came down on Lake Tengiz 2 km from shore. Electrical short in water caused deployment of reserve parachute. Both parachute lines kept capsule lying on its side in water, preventing hatch opening and blocking air vent. Transmission antennas became inoperable due to submersion. Inner walls became covered with ice. Recovery forces concluded crew was dead, dragged capsule to shore, awaited special team to remove bodies. Hatch opened by crew after eleven hours.
Yeah, I loved their line, "This situation confirmed the correctness of the project decision for a titanium shell."Reentering backwards, and the hatch glowing red must have been a trip.
Yeah, there are some details about these in the various materials on Oberg's site. It is claimed that the wire bundle connections between the Soyuz modules are now specifically designed to fail/disconnect after a certain amount of tension is applied, something they should have obviously done from day one. Hell, even I would have thought of that.There were a couple of Soyuz entries not so long ago (7-10 years ago) where, due to a problem with the separation system (pyros IIRC) the Service Module failed to separate from the Command Module (using the equivalent USA module names). The craft were heavily buffeted during the entry, and landed hundreds of kilometers away from the predicted landing site due to ballistic entry. Luckily the Service Module was able to break free due to the severe buffeting in the upper atmosphere before the serious heating occurred to the capsule. The female astronaut from NASA on board played down the severity, but I seem to remember it getting up around 8-10Gs before the SM separated and things settled down.
[video=youtube;AqeJzItldSQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ[/video] |
It just bugs me that they keep rockets around so long. You would think that once the Proton was perfected, they would put the Soyuz out to pasture. Do they drive the same
cars for 60 years?
Did not go off, or we would never know what happened.
I believe in this case two of the three (or maybe three of four) safety interlocks had tripped on the warhead when they got to it. Only one still functioning to block the boom. Very close...
ON THE SOYUZ, ok it is like a MODEL-T. Can you still buy those? NO NO NO NO NO.
Full scale rockets should have an expiration date on them. How about 20 years. Then you have to get a new design. It only makes sense.
Someone tell the Russians, already. Maybe being such an ancient vehicle is why they keep having problems with it. Too many vacuum tubes,
spark gaps, and V2 derived junk.:no:
A 2016 PBS American Experience episode that is ALL about that. Remains on my DVR in HD. Outstanding.:remember the Titan base where a guy dropped a giant socket wrench down the silo, it tore a gash in the missile skin, which was the fuel tank, it leaked and went boom, throwing the warhead quite a ways.
Handy table:Peartree, maybe you can answer my question of whether the Proton could replace the Soyuz booster (not the spacecraft). Is the lifting power similar?
Just remembered the name of the series. The excellent reenactment of the backwards reentry of Soyuz-5 and an interview with the cosmonaut involved is in the second half of this episode:That Soyuz-5 incident was well covered in a very recent TV documentary series that was about manned space accidents. Anyone recall the name of the series because I want to buy it if it shows up on DVD?
Enter your email address to join: