Soyuz has Missed Orbital Insertion and Coming Back to Earth

Onebadhawk
shop deals on amazon
the rocketry show
madcow rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Last edited:
sooner.boomer said:
At about 2:45 or so after liftoff on the video is when the problem occurred.
Click to expand...

That is some time after the escape tower would have, or should have, been jettisoned. So, I wonder if the reports of it being used to separate the capsule are incorrect.

Anyway, we will learn more later. I am just relieved that the crew is apparently okay. Must have been a scary ride.

-- Roger
 
jadebox said:
That is some time after the escape tower would have, or should have, been jettisoned. So, I wonder if the reports of it being used to separate the capsule are incorrect.

Anyway, we will learn more later. I am just relieved that the crew is apparently okay. Must have been a scary ride.

-- Roger
Click to expand...

Watching the video and listening to the running commentary, first the escape tower is jettisoned, then the boosters shut down and are separated. You can see a bunch of stuff go in different directions. The boosters do not look like they came away cleanly and simultaneously, forming a symmetric "cross" pattern. I think it was about another minute or so before they separated the capsule from the rocket to begin recovery. Also - prior to staging/separation, it looked like there was some "wiggle" in the exhaust trail. In the capsule video, the astronauts were shaken side-to-side a couple of times before the really rough stuff at the end. Watch whatever it is that's hanging down.

The Soyuz spacecraft consists of three parts, the Orbital module (on top), the Descent module (where the astronauts ride on the way up/down), and the Service module. The Service module has rocket engines which would have seperated the Soyuz from the rocket, and then would have been used for braking for reentry.

It's interesting that the graphics in the video progressed as though nothing had gone wrong. Makes me think they use a "canned" animation rather than live telemetry.
 
Last edited:
jadebox said:
That is some time after the escape tower would have, or should have, been jettisoned. So, I wonder if the reports of it being used to separate the capsule are incorrect.

Anyway, we will learn more later. I am just relieved that the crew is apparently okay. Must have been a scary ride.

-- Roger
Click to expand...

You need an escape tower to rapidly pull the capsule away from the fireball of an exploding booster or to boost it to a safe altitude for parachute deployment if a failure occurs at low altitude.

If the 'second stage', which is the core, stops when the strap-on boosters separate, then there is no need for an emergency separation. You just detach when it is the correct time (like before you plummet back to earth). Ditto for an anomoly where one or more strap-ons fail to separate and the central core ('second stage') then shuts down as a result of an automated abort sequence.

Bad vibrations in the video seem to indicate a strap-on separation issue.

We should ask a strap-on expert. Where is that limo driver when you need him?
 
Despite all the snotty comments online, in fact the Soyuz suborbital abort procedure appears to have worked pretty much perfectly.
 
JStarStar said:
Despite all the snotty comments online, in fact the Soyuz suborbital abort procedure appears to have worked pretty much perfectly.
Click to expand...

Yep. Perfect launches are rare. Resilience and safety are important and the Soyuz program is quite mature in that regard. I’d go up tomorrow if offered. I imagine the astronaut and cosmonaut involved would as well.
 
I believe the last figures I saw put the overall Soyuz launch success rate at about 95-97 percent.

And of course the Soyuz spacecraft is designed (unlike the shuttle) that booster failure is reasonably survivable.

I believe this now makes three manned Soyuz launches that had to abort during launch phase, with the survival of the crew.

However, some geniuses online were snarking off that a shuttle crew in a similar circumstance would have been "dead meat" -- actually an abort similar to this one (no vehicle separation until after strap-on booster jettison) would probably be the most survivable type of shuttle abort.
 
Sorry, I don't have an article link, but I was reading that this might require the ISS to go unmanned for a period. The current crew has to leave because their Soyuz warranty is running out. The only thing that would allow them to stay would be to send an unmanned Soyuz to replace it.
 
ISS IS RACING THE CLOCK AFTER SOYUZ FAILURE
11 Oct 2018

https://hackaday.com/2018/10/11/int...ng-the-clock-after-soyuz-failure/#more-328620

Excerpts:

ISS crews are rotated out on a six month schedule because that’s about how long a Soyuz capsule can remain viable in orbit. It has a design life of only 215 days, any longer than that and the vehicle’s corrosive propellants will degrade their tanks [not correct according to the video below - it's not the tanks but the propellant that degrades - hydrogen peroxide decomposition in the descent module RCS tanks - W]. Current ISS crew members Sergey Prokopyev, Alexander Gerst, and Serena M. Auñón-Chancellor arrived at the station in June on Soyuz MS-09, so the clock has nearly run out for their spacecraft.

If Soyuz MS-09 is left attached to the Station past its design life, it will become unusable. In the worst case, it could even start leaking propellant and endanger the Station. The crew would be forced to cut the spacecraft loose, leaving themselves stranded. This is an option that simply will not be considered by either NASA or Roscosmos. Under no circumstances will either agency intentionally leave three humans in space with no way to bring them home.

If nothing changes, the current crew will therefore be forced to depart before their only ride home literally eats itself. This would leave the Station unmanned until Soyuz can be flown again and bring a new crew. As there’s no telling when that might be, this would be a crushing blow to ISS operations. It could potentially start another domino effect of delaying future missions and experiments, such as the unmanned test flight of SpaceX’s new Dragon capsule which is currently slated to arrive at the Station in April.

There is however at least one contingency plan which has historic precedent. Roscosmos could attempt to launch the Soyuz MS-11 spacecraft on December 20th as originally planned, but without the crew. If the booster fails again, at worst they will have only lost the hardware and no human life. But if it survives the trip into space, it could be remotely guided to the ISS, and serve as the crew’s new return vehicle. This would allow them to remain aboard the Station for another six months, hopefully enough time to complete the accident investigation and resume normal launches.

This is precisely what happened in 1979 aboard the Salyut 6 space station. When Soyuz 33 suffered an engine failure before docking with the orbiting outpost, it not only deprived the Salyut 6 crew of additional members, but called into question the reliability of their own identical spacecraft. No longer sure they had a safe return vehicle, the crew was forced to remain in orbit until the remotely controlled Soyuz 34 could be sent to the station as a lifeboat. The crew left Salyut 6 aboard Soyuz 34 after commanding their original spacecraft to re-enter the atmosphere by remote control. Ultimately both spacecraft landed safely, with no human or material loss.

 
lakeroadster said:
Glad they made it back. Pretty amazing.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
Everything else is fascinating from technically standpoint, but otherwise significantly less important.

Will ISS have to go without a crew for a bit - maybe. I doubt anyone will be upset about that outcome, other than folks scheduled to fly next (who may get bumped).
Will Soyuz investigation reveal the root cause of failure and will it get fixed - sure. We'll all read about it with interest.

By early 2Q'19 SpaceX with crewed Dragon should be on its way to ISS, thus lifting NASA dependence on Soyuz.
Couldn't come at a better time!

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-spacex-agree-on-plans-for-crew-launch-day-operations

a
 
most likely they will send an uncrewed Soyuz up as a test, if it works great, if not they can use the current Soyuz to come home.
Rex
 
Rex R said:
most likely they will send an uncrewed Soyuz up as a test, if it works great, if not they can use the current Soyuz to come home.
Rex
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree this seems to be the best way forward. In fact I'll be surprised if they do something other than this.
 
I don't have up-to-date figures, but I believe the Soyuz still has a success rate over 95 percent-- unless the investigation turns up something really serious with the launch vehicle, I wouldn't expect the grounding to be lengthy.
 
Russian official says Soyuz rocket failure caused by an errant sensor
The Russians plan to put people back on the Soyuz rocket in about a month.
10/31/2018

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...uz-rocket-failure-caused-by-an-errant-sensor/

Although the official report on the cause of a Soyuz rocket failure won't be released until Thursday, a Russian official disclosed its central conclusion a day early, the country's news agency TASS reports.

Sergei Krikalev, the executive director of "manned programs" for Russia's space corporation Roscosmos, said a sensor on board the rocket failed to properly signal the separation of the first and second stages. As a result, one of the side-mounted rocket boosters did not separate properly from the vehicle and collided with the rocket.

This collision triggered an automatic abort of one of the Soyuz's abort systems, pulling the crew of NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Russian cosmonaut Aleksey Ovchinin safely away from the rocket and sending them on a ballistic return to Earth.
The Russians have conducted a rapid investigation of the failure, which occurred on October 11, concluding it within three weeks. They have been driven to do this because the Soyuz spacecraft is currently the only means by which NASA, Russia, and their international partners have of getting people to and from the station. Three people remain in orbit: American astronaut Serena Auñón-Chancellor, German ISS Commander Alexander Gerst, and Russian Sergey Prokopyev. They are due to return to Earth around December 20.

After their investigation, Russian officials are planning to move up the next crewed launch from mid-December to early December to ensure a continued human presence on the station. The space station can operate autonomously for a period of time, but if something critical breaks and no astronauts are on board to fix the problem, the station could become severely damaged or even lost.

Krikalev said the next launch will now be moved forward to December 3 and will carry the same crew as originally intended on this mission, MS-11: Russian Oleg Kononenko, American Anne McClain, and Canadian David Saint-Jacques. The problems with the Soyuz rocket, he said, will be fixed.

NASA officials have consistently said they have full confidence in the Russian investigation, as well as the Soyuz rocket and spacecraft. It is inconceivable that the more cautious US space agency would suffer a total rocket failure in October and fly humans on that same rocket less than two months later. However, given their reliance on Russia, US spaceflight officials have little choice but to defer to the Russians until commercial crew vehicles under development by SpaceX and Boeing come into service, probably within about a year from now.
 
The Soyuz has just launched another satellite. This is the advantage of having the same basic rocket that is used for both manned and unmanned orbital cargo. The unmanned launches can be used as a verification for return to flight for the manned launches.
 
https://hackaday.com/2018/11/09/soyuz-failure-leaves-questions-unanswered/

Even though booster separation happens at an altitude of 50 kilometers (31 miles) and while the rocket is traveling in excess of 6,500 km/h (4,038 MPH), the Soyuz side boosters hit the ground largely intact. Investigators just needed to track down where the boosters came down in the Kazakhstan desert and examine them. Interestingly the boosters are not usually recovered after a nominal Soyuz launch, and it’s not unheard of for locals to cut them up and sell them for scrap.

soyuz_wreckage-e1541708002537.jpg
 
Winston said:
https://hackaday.com/2018/11/09/soyuz-failure-leaves-questions-unanswered/

Even though booster separation happens at an altitude of 50 kilometers (31 miles) and while the rocket is traveling in excess of 6,500 km/h (4,038 MPH), the Soyuz side boosters hit the ground largely intact. Investigators just needed to track down where the boosters came down in the Kazakhstan desert and examine them. Interestingly the boosters are not usually recovered after a nominal Soyuz launch, and it’s not unheard of for locals to cut them up and sell them for scrap.

soyuz_wreckage-e1541708002537.jpg
Click to expand...

In modroc terms, the strap-ons are designed* to have negative stability after separation (I'd guess having one fin probably helps) so they probably tend to spin and tumble and assume an aerodynamic terminal speed something like 100 mph. Or less, considering most of the structure is an empty metal tank.

While I certainly wouldn't want to be under it when it comes down, obviously a lot of metallic structure is gonna survive.


*- Maybe not designed per se, but that's how it worked out.
 
Last edited:
JStarStar said:
In modroc terms, the strap-ons are designed* to have negative stability after separation (I'd guess having one fin probably helps) so they probably tend to spin and tumble and assume an aerodynamic terminal speed something like 100 mph. Or less, considering most of the structure is an empty metal tank.

While I certainly wouldn't want to be under it when it comes down, obviously a lot of metallic structure is gonna survive.


*- Maybe not designed per se, but that's how it worked out.
Click to expand...
You do realize that when I italicize text it means it's from the linked-to article?
 

Similar threads

OverTheTop
SpaceX Inspiration4 Mission - The First All-Private Crewed Orbital Space Mission
2 3
Replies
62
Views
4K
KennB
KennB
Antares JS
Astronaut Walt Cunningham has died.
Replies
7
Views
714
Antares JS
Antares JS
alexzogh
Huntsville Saturn 1b was scrapped
Replies
7
Views
550
CalebJ
CalebJ
Sooner Boomer
China lander has reached surface of Mars
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
BigMacDaddy
BigMacDaddy
Sooner Boomer
For Black Brant lovers - upcoming mission
Replies
0
Views
1K
Sooner Boomer
Sooner Boomer

Latest posts

Back
Top