Is the ISS itself causing the Soyuz entry failures?
...the Soyuz used to fly long duration missions to the space station flawlessly for years. So what changed in the last two flights? Some bad parts out of the same lot?
A unique confluence of circumstances being investigated appears to be at fault. The space station has grown in size considerably since those first early long duration flights that the Soyuz so flawlessly serviced. It is a bit larger now with all the new modules the Emperor has sent aloft for our friends. As such it makes quite a target for training gangly military officers on ground based radars around the world. It has also become quite a source of electromagnetic energy itself, with all the radios and such from all the international partners blasting their messages back to the homelands.
Did you hear the recent news about cell phones in your pocket causing your little reproductive agents to slow down or become ineffective? The same thing may be at work when the cacophony of EMI on the space station envelops the Soyuz separation pyros and causes them to become inert.
If true, it raises some interesting issues. Is there something intrinsic in the Soyuz design, or pyro design, that causes this effect? Or is it a problem for pyros on any lifeboat that we put up there? Do they need to make it possible to change them out on orbit (if this capability isn't already there), and keep them in a shielded box until they have to go home? Of course, this would slow things down in an emergency, if they had to get away immediately.
The problem of a space station lifeboat is a much tougher one than people realize (which is why I've always opposed it, at least if such a thing is defined as a device that gets you all the way to earth if there's a problem on the station). You simply can't trust hardware that has been sitting dormant for months in the space environment to work reliably when you need it to (at least not at our current level of experience with space operations).
This is also the reason that we couldn't use an Orbiter for a lifeboat, even if we had enough of them that taking one out of the processing flow wouldn't have a severe impact on turnaround times. We can't know for sure if it can survive six months on orbit, even with power and support from the ISS, and have the reliability needed to safely come home.
That's why I've always advocated a robust space transportation infrastructure that is always being exercised (e.g., multiple co-orbiting facilities with different purposes, and space tugs/crew modules for transit from one to the other). It provides redundancy, and reliability, and obviates the need to abandon a single space station to take people all the way back to earth in the event of a problem.
I assume you mean "interesting theory" in the same way Howard Dean did.
Well, I did say "if true..."
Anyway, something is causing these pyro failures during entry, and it's either something that happens during manufacture, or during launch, or on orbit. As is noted, the main thing that has changed is in fact that the station is getting closer to completion, because Soyuz has traditionally been pretty reliable in that regard.
My general point, that we can't necessarily trust long-dormant hardware, remains, regardless of the validity of this specific theory.
Did you hear the recent news about cell phones in your pocket causing your little reproductive agents to slow down or become ineffective? The same thing may be at work when the cacophony of EMI on the space station envelops the Soyuz separation pyros and causes them to become inert.
I think that this is utter bullshit.
It may indeed be utter bullshit. But I thought it was an interesting post from which to make my more general point.
And we still need to figure out what is going on. At least until we develop our own system (with its own problems...).
I lean to the view that nothing is wrong with the Soyuz. We are just discovering risks with the vehicle that we didn't know about.
I lean to the view that nothing is wrong with the Soyuz. We are just discovering risks with the vehicle that we didn't know about.
So you think that it's purely coincidence that we had exactly the same failure on the last two consecutive flights, with very little prior history in over a hundred flights?
Possibly, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Didn't Jim Oberg state that these incidents have actually been taking place with Soyuz in the past, just that the Soviets/Russians had been successful in covering them up until now. I seem to recall something along those lines.
Why should I take seriously someone who uses terms like "the Emperor" in a non-political context? It's one thing to make snarky comments in snarky political posts, but it's disconcerting and off-putting to read them in computer review and space reporting and sports columns and such.
(And by quoting pseudo-scientific studies about cell-phone "radiation" causing health problems he leaves the impression that if I did a search on his site, I'd also find such "truths" that burning aviation fuel can't melt steel, and similiar idiocy. First impressions matter.)
He's just a blogger, not a columnist. He always refers to Griffin as "The Emperor." It's part of his ongoing schtick.
Anyway, I didn't say you have to take him seriously. But he clearly is an anonymous NASA insider.
What about the thermal environment?
The ISS is a much larger object than MIR and would block more of the sun.
Am I right in assuming these bolts would be at their core similar to an electric blasting cap?
"My general point, that we can't necessarily trust long-dormant hardware, remains, regardless of the validity of this specific theory."
Okay, that's the point I thought was most important anyway.
Does that mean 6-month dormant Orion in lunar orbit are a deathtrap? Or long-dormant prepositioned lunar/Mars bases are deathtraps?
If we can't put trust into long-duration space equipment then we might as well give up manned presence beyond LEO. Long-duration and interplanetary flight are inseparable, short of Orion-drive propulsion.
Does that mean 6-month dormant Orion in lunar orbit are a deathtrap? Or long-dormant prepositioned lunar/Mars bases are deathtraps?
It's nice to see that someone is keeping their eye on the ball.
The answer is "yes, they may very well be, given our current state of technology."
There is no way to resolve this other than a lot more experience, and deep-space activity, than we've had to date.
If we can't put trust into long-duration space equipment then we might as well give up manned presence beyond LEO. Long-duration and interplanetary flight are inseparable, short of Orion-drive propulsion.
No, we don't have to give up on it, but we do have to put together a serious plan to become a spacefaring civilization. So far, NASA had completely fallen down on that.
at one time ISS Ku band had a nasty habit of radiating the SM/soyuz pyros (radiating inside the mask it was called). The induced field exceeded the pyro cert field (IIRC 120 V/m vs 80 V/m). It is possible the Russians have changed their pyros in response or, and much more likely, it is a bad batch or changed process issue. fwiw, the soyuz dm is a passively stable re-entry shape.
The bit about radar from Earth strikes me as very unlikely. There's this thing called the inverse square law that says the radar power 180 miles away from your source is going to be awfully small.
Did you hear the recent news about cell phones in your pocket causing your little reproductive agents to slow down or become ineffective? The same thing may be at work when the cacophony of EMI on the space station envelops the Soyuz separation pyros and causes them to become inert.
I work on Aircraft Hydraulic Systems which use Pyro Start valves on the Landing Gear emergency blow down system. The start valves are fitted for years in the aircraft surrounded by numerous other aircraft systems including radio, Radio Altimeter etc. Never had a failure yet in 20 years of a start valve. If EMI was going to cause a failure we would have found this out years ago. The real reason for the repeated failure is probably caused by Poor Russian Quality Control and not some ficticious EMI.
Did you hear the recent news about cell phones in your pocket causing your little reproductive agents to slow down or become ineffective? The same thing may be at work when the cacophony of EMI on the space station envelops the Soyuz separation pyros and causes them to become inert.
I work on Aircraft Hydraulic Systems which use Pyro Start valves on the Landing Gear emergency blow down system. The start valves are fitted for years in the aircraft surrounded by numerous other aircraft systems including radio, Radio Altimeter etc. Never had a failure yet in 20 years of a start valve. If EMI was going to cause a failure we would have found this out years ago. The real reason for the repeated failure is probably caused by Poor Russian Quality Control and not some ficticious EMI.