If the capsule had reentered hatch-forward, then the crew would have experienced 10 G's eyeballs-out, and the flight surgeon would have noticed this, even if the crew did not say anything about it.
Soyuz TMA-11 Landing
- Thread starter Missioncmdr
- Start date
If the capsule had reentered hatch-forward, then the crew would have experienced 10 G's eyeballs-out, and the flight surgeon would have noticed this, even if the crew did not say anything about it.
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,398
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Khimki
- Website
- tigerofsiberia.livejournal.com
Yeah, everybody is watching it. A world's seasonal decease. :lol:
Asking the competent people just this.
James.Denholm
Addon ponderer
Seeing as you're Russian, I suppose it wouldn't be to much to ask if you could just stroll down to the designer's office, would it? 
No need to be so defensive, we're not questioning his space expertise.
Urwumpe is questioning his expertise in survival techniques against bears, and I am questioning his motives.
Just because he's had a long and distinguished career doesn't mean he is always right, it also doesn't mean he has no opinions: And opinions always skew your journalism, whether you intend it or not.
The soyuz capsule is designed so that even if it enters hatch first the aerodynamic forces will flip it so the heatshield faces prograde.
It's quite a nifty bit of design, and if it hadn't been done that way there'd be at least one or two more dead crews.
Ghostrider
Donator
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,606
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 78
- Location
- Right behind you - don't look!
Right on, and I don't think some decisions should be left to engineers and managers on the ground, but to crews who actually fly the things.
If cosmonauts feel they should have the weapon, then they should have the weapon. It's their skin at stake. If they want a chainsaw too, then the engineering team should come up with something. If they want a flying dwarf hippo, then let's put a flying dwarf hippo into the capsule, some way.
If cosmonauts feel they should have the weapon, then they should have the weapon. It's their skin at stake. If they want a chainsaw too, then the engineering team should come up with something. If they want a flying dwarf hippo, then let's put a flying dwarf hippo into the capsule, some way.
James.Denholm
Addon ponderer
For obvious reasons, of course...
Ghostrider
Donator
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 3,606
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 78
- Location
- Right behind you - don't look!
God forbid that I ever come between space travelers and their flying dwarf hippos.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
OK, the latest rumors are pretty known. The rumors of the capsule reentering the wrong way have their origins from Interfax, which quote an "anonymous spaceflight engineer", who in turn says that the antenna must have failed because of that reason.
If the other rumors are more correct (which sounds more realistic as other indications of a bad reentry attitude are missing), the antenna failed during OM separation already and was not scorched away.
The antenna in question is a UHF antenna and is located inside the connection between Orbital Module (OM) and the descent module (DM). It usually gets activated and unfolded on OM separation and is the only way of communicating with the crew until the parachutes deploy.
On the photos, I can't find any indication of excessive reentry damage on the front hatch, the only unusual damage are the cracks on the pitch thruster housing, which are more likely caused by the capsule falling on it's side. The other side of the capsule would be more interesting to see, as it is more exposed to the air flow and contains the parachute containers. The photos posted by siberian tiger show only the "bottom" of the capsule, with the pitch thrusters, the umbilical connections and the periscope opening (periscope got jettisoned before reentry).
The theory of the capsule reentering the wrong way can already be rejected by just one important aspect visible in the photos: The patterns on the capsule. The airflow was in the critical phase from aft to front (heat shield to hatch), as the residuals of the ablative heatshield gathered leeward any feature on the hull.
If it would have flown in any different orientation, or was maybe even oscillating wildly, the patterns would have had different orientations and/or would have been more unclear to see. In this case, the capsule had a very stable airflow for at least the final part of the reentry - no sign of any severe misorientation.
On Soyuz-5 for example, the capsule was tumbling so strong after the hot phase of reentry, that the parachutes had problems opening properly. They just opened in the very last moment, but the landing speed had been too high anyway. The astronaut lost some teeth on a much harder than normal landing, 29 years ago. He was also unfit for flight for some years afterwards. But he did fly again - he reacted very calm and professional in the face of his possible death (the most emotional quote from flight recorder: "no panic"). He stored the pages of the flight log book behind him in his seat and spoke to the flight recorder about what happened during reentry. If such events would have taken place this time, the Korean singing bird would have told us already, that flight had been a much closer call than Apollo 13: The rubber gaskets of the hatch burned away and smoke filled the capsule, an explosion of the tanks of the still attached propulsion module cause the front hatch to buckle inside (but it remained intact). It was a good choice to use titanium for the front hatch framework.
I look for some photos as direct comparison after a nominal reentry, maybe it is easier to see if something is wrong.
EDIT: Nominal landing:
Who finds less scorched regions on this one, as on the TMA-11 capsule?
If the other rumors are more correct (which sounds more realistic as other indications of a bad reentry attitude are missing), the antenna failed during OM separation already and was not scorched away.
The antenna in question is a UHF antenna and is located inside the connection between Orbital Module (OM) and the descent module (DM). It usually gets activated and unfolded on OM separation and is the only way of communicating with the crew until the parachutes deploy.
On the photos, I can't find any indication of excessive reentry damage on the front hatch, the only unusual damage are the cracks on the pitch thruster housing, which are more likely caused by the capsule falling on it's side. The other side of the capsule would be more interesting to see, as it is more exposed to the air flow and contains the parachute containers. The photos posted by siberian tiger show only the "bottom" of the capsule, with the pitch thrusters, the umbilical connections and the periscope opening (periscope got jettisoned before reentry).
The theory of the capsule reentering the wrong way can already be rejected by just one important aspect visible in the photos: The patterns on the capsule. The airflow was in the critical phase from aft to front (heat shield to hatch), as the residuals of the ablative heatshield gathered leeward any feature on the hull.
If it would have flown in any different orientation, or was maybe even oscillating wildly, the patterns would have had different orientations and/or would have been more unclear to see. In this case, the capsule had a very stable airflow for at least the final part of the reentry - no sign of any severe misorientation.
On Soyuz-5 for example, the capsule was tumbling so strong after the hot phase of reentry, that the parachutes had problems opening properly. They just opened in the very last moment, but the landing speed had been too high anyway. The astronaut lost some teeth on a much harder than normal landing, 29 years ago. He was also unfit for flight for some years afterwards. But he did fly again - he reacted very calm and professional in the face of his possible death (the most emotional quote from flight recorder: "no panic"). He stored the pages of the flight log book behind him in his seat and spoke to the flight recorder about what happened during reentry. If such events would have taken place this time, the Korean singing bird would have told us already, that flight had been a much closer call than Apollo 13: The rubber gaskets of the hatch burned away and smoke filled the capsule, an explosion of the tanks of the still attached propulsion module cause the front hatch to buckle inside (but it remained intact). It was a good choice to use titanium for the front hatch framework.
I look for some photos as direct comparison after a nominal reentry, maybe it is easier to see if something is wrong.
EDIT: Nominal landing:
Who finds less scorched regions on this one, as on the TMA-11 capsule?
tblaxland
O-F Administrator
Urwumpe, thanks for your summary. I think Volynov's quote "don't panic" is pertinent here.
I found this quote on Keith Cowing's NASA Watch this morning:
I found this quote on Keith Cowing's NASA Watch this morning:
Is there any truth to this? I noticed yours and SiberianTiger's comments earlier and got the impression that the grass fire was not all that unusual (or dangerous).
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,398
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Khimki
- Website
- tigerofsiberia.livejournal.com
Seeing as you're Russian, I suppose it wouldn't be to much to ask if you could just stroll down to the designer's office, would it?
Well, not so easy. To say truth, impossible even if I would be an Energia payroll. When politics involved, the info channels got shut first.
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,398
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Khimki
- Website
- tigerofsiberia.livejournal.com
BTW, I got the reply regarding antennas.
The UHF antenna which gets deployed upon the modules separation (alt = 140 km) serves as a means of communications between the TSUP and the crew for several minutes (3 to 5) before the entry interface. The frequency is 121.5 MHz, frequency modulation. The antenna is supposed to burn up upon reentry.
Reestablishement of comms is to occur when the paraschute compartment hatch opens and the main parachute deploys at 10 km altitude (an antenna is attached to the chute's strings). The same 121.5 MHz transmitter now switches to amplitude modulation and works via this antenna.
This step was a failure with TMA-11's descent, because the antenna cable connecting this beacon to the chute's strings got burned up somehow.
8 minutes later than a landing occurrs, two ribbon antennas are opened. These has worked OK this time and allowed the S&R home on the landing site, though it's said they spotted the smoke at the landing site before acquiring the homing signal.
The exact sequence of events is still a bit vague.
The UHF antenna which gets deployed upon the modules separation (alt = 140 km) serves as a means of communications between the TSUP and the crew for several minutes (3 to 5) before the entry interface. The frequency is 121.5 MHz, frequency modulation. The antenna is supposed to burn up upon reentry.
Reestablishement of comms is to occur when the paraschute compartment hatch opens and the main parachute deploys at 10 km altitude (an antenna is attached to the chute's strings). The same 121.5 MHz transmitter now switches to amplitude modulation and works via this antenna.
This step was a failure with TMA-11's descent, because the antenna cable connecting this beacon to the chute's strings got burned up somehow.
8 minutes later than a landing occurrs, two ribbon antennas are opened. These has worked OK this time and allowed the S&R home on the landing site, though it's said they spotted the smoke at the landing site before acquiring the homing signal.
The exact sequence of events is still a bit vague.
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,398
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Khimki
- Website
- tigerofsiberia.livejournal.com
I can provide two alternative explanations for this:
1) The grass caught fire at the landing spot but quicky died off; yet the sparks got carried over some distance by the wind.
2) The grass was ignited actually by the parachute jettison explosive bolts after the capsule rolled over to its side.
I'm not really into herding, but why Kazakh herdsmen would want to burn their pastures, especially when the cows were nearby the site?
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
Also, the position where the capsule is found after the parachute lines are cut, is very rarely the position where the capsule touched down. There can be a few meters difference, depending on wind conditions.
James.Denholm
Addon ponderer
As with any country... unless I'M the leader...
Vote 1# Denholm!
Nah, and I imagine that Americans have the same problem with NASA... even if they live in Florida. Or Texas.
Well it's not so much an issue of that, but if you look at where the capsule is and where the fire is then it diesn't match with the direction o fthe wind. You'd expect the fire to travel downwind from Soyuz, not upwind.
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,398
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Khimki
- Website
- tigerofsiberia.livejournal.com
There are several possible versions for the BR plunge of the TMA-11 already. Hopefully, the correct one will be determined by after the scrutiny of the capsule and its downlink records. Everything has already been delivered to Korolev.
(1) A failure of the Descent Control Block BUSP-M which underwent an upgrade last year.
Pros: this version of BUSP-M was used in TMA-10, TMA-11 and TMA-12, two of which have already gone a BR.
Contras: other possible evidence, like off-nominal comms interruptions, smoke inside the cabin impose doubts.
(2) An explosive bolt firing failure which lead to head-forward reentry until the bolt eventually detonated from the temperature buildup (an intended safety measure).
Pros: Evidence by Peggy Whitson of the late PAO separation. Evidence of Yury Malenchenko about unusual combination of lights at the SUS control panel, yet he pretend that he cannot remember exactly, which lights were alit. Might be proved if the OO-SA hatch's titanium edge has the traces of melting or foaming, like that of Soyuz-5.
Contras: No one of the astronauts mentioned expiriencing negative gees or extreme tumbling yet.
(3) Explosive cable connection cut failure - a variation of the previous, with only difference that the half-separated PAO tumbled on a "rope" before the plug plate jettison.
Pros: ?
Contras: ?
(4) An intrinsic failure of the Soyuz SUS control which fails when a load is unbalanced along the side-to-side direction, combining this with the flight computers limitation that cannot tell difference between yaw and roll assuming the former for the latter.
Pros: Presence of an unusually lightweight astronaut on this mission.
Contras: Almost everything. Very unlikely fault.
(1) A failure of the Descent Control Block BUSP-M which underwent an upgrade last year.
Pros: this version of BUSP-M was used in TMA-10, TMA-11 and TMA-12, two of which have already gone a BR.
Contras: other possible evidence, like off-nominal comms interruptions, smoke inside the cabin impose doubts.
(2) An explosive bolt firing failure which lead to head-forward reentry until the bolt eventually detonated from the temperature buildup (an intended safety measure).
Pros: Evidence by Peggy Whitson of the late PAO separation. Evidence of Yury Malenchenko about unusual combination of lights at the SUS control panel, yet he pretend that he cannot remember exactly, which lights were alit. Might be proved if the OO-SA hatch's titanium edge has the traces of melting or foaming, like that of Soyuz-5.
Contras: No one of the astronauts mentioned expiriencing negative gees or extreme tumbling yet.
(3) Explosive cable connection cut failure - a variation of the previous, with only difference that the half-separated PAO tumbled on a "rope" before the plug plate jettison.
Pros: ?
Contras: ?
(4) An intrinsic failure of the Soyuz SUS control which fails when a load is unbalanced along the side-to-side direction, combining this with the flight computers limitation that cannot tell difference between yaw and roll assuming the former for the latter.
Pros: Presence of an unusually lightweight astronaut on this mission.
Contras: Almost everything. Very unlikely fault.
Notebook
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,964
- Reaction score
- 765
- Points
- 188
Well thats interesting, 121.5MHz is one of the International Distress Frequencies, at least on AM. Do you know how long they have been using that frequency?
N.
James.Denholm
Addon ponderer
And then go to NASA and said a Boeing employee said this, this and this, right?
