Soyuz MS-10 Failure - Updates & Answers To Your Questions
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2024
- In my haste to release a video yesterday, there were some questions left unanswered and some confusion about the escape tower jettison time. So here's a few updates and a credible theory as to what might have happened.
The thumbnail is based on this amazing diagram by @AstroBidules
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I’m glad they “flew safe”
Cos-ism is a death cult
Actually, they "chuted" safely.
Technically they fall, cause they were on an ballistic trajectory 😂🙌
they were flying at first, then falling with style, then just falling, then they were on the ground
Omg these guys don't get the joke :)
Just a minor correction to the separation sequence: the boosters DO reduce their thrust after the explosive bolts are gone. This decreased thrust make the booster drift down and deconnect it from the pivot at the top, while going sidewards. The valve is open only after it is detached from the central core, not before. And the vent is not here to disengage the booster, only to make it fly away once it is already gone.
Because the valve is dependent upon booster separation, it failed to trigger since the pin on the ball joint was bent and kept the booster from disconnecting.
I hope they decide on a autonomous launch for these reasons:
1: Proof of concept
2: Put people at ease of the program.
3: Stops the chance of the ISS being left unmanned due to the other capsule being near it's use by date.
People seem to forget the amount of launches this system has had has a good track record.
I think the question on everyone's mind is "sabotage?" less than "russian engineering?"
2 failures on an otherwise pretty solid system within one year are kind of strange.
@@Crypt1cmyst1c I want to be optimistic and say it is just unlucky circumstances. The hole issue is still a wonder. I will wait to see the reports before judging, without seeing them it is hard to judge what went wrong without assumptions based on little fact.
>I think the question on everyone's mind
Everyones except for russian viewers, rahter they blame underfinancing and overall decline of the industry.
>Everyones except for russian viewers, rahter they blame underfinancing and overall decline of the industry.
You are right, financial and educational problem are far more plausible than anything else. All this system were created by different generation.
If I recall correctly, the hole was patched on Earth initially. Poorly, but to me that suggests a screw up rather than sabotage. The hole was far too small to cause a life threatening situation as well, and was easily fixed in orbit. A malfunctioning valve is a pretty simple explanation too, rather than sophisticated sabotage. I think financial issues are more likely, along with brain drain.
Actually, I don't know how this system didn't work. I'm from Russia, BMSTU, Spacecraft design course, and I've studied R-7 decoupling scheme pretty close on live example, and it's such a self-contained system only because decoupling starts through lowering the torque of block "A" (central part), and it's a very simple decision. I don't know, how this type of system would've failed, and it would be interesting to investigate more about failure. Thanks a lot, Scott!
No system is ever perfect despite how thourough you design and build it. Adding in problems of corruption and bad management can lead to potentially catastrophic blunders during building of the rocket. And when the booster is installed, the blunder is hidden, making late trouble shooting inspection unable to detect it. Remember the drilled hole in a Soyouz capsule not long ago... Russian rockets had a number of problems these last few years. It is not a design bureau issue, the problems often occur in the building factory. Trying to reduce costs, undertrained employees are taken in and do a poor job where it shouldn't be done in the first place.
@Dimitri Loginowski I am not, but why being so rude? I've talked to people that work in Roskosmos and are considered experts, I learn from people who designed "Союз", and it's not only my opinion.
Looks to me that Dimitri was replying to Quo's comment, not yours. He still should not have been rude like that. NASA and it's contractors have certainly had it's fair share of bad management and corruption. Quo's comments may or may not be entirely correct, but they were definitely not completely wrong.
@@deathworld5253 You do know about Kremlin's trolls and how aggressively they flood TH-cam, especially on opposition and criticism?
@@Shadow1412a oh, I know, but his contradiction was on point, I am not considered an expert, hahaha
its funny that he used a beer bottle when there is a model rocket right behind him.
That model is pretty fragile.
@@scottmanley Scott, it's time you buy a Soyuz model rocket... 😤
@@ale131296 there should be a Lego Soyuz
The bottle is fine, but he did miss the glorious opportunity of using a carrot for the booster. That's what the Russians informally call them.
Still better than the crappy little Kinder Egg toy Chris Hadfield used...
Mr. Manley, our one and only go-to for the slightly-above-layman explaination, succinct, clear, and relevant. Thank you for the precious details that the media doesn't quite know how to deliver. Good work, you're making a difference!
I think it’s fair to say that Russia can brag about their ejection systems because is this case it worked great. Not saying that they are better or worse. But they now have the proof that it works flawlessly. So they deserved it. Saving 2 lives. Thank god
Well it's more about the fact that the US had none for the entirety of the Shuttle program. Loss of vehicle meant loss of crew. There where some abort modes but if the stack just came apart they couldn't do a thing.
Meh. Its the same basic system that every space capsule uses. It's just that nobody else has had to use it in flight before. The only one that's different is the Dragon 2, which uses those engines on the side of the capsule instead of a tower.
221 b Sure, but that happened exactly once in 30 years of operation?
STS-100 Starliner also has rear mounted liquid fueled abort engines. They're having some problems with those right now, so delays.
RealityIsTheNow Three successful aborts is better than single failed one.
2:47 RD literally means "rocket engine" in translation to English
(РД - Ракетный Двигатель)
Hence the RD-XXX series of rocket engines.
RDG literally means Rochet Engine on the Shroud (Ракетный Двигатель Головного обтекателя)
www.ktrv.ru/user_img/Image/SAS%2011D855M-1.jpg
www.ktrv.ru/production/69/174/766/
Or just Shroud Rocket Engine :)
Двигатель should be "lifter", right?
Nope, "двигатель" = engine or motor. It's quite precise translation
Good investigation & summary. It fits the information we have thus far. In the video at 9:27 you can see that the star formed by the 4 strap on boosters is asymmetric. I am very impressed with the Soyuz escape system. Used 3 times. I did not know the details of how it works. Your review points out how each about was at a different phase of the of the abort systems use, so all modes have been 'put to the test' now. Wow.
I was just thinking the same thing, the Korolev cross didn't look quite symmetrical. Also the amount of vapor released at the time of separation does look rather large, which would make sense if the side of the main rocket had been hit and damaged, plus there is what looks like debris coming down soon after.
I guarantee there is a list of flight qualified Astro/cosmonauts who would get on a Soyuz next week and not think twice. The things got an amazing track record, and even when things go wrong the crew is having drinks a couple hours later. The only thing that will screw the ISS is bureaucracy, not lack of a suitable vehicle.
I actually doubt that any would think twice about it and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Nick's name is at the top of that list. Apart from MS-10 the system hasn't had a failure since September 1983. 1 failure in 90 launches in 35 years? Sure it's not fail-proof, but nothing is fail-proof. Anyone who has climbed aboard a rocket knows that there is the possibility for something to go wrong and every single one is alright with that because the chance of success is far greater and I strongly doubt that sensation of going beyond the boundary of our world ever truly goes away.
Normally yes, but this is right after there was a hole found drilled right through the pressure vessel on the immediately preceding Soyuz. It shows that there's a very very bad trend of lack of quality control. One is a coincidence, two is a trend.
While that's certainly a possibility, I think that this incident is a strong wake up call for any potentially lacking launch team. Like any company that faces increased scrutiny after a recall, the launch team will need to redouble their efforts to maintain their positions. I'd be quite surprised if the next Soyuz has anything go wrong.
As a side note: I wonder if the ESA could potentially relieve the ISS with their Soyuz-2, without having to rely on Roscosmos. They have the rockets and launch facilities already, though I don't know if they have any capsules, since they just use it as a cargo lifter.
Ergzay
Normally three data points make a trend; but the same type of error made on two consecutive modules *_is_* unsettling.
DarkSpar13
Kreuger-Dunning ; it takes outside evaluation to determine if a team is deficient in some way.
Hm, that's an interesting idea. I'm 90% certain that ESA do not have any Soyuz spacecraft, but given that this was a booster issue, maybe people would be more confident about using a European Soyuz rocket.
Thanks Scott for the explanation. Over 2k views and 0 negatives. Well done.
0:33
For those who interested:
ДУ САС ("DU SAS") - двигательная установка САС (система аварийного спасения) = ERS (emergency rescue system) propulsion system
УРД ("URD") - управляющие ракетные двигатели = steer rocket engines
РДР ("RDR") - ракетные двигатели разделения = separation rocket engines
ЦРД ("CRD") - центральный ракетный двигатель = central rocket engine
РДГ ("RDG") - ракетный двигатель головного обтекателя = head fairing rocket engine
ГО ("GO") - головной обтекатель = head fairing
ДСС ("DSS") - двигатели сброса створок = sash release engines
БГ ("BG") - балансировочный груз = balance cargo
БО ("BO") - бытовой отсек = household (common) compartment
СА ("SA") - спускаемый аппарат = descent vehicle
ВО ("VO") - верхняя опора = upper support
НО ("NO") - нижняя опора = lower support
ВСК ("VSK") - визир специальный = special viewfinder
Yeah, russians like abbreviations )
During 1963, engineers at Department 3 and 11 of OKB-1 with support from Department 15 led by K. D. Bushuev and S.S. Kryukov developed structural design of the "Jettisonable Emergency Escape Head Section" known by its Russian abbreviation as OGB SAS. This work was also coordinated with the branch of OKB-1 in the city of Kuibyshev (now Samara), which at the time took over all development and production of the R-7-based launch vehicles.
lol love that "ballistic re-entry by accident"
By some mistake (Put switch to wrong position) AFAIR.
Amazing, hats off to Korolev for a remarkably innovative separation system on a remarkably innovative rocket. Just think what he could have been done if he lived longer, had a larger budget (and wouldn't it have been amazing if he could have teamed up with Von Braun...)
Von Braun was a Nazi who used slaves to build his rockets. His engineering feats wont redeem him of those crimes. Korolev shouldnt have teamed up with the war criminal.
There is a book named "Rockets and people" by Boris Chertok about history of soviet rocket science. There was a story that while he and other soviet rocket engeers were in occupied Germany their leader (at this point in time Korolev was still in prison) tried to convince an american army officer to hand them Von Braun, but he obviously refused. I actually higly recommend this book, it was written after the fall of the Soviet Union so has no cuts. Also it was translated by NASA in cooperation with its author.
@@VijayNinel Korolev teamed up with which war criminal???
@@DanSlotea I said he shouldn't have teamed up with the war criminal Von Braun .
@@VijayNinel Korolev had to team up with Soviet war criminals, which were not really better than Von Braun. For example, after the war, he worked with Dmitriy Ustinov and Ivan Serov. Serov was a NKVD officer, one of the top ranked officials responsible for the Katyn massacre. He was also the guy who organised the deportation of Tatars, Chechens and Baltic people during WW2. Hundreds of thousands of people died during these deportations. Ustinov was one of the top proponent of the war in Afghanistan in the politburo with Andropov.
For a man who has a thick accent (to me), you are incredibly easy to listen to. I have never missed a syllable in any of your videos.
Thank you
Literally just finished work, watched you previous video about and now watching this.. great timing.
Scott your videos are amazing and informative, and the conversations I see sparked in the comments revitalises my hope in humanity. Keep it up!
Dude.. your vids are the best. Great explanation of how the booster sep system works.
Just discovered you, Scott. Fantastic description and detail of the Soyuz launch abort system. Thanks for taking an objective, humble stance -- waiting for further data is always the prudent approach. Cheers!
Great follow-up, I myself was a bit confused about the timing of the actual abort system but it makes a lot of sense that the shroud itself has engines!
If your oxygen venting valve doesn't open
You will not go to space today
Is that a haiku?
It's a new line in the ever-expanding "You Will Not Go to Space Today" song.
moosemaimer 10/10 poetry
also, they did go to space, if only briefly
When my methane venting valve opens unexpectdly i end up going to the washing machine....
Nice demonstration - I like to think that Sergei Korolev and the Russian engineers who came up with the original booster design also had to do the same thing over dinner with a bottle and prop cardboard boosters to convince Soviet officials to fund their proposal!
i bet they actually made some scale models
I remember a brilliant tale once about how one of the Sputnik engineers was carrying the equations for the launch around in a bag with some sausages he got from the butchers.
Thanks for the explanation and clarification, Scott!
The explanation about the failure makes sense. At 9:20 we see a vast cloud, quickly dispersing -- it does not occur in successful launches. Likely cause of this cloud would be a rupture in the second stage LOX tank.
The internal view from the Soyuz capsule shows a sideway jolt that occurred at the time corresponding to the appearance of the cloud. Everything seems to point in the same direction.
First stage. Second one is too far up to be hit by the side boosters.
I thought the same thing when I saw the crews arms flailing just before the video went to crap
+Dan Traditionally, the "carrots" are considered to be the first stage, and the piece in the middle the second.
@@cogoid sort of like the stage and a half of the Atlas rocket. Makes sense.
Early on, there was some trepidation about starting all of the 8 chambers the second stage engine in flight, so it was chosen to ignite everything at once during launch, with pyrotechnic "candles." The second stage would then throttle down to conserve fuel, until the first stage units separate. (In the original R-7 there was no third stage.)
Woo, more Soyuz updates from Scott!
Fascinating. You explained EVERYTHING I was curious about. And you explained it in such a way that I could understand it easily. Thank you very much.
Great job keeping us up to date with all of the space news this week!
My guess is that "РД" (RD) means "Ракетный Двигатель" in translation literally: Rocket engine.
"РД" - Jet Engine.
You need to build a Soyuz Rocket model.
Yes! That would be a neat addition to his collection.
actually that's all I was thinking hey look at those rockets on the shelf.. where's a soyuz?
Thanks again, Scott, for your timely, informative, straight to the point update.
Thanks Scott. You’re always the best at explaining modern rocketry.
thanks for the breakdown
The Soyuz descent capsule has an offset center of mass in respect to the center on lift and the peroxyde fuel is used for roll only.
By modifying the orientation of the torque arm between the center of lift and the center of mass you can steer the capsule.
PS Love your videos, keep up the good work.
The descent module has Yaw/Pitch/Roll thrusters, but once aerodynamic forces build up the only thing it can do is roll.
Learned some really interesting things here in this video. Thank you, Scott!
Thanks for keeping the rest of us informed!
That's a lot of videos in 24hr
This rocket is so well designed.
Thanks for clarifying the escape tower/shroud motor issue, I was not aware of the difference.
Thanks! This clarified so many questions I had after watching the news...
Sojuz rockets line has done heroic work.
This guys are risking their life for this missions.
I hope if there has to be failure , it will be with no casualties. Like this one.
The most easy solution is launching another soyuz unmanned that dock in ISS for spare and safetty boat. Meanwhile keep up with the investigation. The Soyuz dont have problems in fly and dock in automatic mode.
Scott is honestly my favorite man ever, so smart and teaches me everyday (and not to mention such a soothing voice!)
Excellent breakdown, Scott! Dylan pointed me to your site. Outstanding find: GREAT stuff!
This is where we fantasize NASA having SpaceX and Boeing launch their test capsules on a way earlier schedule.
LRCM Space X has Dragon 2, which is their own capsule. Space X will be taking over from the Russians next year
SpaceX and Boeing both. And eventually Dream Chaser apparently as well.
Obviously Musk sabotaged the Soyuz booster valve to make this happen.
NASA says they won't let the CC vehicles dock with an uncrewed station. Right now SpaceX might have a chance to launch DM-1 before the astronauts have to leave, but that doesn't mean much, and NASA wouldn't allow them to push the schedule.
Right now we are just waiting to see if Roscosmos can work out their problems quickly.
@@outrageousgamer315 NASA has an agreement with Roscosmos to keep purchasing Soyuz rides until 2020. SpaceX and Boeing won't be launching U.S. astronauts very often until 2020.
Yeah Scott, LATE 80's
Doing things from memory means I say things that I don't exactly mean....
Hi Scott, looks like the CM and BPC/LES on your Apollo has worked successfully! Thanks for an informative video, much appreciated.
Excellent explanation, thanks Scott!
Scott - I find it interesting that there were no takers for the spare seat on this Soyuz MS-10 flight. Is the international interest in the International Space station beginning to wane? Has the cost / benefit ratio turned negative for most?
I think the international players are waiting for the dragon or the starliner to become operational.
One seat cost $ 80million in the Soyuz.
I don't know about the Starliner, but if you buy a seat in the Dragon, it'll cost less then a half.
Good reply - if it is only a matter of the price of the bus ticket, then we should see full bus loads of astronauts heading to the international space station on Dragon / Starliner. If not then it brings into question the cost / benefit of the work performed on the international space station itself. Perhaps all the low hanging scientific rewards have now been picked and it is time to move on to new scientific challenges which hold the promise of greater rewards
I think Dragon will be more expensive than the original quote now that it has five seats instead of seven. Then again, Musk said it would be $40M per seat before he ever started re-flying boosters.
They made use of the space regardless... putting 65kg of extra payload for experiments... including a trick 3d bioprinter.
@@jonathanwilson3254
We've been researching in many fields for a very long time.
The easy stuff is pretty much already discovered. But that doesn't mean much. Scientific knowledge has been increasing at roughly an exponential rate since science has been thing. And we're still on that exponential knowledge increase.
Things take a decade (and many times even longer) to go from discovery to practical use.
For example, it took 80 years from the invention of the first refrigerator (freezer actually) to a practical model that could be sold.
Not going after scientific knowledge because you don't know what to do with it right now is short sighted.
Likewise, your statement about new challenges and more rewards is silly. How the hell is anyone supposed to know what benefit any particular research has until years after the research has been done???
they would be dead...in the space shuttle...Soyuz at least has espace optios
Trans Atlantic Abort would have been an option, they were high enough, and far enough down range.
The shuttle had options, it just also had a some rather large death zones in its flight envelope.
stinkyfungus the space shuttle was a failure more than 12 people died
@@dbricksawc3634 And that's with 135 launches of Space Shuttle and 139 manned launches of Soyuz, and more than that unmanned Progress launches. In Soyuz only four cosmonauts died, and that was when it was relatively new, and caused the problems that caused it to be addressed. Space Shuttles blew up because they were designed to be cheap per launch and to be safe, in the exact way that made them overly complex and neither safe nor cheap to maintain.
@@dbricksawc3634
You all have this illusion that spaceflight can be "safe"
It is not safe, and it likely never will be.
Yes, the shuttle lost some crews. It also did things that no other spacecraft could or can do.
It was NOT a "failure" any more than the saturn 1B was a failure, or soyuz, or the X15, or any other
Spaceflight or research program that resulted in pilot or crew fatality.
Callingbthe shuttle program a "failure" is an insult to the men and women that bought it on challenger and colombia,
And ALL of the crews that acomplished thier missions.
I won't have it.
The people that sign up and train to ride these things know what the risks are.
No comparison; there was 2 different systems to go into space
Thanks for the information. You helped me illustrate something very clearly to another interested party.
Very informative and interesting. Thank you, Scott.
In the thumbnail, why did you circle a strut at the bottom of a booster when the suspected failed part is actually a valve near the top?
Because I was dumb and fixed it later, but youtube takes a while to catch up.
Much better! Post safe. :-)
Would it be possible to refuel the Soyuz docked to the station in orbit with the peroxyde?
Possibly not, because I don't think it is that easy to just put propellant in a fuel tank of choice. They would have to carry enough peroxyde up at first, and then they may not have a possibility to access the tanks where it is stored
Well, you'd need to send it up there in something like another Soyuz anyways. So not much point. Besides (I might be wrong), I don't think they have been designed with orbital refueling in mind.
In situ propellant production! I mean, they have a lot of lab equipment up there.
No. The technology is too old
It must be the mechanics of trying to refuel it, rather than the weight of the fuel itself, that is the main deterrent.
That's just an assumption though. The reason I have this assumption is that you only need what would be required for attitude control and I think the movement of some fuel. I don't think it's the same amount that would be needed to supply a Soyuz through launch, rendezvous, docking, undocking, deorbiting and re-entry. Just enough for those last three. Considering you're not also carrying up an extra Soyuz, extra personnel, food, O2, H2O, etc., it seems that carrying enough fuel to gas up the other Soyuz would be the economical choice if it were possible to resupply that boat.
Always so informative in ways thay are easy to understand. I love it.
Hello Scott.
You voiced the correct description of the events.
It remains to understand the reason why the valve did not open.
Regards from Russia.
So one valve can cause a full failure? Has this ever happened on other R7 based Soviet rockets? Like a progress or one of the older Sputnik/Voskhods?
There have been a few booster separation failures in the past.
Your implication here is that the fact that a single valve on any of the boosters failing causes a full failure, and that this is bad design. I disagree. Space is perilous. You fuck up, and you loose one or more highly trained highly dedicated people, and tens of millions of dollars. So while redundancy is important in engineering rockets to keep failures from happening, there's something to be said for a design that fails QUICKLY rather than having it's engineering hide a failure, as the earlier you get a failure, the earlier you can address it and either work around or abort, and the earlier you do those things, the less risk there is. In this specific instance, the failure case is not particularly safe, as it results in a booster striking a tower full of fuel with a reservoir of liquid oxygen in the area just to raise the stakes, but by having only the one valve, you reduce the complexity of the design (and thereby potential failure points), and make figuring out what went wrong easier, which keeps people safer as the resultant investigation can be faster and is more likely to be correct in its assessment. Provided you design the other, related systems with the potential worst case failure in mind, there's nothing wrong with this, as designed. The launch abort system performed capably in the failure event, and kept everybody safe, indicating strength in the design as a whole. Furthermore, by having only the one valve, which failed, the failure is not something that could have gone unnoticed. Let's say I had two valves there. Both of which open. In a failure event, only one does. The same amount of liquid oxygen comes out, but at a higher pressure, through the one valve, which will be correspondingly smaller. This could perhaps result in over pressure forcing some part from within the plumbing for that system, or part of the valve, out of the piping, and have it hit the rocket. This is a much subtler error, and might not be caught until say, a crack in the tank results in a loss of fuel pressure midflight, after the escape shroud had been jettisoned. All of a sudden, you still have a potential catastrophic failure, but you A, have to figure out what happened when the real cause was a minute before you realized there was an issue, and B, have less tools to deal with that potential problem.
An important and oft overlooked engineering principle is the idea that, in case of problems that cannot be corrected on the fly, designs should fail quickly and safely, rather than delaying failure and potentially causing a bigger problem that is all the harder to diagnose and fix in future iterations due to the complexity of an issue being left to sit over time. It's the same reason your car might fail to start if you flood the engine. Sure, you could design an engine that starts despite the over rich fuel mixture, provided you aren't so flooded that combustion is impossible, but a flooded engine is often a symptom of another problem, one that will cause further damage or lack of safety if the vehicle is driven once it manifests. Say a faulty circuit controlling the fuel pump, that could cause unexpected variance in the rate of fuel flow; you don't want that on the highway, as suddenly you might flood the engine and stall at 70 miles an hour. Safer to fail in your driveway than on the interstate, both for the driver, and for the engine, which doesn't then have to deal with the stress of being operated outside of spec.
Maybe a redundant valve would be a good modification.
@@akariel123 in over 60 years of using this rocket design there must have been some improvements.
But let's wait on the final report of this investigation.
It was probebly not the valve itself but the "human factor" like the valve was incorrectly installed (by mistake) or damage in transport and the checklist to ensure the valve was workign well was not done.
Is that hair I see on the side of your head?
As someone who shaves the sides of his head daily... that is almost a week!
-> He is obviously NOT shaving just the middle/top (he is not doing it at all).
No, that would be an ablative coating.
those are flaps that prevent his head going to fest
Those are radiators for his overclocked brain.
Yet another fascinating video.
I'm glad someone explained this. Thanks
Talking about launch abort systems...Scott where's the escape tower of your Saturn V 😂?
It escaped
Don't forget to mention the crew capsule... I think they mistook an accident and had to escape.
Would be a stunt when Boeing or SpaceX could make a crewed launch happen before the end of the year...
acdegans Space X is the only US company so far confirmed. They will start next year
Nobody would allow a rush job to launch.
Tell that to the crew of Apollo 8!
@@MrJackHackney Tell what to the crew of apollo 8?
Thanks for your insight Scott!
On each side booster (B, V, G and D, called BB blok) besides the LOX release valve there is also a kerosene tank pressure release opening. This also helps to push the BB block away from Blok A (CB) central core stage.
Scott, you rocket! ...I mean, you rock.
Only thanks to the Russian flawless ejection safe system me with relief waiting for the next start. Otherwise I’d think for a fatal respect lost.
Thank you for the explanation!
Hi Scott, do you know what was the object flighing off the rocket few seconds before the boosters separated? Thanks
Soyuz rocket played by beer bottle? Not vodka? I'm really disappointed, Scott...
Using a vodka bottle would be misrepresentative. Cause vodka never fails to send a man into orbit :)
I wonder how long the investigation will take. Given the track record of the Soyuz a couple of months seems sufficient. Especially considering the abort system worked correctly and everyone is fine.
Great explanation! I hope the station won't be unoccupied...
Great video.
Do the two astronauts get a second chance to launch?
Was abort fully automatic or did someone also push buttons somewhere?
Can they do a ballistic entry from orbit if forced?
If there was total emergency on the ISS, could they bring the people down in cargo capsule like Dragon?
I mean they have enough capsules to bring people down in an emergency. But in a worse case scenario and there was no other option. I don't think the flight directors will like it but I guess it's possible
Current Dragon is not meant to be used by people. I think they wouldnt agree with the re-entry with people onboard ´cause its not safe enough. And another problem is that there arent any seats and other life support equipment there I belive :D (Sorry if im being wrong)
That would be ridiculous, very high chance if death without some way to secure themselves in place, and obviously the cargo ships aren't designed to secure humans. They have a Soyuz up there, they can just take that down, the ISS will just be empty then.
If something happened to that Soyuz (the hole is not important), sending another Soyuz even without an investigation would be far safer than using a cargo vessel.
Wear an EVA suit and stuff it with pillows 😋
Dead people? yes... breathing people? probably no... not enough Oxygen. They would probably survive in an EVA suit... with a few broken bones
Talk about a Brown Trousers moment!
Hi @szyzyg, thanks for the great video! One thing that keeps my thoughts going is the case of ballistic, totally uninfluenced/uninfluenceable reentry. That has to depend on the precise shape of the capsule, right? Given the speeds and forces involved, and the fragility of human bodies in relation to them, probably on the /very/ precise shape. Could you talk a little about that, too, if/when you find the time? :-)
Great explanation, thank you.
Russia needs cameras like SpaceX
They have rocket cams on the digitally controlled (not human rated) version. This one, Soyuz FG, is a very conservative version - I suppose they don't want to modify it for safety reasons.
Erik 567 Why?
@@outrageousgamer315 because you don't mess around with something that works.
@@DanSlotea and that goes for "putin" comment too.
@@sofuckingannoying Russias economy is in such shambles, that its unfixable...Russia will never be a superpower again...Authoritarian communism failed Russia, and so is Democratic Capitalism
If you are inhaling water you probably aren't fine
Better than hydrazine right
I think water vapor was meant; as in humidity in the air. That, and the absence of harmful aerosols.
I do just fine inhaling water in vapor form
@@FonVegen I know
@@edd4816 marginally
Thanks Scott...You answered many of the Questions I had...the news Media...made it sound like it had a second Stage Booster failure....They Got it Wrong..".as they always do"....Thanks for clearing up that bad information...
Just wondering, what happened to the command module for your Saturn V stack? The vertical one, not the horizontal.
Scott, I hate to say it, but the lighting / shadows make you look much older than you normally do.
Other than that hopefully constructive criticism - Thank you for the video!!
I'm 45!
Why is looking his age a bad thing? We're all getting older. Silly to pretend otherwise.
its Halloween season dude its ok
Every day we all look just a bit older than we normally did before...
Obviously they didn't slap the crew's butt's hard enough
That's because of #MeToo
Keeper Nod, OMG, you too?
Or maybe one of them forgot to pee on the bus tire.
I told someone in a Facebook discussion that I guessed the "sell by" date on the Soyuz craft docked to the ISS was because of the hypergolics causing corrosion. But I did post a correction after seeing this video (and I did credit you for providing the info).
The best analogy I can think of for a ballistic vs regular reentry is like breaking a car. A ballistic reentry is like slamming on the breaks as hard as you can, it’s going to hurt and will get you stopped quickly but you have almost no control. A regular reentry is more like seeing the traffic stopped and being able to gradually add the breaks so it is not as jarring. The lift the capsule generates is like adding distance to your breaking distance. The more distance you have the easier on the breaks you can be. Hope this helps a bit in some understanding
They just had not enough communism
Correct.
More communism makes the rocket run away faster.
In Soviet Russia Rocket runs YOU!!
@Frank Gonzalez Del Valle in fact due to communism Russia is still in space....after USSR breakdown no technologies were created
they didn't use pure stalinium for rocket
It's not been a good year for space/rockets
Falcon Heavy? All of the successful falcon 9 launches and landings? Main construction of BFR has begun as well.
But it has apparently been a great year for confirmation bias.
Wha???
@@dwightk.schrute6743 Main construction? I don't think so. They don't even have the factory they intend to use to build them built.
Very nice! Thanks for the info.
Thank God they were both okay!
Scott, this incident with the Soyuz (which you described excellently) illustrates a safety--and efficiency--feature that an all-hybrid propellant launch vehicle would have. Since hybrid rockets--even very high-thrust ones--have a TNT equivalency of zero (because the liquid oxidizer and solid fuel grain can't mix intimately to fuel a detonation), a launch escape system for such a launch vehicle need only be powerful enough to get the departing spacecraft out of the booster's way, as it would have no detonation wave destruction radius. Since it could be quite moderately-powered, such that it wouldn't provide uncomfortably-high acceleration, in a nominal ascent the launch escape system (which could be arranged in either a pusher or a tractor configuration) could also optionally (depending on a specific mission's planned orbit and payload mass) serve as the final stage for orbital injection, thus not wasting the cost and delta-V of the escape system even during a normal ascent.
Great explanation Scott! We'll see what the official investigation comes up with. The bottom line though, is that the Soyuz spacecraft performed flawlessly in saving the crew. Still the most reliable and safe spacecraft flying.
thanks for the updates ..peace out
Thanks. That explains the videos I saw. It makes sense at the point of flight.
Scott, thanks for doing all this research so we don't have to 😀
Super interesting
props to you and your props!
That canned video they had running was confusing. Scott, was the MS-10 above the Karman line? It's my understanding grid fins wouldn't work well beyond 100 Km.
It reached about 80km in the highest point
Nice video sir. This illustrates why we need multiple launch systems to space. Well, until the BFR takes over the market.
Yep. At separation, a pod appears to be thrashing against the rocket body in the upper right quadrant
Very interesting. P.S. I love you 'ground control' bottle :)
It is wonderful that you are going to let the investigators get on with their investigation rather than you stop the investigation. Who knew that you had so much influence.
As you know there are 3 modules, the Orbital Module, Descent Module, and Service Module. My question is, what happened to the "Service Module" that sits below the "Descent Module"? Are you saying that when the abort was called that the combined "Orbital Module" + "Descent Module" stay within the Shroud and the entire thing separates as one combined unit (Shroud + Orbital Module + Descent Module) from the "Service Module"? Thereby leaving the Service module behind and still attached to the Soyuz Core stage? Also what happened to the failed core booster stage, where did it land? I'm assuming it landed intact somewhere since it wouldn't have been high enough or going fast enough to burn up in the atmosphere after its engines failed.