If a Soyuz capsule lands in front of you, follow these instructions [pdf](spaceref.com)
spaceref.com
If a Soyuz capsule lands in front of you, follow these instructions [pdf]
http://www.spaceref.com/iss/soyuz/SCLSaB.edit.pdf
76 comments
Check out this strange pic:
https://vintagespace.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/ivan-ivanov...
"MAKET" means dummy or doll. This is the dummy pilot used in a test flight. The word is there so that any well-meaning farmer who finds the craft won't start cutting anything open in a rescue attempt, possibly destroying test data.
I've also seen, but cannot find online, pictographs on soviet spacecraft meant to inform possibly illiterate rescuers that real people are inside and probably need help. Similarly, look at any plane with ejector seats. There are usually signs or diagrams explaining how to pop the canopy and even trigger the ejection seat of a crashed plane (usually by means of a rope).
https://vintagespace.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/ivan-ivanov...
"MAKET" means dummy or doll. This is the dummy pilot used in a test flight. The word is there so that any well-meaning farmer who finds the craft won't start cutting anything open in a rescue attempt, possibly destroying test data.
I've also seen, but cannot find online, pictographs on soviet spacecraft meant to inform possibly illiterate rescuers that real people are inside and probably need help. Similarly, look at any plane with ejector seats. There are usually signs or diagrams explaining how to pop the canopy and even trigger the ejection seat of a crashed plane (usually by means of a rope).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2425610491 text and action plan on the Soyuz capsule
Why would it be a good idea to trigger the ejection seat of a crashed plane?
Everything is on fire, or about to be. The unconscious pilot is strapped into the seat. Better out now than in for even a few more seconds.
Also, I guess, one could use the procedure to render safe and unoccupied seat rather than leave it in the wreckage for some kid to play with. The seat alone doesn't have a proper chute. So it wouldn't be the safest thing for a SAR team to do if their helicopter was parked nearby.
Also, I guess, one could use the procedure to render safe and unoccupied seat rather than leave it in the wreckage for some kid to play with. The seat alone doesn't have a proper chute. So it wouldn't be the safest thing for a SAR team to do if their helicopter was parked nearby.
Didn't the early cosmonauts also carry handguns in case they landed I Siberia and had to defend themselves against a bear or wolves?
It was actually a triple-barreled weapon. Two shotgun/flare barrels, one rifled barrel.
It could be configured in either pistol or carbine mode.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/10/13/tp-82-russian-...
It could be configured in either pistol or carbine mode.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/10/13/tp-82-russian-...
And a stock that turned into a machete!
Not early cosmonauts. They remain up there today, in soyus pods attached to the ISS.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23131359/ns/technology_and_science...
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23131359/ns/technology_and_science...
They haven't taken firearms up into space for some time, the crews always veto taking them before the mission:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/ho...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/ho...
That seems weird to me. High-minded principles about keeping weapons out of space, or hypotheticals about crazy crewmembers, seem to pale in comparison to the potential of landing in the wilderness and encountering a pack of wolves or worse. Off-course landings have happened several times before, and while I don't think any of them encountered hostile wildlife, it seems like a serious possibility.
Wolves only hunt people in the movies. More to the point, the survival weapon they're vetoing wouldn't kill a bear, it would piss a bear off. A survival weapon that's useful for actual defense is beyond the scope of what they can carry.
You can carry something goofy that exists purely for crew morale in a survival situation, but that's something you want to weigh against other improbable scenarios like a nutty crewmember getting his hands on the weapon. Why even bother worrying about it?
You can carry something goofy that exists purely for crew morale in a survival situation, but that's something you want to weigh against other improbable scenarios like a nutty crewmember getting his hands on the weapon. Why even bother worrying about it?
I think that with today's better tracking (gps etc) the procedure is to wait for rescue inside the bear and wolf-proof capsule. So the situation of being 'lost' in the wilderness is far less a worry.
In general that seems like sound advice but there are definitely going to be times when you want to get clear of the capsule. The obvious one is fire, but the thing that came to mind is the way some astronauts got sick on a floating Gemini or Apollo capsule one time because of fumes leaking from the thrusters. Those are fueled using hypergolics that are super toxic. I have no idea if the thrusters on a Soyuz capsule use hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide or what.
Thrusters in Soyuz capsule are loaded with about 30 kg of hydrogen peroxide (probably around 82%).
This is actually one of the concerns with SpaceX Dragon capsules - they use significantly more toxic components.
This is actually one of the concerns with SpaceX Dragon capsules - they use significantly more toxic components.
Thanks, that is really interesting. I'll have to read up on the Dragon capsules, I have enjoyed reading about their boosters and their landing attempts.
If they're using stuff like hydrazine in their thrusters, that's always going to be a major concern. They are planning on using the thrusters for every landing over land, eventually, or so I thought.
If they're using stuff like hydrazine in their thrusters, that's always going to be a major concern. They are planning on using the thrusters for every landing over land, eventually, or so I thought.
[deleted]
Reminds me of a first responder briefing I heard at an air show. The first job if a fighter was on the ground with a pilot aboard, after opening the canopy, the first two guys on the scene were to hold the pilots arms down. Nothing else mattered. Should he wake up and reach for those ejection handles ... bad things.
I suppose that it would be theoretically easy to disable the ejection handles when the plane had the canopy open, was not moving, and/or was on the ground. But if the plane was damaged and the sensors or circuits that managed that decision were destroyed, the pilot couldn't eject.
They decided to err on the side of allowing the pilot to eject, possibily in a state of panic or confusion, under conditions that could be fatal. They did this instead of preventing this death caused by human error but opening the remote possibility that the best redundant system they could devise would fail and leave the pilot unable to eject. That says something interesting about their safety philosophy.
They decided to err on the side of allowing the pilot to eject, possibily in a state of panic or confusion, under conditions that could be fatal. They did this instead of preventing this death caused by human error but opening the remote possibility that the best redundant system they could devise would fail and leave the pilot unable to eject. That says something interesting about their safety philosophy.
There are times when a pilot may want to eject from a stationary plane on the ground, fire being the big one. Of course this is only true of modern "zero-zero" ejection powerful enough to get the pilot under parachute without any altitude/speed. But if the plane has already crashed, the pilot probably has a damaged neck/spine already and ejecting might be lethal.
[deleted]
I was in the Soviet Union for a couple of weeks at the end of the 60's. Our Intourist guide took us to see an exhibition having to do with the Soviet space effort. One of the exhibits was a spherical module which, given the date, I imagine was part of a Soyuz-A. The thing that struck me, and that I would be interested in having confirmed (or not) by someone knowledgeable, was that part of the thing (a porthole surround?) was made of/trimmed with wood. Could this be the case or is my memory playing tricks on me?
A Google search turned up that the Chinese have used a heat shield made of impregnated oak, and perhaps the Russians used a cork one.
Some speculation:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11075.25;wa...
Some speculation:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11075.25;wa...
Wood actually has great properties re fire and heat. It doesn't conduct heat very well. In a fire, the outer surfaces turn to ash, allowing the structure to survive for a time at temperatures that would melt steal instantly.
Perhaps you're thinking of Vostok? I thought much the same when I saw it in the Science Museum in London (just last weekend). Some kind of heat resistant cork or something?
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ImageHandler.ashx?image={4D8...
I can heartily recommend the Cosmonaughts exhibition if you're at all interested in the birth of the Space Age. It's open till the 12th of March: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/visitmuseum/Plan_your_visit/...
I can heartily recommend the Cosmonaughts exhibition if you're at all interested in the birth of the Space Age. It's open till the 12th of March: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/visitmuseum/Plan_your_visit/...
Not a spacecraft, but the Germans in WW2 developed an air-to-air missile [0] that had wooden fins. It wasn't going fast enough to create significant atmospheric heating and wood wasn't a strategically limited resource. I've seen one at a museum in the US, and the wood looks really incongruous.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrstahl_X-4
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrstahl_X-4
Was it the Vostok? (it's spherical at least, not sure of the wood) :
http://i.imgur.com/XBcLxta.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XBcLxta.jpg
May you share more about the experience?
I enjoyed the knocking code:
One knock or silence (.) = “We are bad.”
I'm not sure you need a translation to know that no knocks = we might not be doing so great in this capsule here.
One knock or silence (.) = “We are bad.”
I'm not sure you need a translation to know that no knocks = we might not be doing so great in this capsule here.
Does allow them to indicate that they're not dead or unconscious, though. The radio has already failed at this point.
Those deploying antennas sound absolutely terrifying and deadly.
Yeah, what's up with that?
Things that need to stay very secure, but also quickly detach when needed, are usually attached with explosive bolts. Much simpler and far more reliable than other means.
But why do they need to detach at all?
They protect the antennae during re-entry, otherwise they'd probably melt in the heat. If you read carefully you'll see that it's the antenna covers that explode, not necessarily the antennae themselves.
> it's the antenna covers that explode, not necessarily the antennae themselves.
Ah, yes, that explains it. Thanks for the observation.
Ah, yes, that explains it. Thanks for the observation.
Yes, but why? Why not just leave them attached there?
A basic quarter wave VHF antenna is about a foot and a half long (assuming this is the type of antenna used). A foot and a half long piece of wire can't be hanging off of a capsule coming through the atmosphere without burning off, as others have stated. It would need to be protected for re-entry.
When it comes time to use it after the capsule lands, it can't be enclosed within a metal capsule which would undoubtedly act as a Faraday shield preventing the RF from getting outside. So the protection has to come off.
When it comes time to use it after the capsule lands, it can't be enclosed within a metal capsule which would undoubtedly act as a Faraday shield preventing the RF from getting outside. So the protection has to come off.
They don't want them to stay closed should they be covered by a tree branch or clump of Siberian mud. The explosive opening breaks metal bolt holding the plate on, bolts strong enough to prevent any accidental opening during landing/crashing. And, no explosives means no moving parts to get stuck.
They probably don't function as well (at all) with covers on.
What is a "150_____ mile radius"? What goes in the blank? "Nautical" vs. "imperial roman"?
It was probably a blank "____ mile" in the original electronic doc and someone added the 150 without deleting the underscore, shifting everything right.
Note also the strange spacing and boxing of "side", apparently for no reason.
Also: "there is no hazard-if both risers are still attached". What's a "hazard-if"? Or do they mean to use a dash here instead of a hyphen?
This document looks like it was typeset by an incompetent temp in 1995. Really goes to show that the cutting edge of space research is in many aspects at the mercy of the lowest bidder (literally and figuratively).
Also: "there is no hazard-if both risers are still attached". What's a "hazard-if"? Or do they mean to use a dash here instead of a hyphen?
This document looks like it was typeset by an incompetent temp in 1995. Really goes to show that the cutting edge of space research is in many aspects at the mercy of the lowest bidder (literally and figuratively).
Heck, what's a riser? I mean, I am familiar with the term, but I have no way to identify what a Soyuz capsule's risers are, so ho do I know if they're attached or not?
Perhaps it was translated from a Russian version and hastily redacted.
I saw this too. Maybe it allows 150 - 350 mile radius or something similar.
its to add more 0's later.
Interesting.
> There is a low level radiation hazard area clearly marked on the bottom of the capsule
Whats this?
> There is a low level radiation hazard area clearly marked on the bottom of the capsule
Whats this?
Cobalt-60. Here is some more information on the Kaktus gamma-ray altimeter in Soyuz landers: http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/spaceflight/reentry-desce...
Wow, a radar that uses ionizing radiation is a crazy idea.
Seems ingenious - it's an active system that uses entirely passive components. No power draw, and will always work.
Kaktus-2V altimeter
Main gamma-ray source at 662 keV, backscatter peak at 200 keV, 3 redundant transmitters / receivers.
"no power draw" :) Uses 50W, weights 10kg. Good old Russian Teknology.
[0] http://www.rtc.ru/index.php/kosmicheskoe-priborostroenie/fot...
[1] http://www.nucsafe.com/cms/Gamma+Interactions+and+ID/46.html
Main gamma-ray source at 662 keV, backscatter peak at 200 keV, 3 redundant transmitters / receivers.
"no power draw" :) Uses 50W, weights 10kg. Good old Russian Teknology.
[0] http://www.rtc.ru/index.php/kosmicheskoe-priborostroenie/fot...
[1] http://www.nucsafe.com/cms/Gamma+Interactions+and+ID/46.html
I'm pretty sure the receiver can't be passive. If the receiver doesn't work due to power failure or malfunction, what good is a functioning transmitter?
It would be interesting to know why they decided to go this way instead of a more conventional radar. Soyuz is already full of RF equipment for communications and docking procedures. Adding a landing radar probably wouldn't add that much to overall complexity. It might be that gamma backscatter is more consistent over expected landing surfaces than microwave reflectivity.
Also, I wonder how they shield their detector from direct gamma rays from source so that they don't overwhelm the weak backscatter signal. They can't have much in the way of heavy shielding.
It would be interesting to know why they decided to go this way instead of a more conventional radar. Soyuz is already full of RF equipment for communications and docking procedures. Adding a landing radar probably wouldn't add that much to overall complexity. It might be that gamma backscatter is more consistent over expected landing surfaces than microwave reflectivity.
Also, I wonder how they shield their detector from direct gamma rays from source so that they don't overwhelm the weak backscatter signal. They can't have much in the way of heavy shielding.
It could theoretically land anywhere on the planet in an accident situation, some freaked out country could fire up the radar jammers, would be terrible bad luck to land next to a weather radar, even if nothing bad happens it'll have Russian military aircraft loitering around the LZ and now you have the technical problem of proving every Russian aircraft radar ever made won't interfere with the landing system. I would guess if the rockets fire early the astronauts will be severely hurt (killed?) on landing so not firing early would be a priority. They didn't make it triple redundant for fun...
Also without any information its very hard to tell if this is just good old fashioned ALARA at work, or if its a real threat. On one hand a powerful source would require a smaller detector and size and mass are expensive in spacecraft. Then again the crew needs shielding from the source and they're using gammas so source intensity is also not cheap. My guess is its a combination of ALARA principle at work combined with some first responders might have radiological monitoring and that will detect it, causing a freak out unless previously warned.
Also without any information its very hard to tell if this is just good old fashioned ALARA at work, or if its a real threat. On one hand a powerful source would require a smaller detector and size and mass are expensive in spacecraft. Then again the crew needs shielding from the source and they're using gammas so source intensity is also not cheap. My guess is its a combination of ALARA principle at work combined with some first responders might have radiological monitoring and that will detect it, causing a freak out unless previously warned.
Perhaps it would be better to call it gradar? This is certainly the craziest sensor I have ever heard of.
This book seems to say its 137Cs. Anyways TIL.
IIRC, it's a sensor that uses reflected gamma rays to measure the distance to the ground. When the ground is close enough, braking rockets are fired to reduce the touchdown velocity, making a land-landing more pleasant.
>making a land-landing more pleasant.
Or at least a bit less unpleasant
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/08/back_to_...
Or at least a bit less unpleasant
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/08/back_to_...
For non-rescue personnel (the rest of us), it looks like the best thing you can do is simply make sure that nobody gets closer than 150 feet. If you're certain that aerials are deployed, you can approach (from the FRONT/pointy-end) and knock five or more times. One or no knocks means that you need to phone the authorities after retreating to a safe distance - there is nothing that you can do for them (special tools are needed to crack it open).
Though,
> There are three tools safety-wired to the outside edge of the bottom of the capsule. They can be easily removed in both upright and side landing scenarios
> There are three tools safety-wired to the outside edge of the bottom of the capsule. They can be easily removed in both upright and side landing scenarios
> 911 what's your emergency?
There are some visitors from space in my back yard.
There are some visitors from space in my back yard.
Information that would have been more useful YESTERDAY!!
> NOT FOR RELEASE TO MEDIA
Oh well.
Oh well.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
"Both he and the spacecraft landed via parachute 26 km (16 mi) south west of Engels, in the Saratov region at 51.270682°N 45.99727°E. It was 280 km to the west of the planned landing site (near Baikonur).
A farmer and her daughter observed the strange scene of a figure in a bright orange suit with a large white helmet landing near them by parachute. Gagarin later recalled, "When they saw me in my space suit and the parachute dragging alongside as I walked, they started to back away in fear. I told them, don't be afraid, I am a Soviet citizen like you, who has descended from space and I must find a telephone to call Moscow!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_1#Reentry_and_landing