Soyuz module on International Space Station is leaking something(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Soyuz module on International Space Station is leaking something
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1603213585307541506
76 comments
To add to this it’s not only cosmonauts assigned to this soyuz it’s 2 Russians and 1 American. Doesn’t change making the right decision for protecting crew but may add complexity if Roscosmos is confident in the Soyuz for returning crew but NASA isn’t.
Additionally depending on damage Soyuz may be on a clock to leave no matter what (with or without crew) to prevent it from being stuck to ISS.
Big question is what caused the damage and thus what risk there is to re-entry. Lots of tough risk trades to make.
Additionally depending on damage Soyuz may be on a clock to leave no matter what (with or without crew) to prevent it from being stuck to ISS.
Big question is what caused the damage and thus what risk there is to re-entry. Lots of tough risk trades to make.
Roscosmos & NASA disagreeing with each other on the integrity of the Soyuz would be very on brand for everyone.
Root cause and the next steps are going to be very interesting.
Luckily it seems everyone is safe for the time being.
Root cause and the next steps are going to be very interesting.
Luckily it seems everyone is safe for the time being.
This might be a myth but when I was a kid I assumed (or was told?) that there was always another space shuttle ready to go if there was a problem with the one in flight. Since SpaceX has nearly perfected quick turn launches, I have to believe that they can get one fueled up relatively quickly.
> This might be a myth but when I was a kid I assumed (or was told?) that there was always another space shuttle ready to go if there was a problem with the one in flight.
I believe it was a myth. IIRC, one of the unusual things about the final Hubble servicing mission was said to be the sight of two space shuttles ready to go at the same time (one for the mission and a second one to be used as a rescue ship if necessary), implying that this wasn't done often (if at all) previously.
I believe it was a myth. IIRC, one of the unusual things about the final Hubble servicing mission was said to be the sight of two space shuttles ready to go at the same time (one for the mission and a second one to be used as a rescue ship if necessary), implying that this wasn't done often (if at all) previously.
Post Columbia accident, most of the shuttle missions were focused on the ISS where the crew could have taken refuge had there been a problem during ascent which prevented safe re-entry.[1]
As you note the Hubble mission (STS-125 with Atlantis) wouldn't have that option available due to its orbit, so NASA had the shuttle Endeavour ready to fly as STS-400 as a contingency.
[1] The plan would have been that crew stranded on the ISS would be picked up by a later shuttle, so NASA was obviously comfortable with the contingency of leaving a crew without transport off for a period of time during an emergency. These were designated STS-3xx missions and would have launched within 40 days of call up. The ISS could have supported the additional crew for 80 days.
As you note the Hubble mission (STS-125 with Atlantis) wouldn't have that option available due to its orbit, so NASA had the shuttle Endeavour ready to fly as STS-400 as a contingency.
[1] The plan would have been that crew stranded on the ISS would be picked up by a later shuttle, so NASA was obviously comfortable with the contingency of leaving a crew without transport off for a period of time during an emergency. These were designated STS-3xx missions and would have launched within 40 days of call up. The ISS could have supported the additional crew for 80 days.
This only became true after the loss of the shuttle Columbia on the STS-107 mission in 2003. After Columbia, a rigorous process was put in place for checking the heat tiles on the underside of the orbiter for damage. If damage was discovered, the shuttle crew would shelter aboard the International Space Station for about 40 days until a rescue shuttle came to get them. This mission profile was known as Launch On Need or Contingency Shuttle Crew Support. The rescue missions were numbered in the STS-3xx range. [0]
A different rescue mission profile was needed for STS-125, which serviced the Hubble Space Telescope and couldn’t reach the orbital inclination of the ISS. This rescue mission, STS-400, had to be ready to launch within three days of a problem being found.
The last planned shuttle mission was STS-134, with STS-335 as the LON mission. Since the hardware for 335 existed, NASA decided to fly it as an operational mission, STS-135. At this point there could be no backup shuttle, so 135 was flown with just four crew members who would shelter on ISS and come down one at a time via Soyuz over the course of about a year if the shuttle couldn’t re-enter.
What about the damaged orbiter stuck at ISS? Orbiters were quite expensive, so NASA developed hardware (which was stored on ISS) to attempt a landing of the empty orbiter via remote control. Whatever the probability of success, it was better than zero.
After the loss of STS-107, the investigation board asked NASA to devise a rescue that could have been attempted if the damage had been identified early in the mission. [1] The result was an audacious rescue plan that would have pushed two orbiters, their crews, and NASA itself to the absolute limit. We will never know if it could have been done.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/the-audacious-rescue...
A different rescue mission profile was needed for STS-125, which serviced the Hubble Space Telescope and couldn’t reach the orbital inclination of the ISS. This rescue mission, STS-400, had to be ready to launch within three days of a problem being found.
The last planned shuttle mission was STS-134, with STS-335 as the LON mission. Since the hardware for 335 existed, NASA decided to fly it as an operational mission, STS-135. At this point there could be no backup shuttle, so 135 was flown with just four crew members who would shelter on ISS and come down one at a time via Soyuz over the course of about a year if the shuttle couldn’t re-enter.
What about the damaged orbiter stuck at ISS? Orbiters were quite expensive, so NASA developed hardware (which was stored on ISS) to attempt a landing of the empty orbiter via remote control. Whatever the probability of success, it was better than zero.
After the loss of STS-107, the investigation board asked NASA to devise a rescue that could have been attempted if the damage had been identified early in the mission. [1] The result was an audacious rescue plan that would have pushed two orbiters, their crews, and NASA itself to the absolute limit. We will never know if it could have been done.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-3xx [1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/the-audacious-rescue...
It's clearly a danger if a return vehicle becomes disabled for any reason. But I would be shocked in NASA and Roscosmos don't have contingency plans for exactly the situation described. They have contingencies for ...everything.
> 2. If they determine that the leak is slow enough to safely allow a reentry attempt, I expect them to pack up the 3 cosmonauts who are assigned to that soyuz and send em home pronto while that window is open.
To make it worse... If I understood the situation in these twitter posts correctly, they were in the middle of a spacewalk. So they'd need to first quickly terminate that spacewalk, which also takes some time.
Edit: according to https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2022/12/14/spacewalk-can... they were still preparing for the spacewalk, so they weren't outside yet.
To make it worse... If I understood the situation in these twitter posts correctly, they were in the middle of a spacewalk. So they'd need to first quickly terminate that spacewalk, which also takes some time.
Edit: according to https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2022/12/14/spacewalk-can... they were still preparing for the spacewalk, so they weren't outside yet.
I could see them making a contingency for stuffing everyone on dragon as an absolute last resort and moving some launches around to get a vehicle there asap. In anycase it'll give NASA an occasion to review their planning for these sorts of situations.
I'll be interested to see if they make any changes to station procedures or the vehicle complement they choose to keep on orbit.
I'll be interested to see if they make any changes to station procedures or the vehicle complement they choose to keep on orbit.
I assume that, while dragon was designed originally for 7, since the design has been changed to 4 people that other things have been adjusted that mean 7 is no longer an option. For example, the parachutes might be slightly smaller for the reduced expected weight. Or the environmental system can only deal with the heat, moisture and co2 of 4 astronauts not 7.
Yeah, I imagine the conversation as more of a "could we make this work if we had no other choice" sort of thing. I don't imagine it would be considered under anything other than a dire emergency.
I don't think NASA would have a problem having fewer seats available for egress than crew for a short time as long as they were moving to rectify it.
I don't think NASA would have a problem having fewer seats available for egress than crew for a short time as long as they were moving to rectify it.
One more option, if Russia couldn’t get an extra Soyuz up there in time to pick them up, would be to send an extra Dragon up empty to pick up the extras.
Do they even need life support for the short descent to earth? I know they've brought mice up on cargo dragons, so the cabin's at a reasonable temperature. The only other obvious concern is oxygen levels...
Don't they need the correct number of chairs? Maybe they're called "deceleration couches" or whatever? Seems like pretty significant chance of injury without that ...
In astronaut Mike Mullanes book, he mentions that they often used to fly shuttle re-entries outside of their seats. I'm sure a shuttle has a much softer entry profile than a capsule, but if it's possible, I'm sure they'd consider it in an emergency.
Maybe they would do like we used to when I was a kid and double up a seat belt? It would suck, but I don't think it would kill anyone. Maybe...
SpaceX presumably has more than a single Crew Dragon sitting around, wonder how quickly they could deliver those to ISS.
Wait - are you saying there is no built-in redundancy for one Soyuz going out of service?
The redundancy is already there — both the ISS itself and the Soyuz parked there are able to keep the crew alive. If one of these fails, the other one will prevent immediate loss of life, but something still needs to be done ASAP about the situation.
2 is 1 and 1 is none.
Its like losing one drive in a RAID mirror; you still have a "RAID", well, kind of, but should be nervous until its replaced...
Its like losing one drive in a RAID mirror; you still have a "RAID", well, kind of, but should be nervous until its replaced...
A "7-person" capsule only actually fitting 4 sounds like about the right discount rate for a Musk company.
Given https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/12/space-debris-expert-... came out earlier today, it could very well be mechanical, or debris induced. Planned spacewalk is cancelled; be curious to see how the situation evolves (might have to sit tight for a new ride, unless they can put more coolant back in).
Youtube has a livestream from NASA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg
Youtube has a livestream from NASA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg
If the Soyuz is leaking coolant, are these going to be little high-velocity ice balls?
Tangentially related question: How dangerous are high-velocity gas clouds? Like, say rocket exhaust? Is that a thing, or does it always disperse quickly enough to to be a non-issue?
Tangentially related question: How dangerous are high-velocity gas clouds? Like, say rocket exhaust? Is that a thing, or does it always disperse quickly enough to to be a non-issue?
> If the Soyuz is leaking coolant, are these going to be little high-velocity ice balls?
They'll boil or sublimate in sunlight, and while they'd notionally condense in the earth's shadow their molecules will be too spread out for that to matter. So any ice balls will last for at most half an orbit, which I think is less than an hour at that altitude.
Velocity is relative; they'd be high-velocity relative to anything going straight up through that orbit, or in a retrograde orbit, but they're low-velocity compared to the ISS or anything coming up to meet it.
> Tangentially related question: How dangerous are high-velocity gas clouds? Like, say rocket exhaust? Is that a thing, or does it always disperse quickly enough to to be a non-issue?
They'll dissipate very quickly, space is at zero pressure.
They'll boil or sublimate in sunlight, and while they'd notionally condense in the earth's shadow their molecules will be too spread out for that to matter. So any ice balls will last for at most half an orbit, which I think is less than an hour at that altitude.
Velocity is relative; they'd be high-velocity relative to anything going straight up through that orbit, or in a retrograde orbit, but they're low-velocity compared to the ISS or anything coming up to meet it.
> Tangentially related question: How dangerous are high-velocity gas clouds? Like, say rocket exhaust? Is that a thing, or does it always disperse quickly enough to to be a non-issue?
They'll dissipate very quickly, space is at zero pressure.
-- according to arstechnica:
"The leak appears to have originated in an external cooling loop located at the aft end of the Soyuz MS-22 spacecraft. Public affairs officer Rob Navias, who was commentating on the spacewalk for NASA Television, characterized the spacecraft as leaking "fairly substantially." Video of the leak showed particles streaming continuously from the Soyuz, a rather remarkable sight. This was likely ammonia, which is used as a spacecraft coolant, although Russian officials have not confirmed this."
--
"The leak appears to have originated in an external cooling loop located at the aft end of the Soyuz MS-22 spacecraft. Public affairs officer Rob Navias, who was commentating on the spacewalk for NASA Television, characterized the spacecraft as leaking "fairly substantially." Video of the leak showed particles streaming continuously from the Soyuz, a rather remarkable sight. This was likely ammonia, which is used as a spacecraft coolant, although Russian officials have not confirmed this."
--
The coolant is (appears to be) low velocity wrt to the ISS. Everything appears to be stable for now (and isn't causing a major impulse or torque to the ISS).
My guess (with no expertise to back it) is that it should dissipate quickly and will not be an issue to anyone.
My guess (with no expertise to back it) is that it should dissipate quickly and will not be an issue to anyone.
> How dangerous are high-velocity gas clouds?
I believe breathing any of it in would be accompanied by a quick death
I believe breathing any of it in would be accompanied by a quick death
That scenario would also feature the water on your eyes boiling.
Is this the second time a Soyuz was found leaking? I remember this a few years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17876041
Yeah, and roscosmos accused an astronaut of drilling it from the inside! I've always wondered what the state of that investigation is.
Very different sort of leak.
Very different sort of leak.
I read the headline and felt that the word "again" was missing from the title.
How many seats does this leave them in an emergency? Isn’t there only a Dragon now?
Vehicles currently docked at the ISS:
CRS-26 Cargo Dragon
Crew-5 Dragon
Cygnus-18
Progress 81
Progress 82
Soyuz MS-22
Only the Crew Dragon and the Soyuz are designed for human spaceflight and capable of returning to Earth. The Cargo Dragon can also land, the rest are all expendable.
That's a lot - I did not realize that ISS is so busy of a space port.
Which of these are return vehicles (human-rated or otherwise)?
Just the two Dragons and the Soyuz, right?
Edit: neat that I get to call a spacecraft a “Dragon”.
Just the two Dragons and the Soyuz, right?
Edit: neat that I get to call a spacecraft a “Dragon”.
Could people ride the Cargo Dragon down in an emergency?
Cargo Dragon doesn't have seats, so no.
They could try and move he seats from the duff Soyuz into Crew Dragon if they have suitable fixing points and tools...
It's still pressurised, so they should be able to survive in it.
But what happens when the capsule hits the water?
The same as those old-school wooden roller coasters with no safety-bar. You'd better hold on tight!
It floats. It’s designed for bringing cargo down as well as up, so it doesn’t experience dangerous levels of deceleration. Theoretically, it could bring back people, although they may need an oxygen tank and a way of strapping themselves down.
It probably wouldn’t be a pleasant landing, but it’s unlikely to injure them significantly.
It probably wouldn’t be a pleasant landing, but it’s unlikely to injure them significantly.
And even if there is a significant injury risk, it's still better than certain death.
Funeral expenses instead of cremation.
Maybe one day, they'll have capsule not to return to earth, but just hang out in orbit to dock with the Chinese station to use as a life boat.
A station in a different orbital plane would me more difficult to reach than the ocean's surface, so long as an adequate heat shield is provided.
I haven’t done the maths, but my gut (and maths degree, but mostly kerbal space program experience), says that even without an adequate heat shield, a significant plane change manoeuvre in LEO would take comparable delta V to slowing to the point where the spacecraft fuselage is sufficient shielding that the astronauts onboard won’t die on re-entry from the heat.
That being said, G-forces of such a steep descent would probably kill them instead.
That being said, G-forces of such a steep descent would probably kill them instead.
Quite a lot of glee and mockery in the replies to that tweet.
Obligatory Manley video on the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbK-6VkTFw8
Coincidence? – Geminids Meteor Shower Is Approaching – Peaks Dec. 13th - 14th : https://blogs.nasa.gov/Watch_the_Skies/2022/12/02/the-2022-g...
Seemingly decent report:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russians-call-off-spacewalk-soy...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russians-call-off-spacewalk-soy...
[deleted]
I would not want to ho to space without full redundancy for getting back.
Then again, I don't want to go to space at all with current tech and my opinion is probably different from those who do.
Then again, I don't want to go to space at all with current tech and my opinion is probably different from those who do.
if they knocked on my door today with an offer to, i'd leave without packing a bag first.
Same, even if the offer was "we need to send a live human to Mars to see how he'll die, to improve the next one". My kids would all get kisses and I'm off to die en route to Mars, no regrets.
This is the most depressing thing I've read on this website. There's no nobility in pointlessly dying on a rock in space.
> rock in space.
What do you think Earth is?
It is even less than a rock: looking from some distance, it is just a pale blue dot https://youtu.be/wupToqz1e2g
What do you think Earth is?
It is even less than a rock: looking from some distance, it is just a pale blue dot https://youtu.be/wupToqz1e2g
Nobility is not my goal.
Actually do someone here know the odds of survival for the crew during apolo 11? more than 70% or less?
I've heard interviews with engineers looking back where some say it was 2/3 and some say 1/2.
Then again, there are plenty of quotes from NASA engineers describing the 1/10,000 per flight expected fatalities of shuttle as being ridiculously pessimistic, so clearly this is hard to estimate.
Then again, there are plenty of quotes from NASA engineers describing the 1/10,000 per flight expected fatalities of shuttle as being ridiculously pessimistic, so clearly this is hard to estimate.
These types of calculations tend to suffer from the "unknown unknowns" side of things. The number only includes "known unknowns".
Anyone's guess I suppose, but Neil Armstrong is quoted as saying that he thought they had a 90% chance of returning to the earth safely and a 50% chance of a successful landing.
Quote is at around 19.00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJzOIh2eHqQ
Quote is at around 19.00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJzOIh2eHqQ
Fool, do not throw your life away. There is no nobility in doing what can be accomplished without risk to human life. Robotics vs Human exploration: Robotics win. Full stop. Anything a human can do in space or on another planet, a robot can do, only cheaper and without the risk of losing a life.
This is why no one has scaled the peak of Everest or stood on the South Pole. It's also why we still do bloodletting and watch our friends and relatives die from common diseases and infections.
I for one want to soar to the heavens and experience it first hand, not vicariously through staring at a screen full of numbers. Exploration is a human experience, not just a way to get grant money to invest for retirement.
I for one want to soar to the heavens and experience it first hand, not vicariously through staring at a screen full of numbers. Exploration is a human experience, not just a way to get grant money to invest for retirement.
Nobody scaled Everest until they were confident they could get back down. The same for the south pole (although that didn't turn out as well as Everest).
Why do you assume that this is about "nobility"? I would guess it's just to satisfy a personal curiosity. A feeling I totally share.
There's a difference between watching a livestream and actually being there, just as there's a difference between seeing a picture of $COUNTRY vs. actually visiting
There's a difference between watching a livestream and actually being there, just as there's a difference between seeing a picture of $COUNTRY vs. actually visiting
Okay, sure, curiosity. You want to sacrifice your life (a life) for curiosity, when robotics can fulfill the need without loss of life. Oh, a personal experience, that will justify the loss of life?
[deleted]
Every life is lost eventually, all we have along the way is personal experiences.
There's also a huge difference from just seeing a shuttle take off on TV vs in real life from relatively close... Can't even imagine being in it.
Nothing noble really, just a personal dream. Lots of people have faced certain death for less. Going out on one's own terms, to fulfill a dream, is probably the best way to go.
Mission Controllers have only a few options here:
1. If they determine what the problem is and that the leak will not affect Soyuz's ability to return safely, then they can stay on board and continue as normal. This is unlikely; Spacecraft are not supposed to leak 'substances' like this. They also do not carry 'substances' that are not critical to the mission.
2. If they determine that the leak is slow enough to safely allow a reentry attempt, I expect them to pack up the 3 cosmonauts who are assigned to that soyuz and send em home pronto while that window is open.
3. If this soyuz is now toast and the Russians have a spare somewhere on the ground, they will likely have to fill it with supplies and launch it, fast, unmanned to the station. We are in a dangerous, unprecedented time where there are astronauts on station with no ride home. Every emergency is now life-threatening until they can get another soyuz up there.
In an emergency there is one other option that they might consider; Dragon is human rated in theory for up to 7 people. That's what the original design was for. However, NASA only fits theirs out for 4 astronauts. Presumably, they could, in an emergency be used to carry the 3 soyuz refugees. Perhaps they would need to bring extra life support equipment and dump cargo to lose some weight. But it could be made to work. At a stretch, an unmanned cargo-dragon could even be used if appropriate life-support equipment could be employed. Such as putting the passengers in an EVA suit for the ride home.
Either way, it's thinking-cap time for the people at NASA and Roscosmos. Good luck!