Category: Space Station

For the first time since docking with the International Space Station (ISS) on April 3rd, the Automated Transfer Vehicle (A T V) “Jules Verne” has been awoken and instructed to carry out an impressive task: push the ISS to a higher orbit. The robotic supply vessel, currently attached to the station’s Zvezda module carried out a 12 minute 20 second burn of its main engines. This is the first time an ESA spaceship has carried out such a task and it appears to have performed flawlessly, lifting the 280 tonne station 4.5 km (2.8 miles) to a new altitude of 342 km (213 miles). In true ESA style, they’ve even released a cool video simulation of the event…

Periodically, the ISS needs a small push in the right direction. As the station orbits Earth, it experiences a small amount of friction from the extended atmosphere of our planet. This atmospheric drag slows the orbiting outpost, making it drop to a lower orbit. When needed, the ISS must to be pushed to higher altitudes. Until now, “re-boosts” have been performed by the Space Shuttle, Russian Progress and by the ISS itself; but today, it was the turn of the most advanced European spacecraft ever put into space. Due to the large quantities of fuel still on board, Jules Verne is ideal for this manoeuvre.

At 04:22 GMT Friday morning, two of the four powerful ATV rockets burst to life after being given the signal from mission control in Toulouse, France. The supply ship provided a thrust of 2.65 m/s, accelerating the ISS along its orbital path. This increased speed increased its orbit. Mission controllers carefully monitored events for the long 740 seconds.

See the ESA video simulation of the ATV re-boost »

This re-boost comes after three weeks of inactivity for the ATV. The unmanned cargo vessel was launched on March 9th to take 1150 kg (2535 lb) of water, food and other supplies to the ISS. This proved to be a very busy time for space traffic control. First the ATV was launched, then on March 11th Space Shuttle Endeavour was sent on her way, then on April 8th Soyuz ISS 16S was launched. Jules Verne drew the short straw and had to wait in a parking orbit until Endeavour had docked, carried out its mission and then returned home. The ATV used this time to run tests until it was cleared for docking on April 3rd.

Now the ISS is ready for the arrival of Space Shuttle Discovery (STS-124) scheduled for launch at the end of May. Discovery will deliver the Japanese Kibo laboratory to be installed on the growing station. Another three re-boosts are planned for the ATV on June 12th, July 8th and August 6th. Shortly after the last boost, Jules Verne is destined to be detached from the Zvezda module and dropped into the atmosphere, carrying 6.5 tonnes of trash into a controlled re-entry burn over the Pacific Ocean. A sad end to an amazing piece of technology.

Source: ESA

Now the dust has settled news sources appear to be coherently reporting the events that unfolded early Saturday morning. As several readers have shown concern that reporting on the Soyuz ballistic re-entry makes us opposed to Russian efforts in space, I hope these points clearly show that this is not the case. In actuality, without the Russian Soyuz fleet of personnel/cargo supply spacecraft, much of the international community’s plans for space would be scuppered. So, what do we know happened after the Soyuz descent capsule undocked from the space station in the early hours of Saturday?

Well, most of the original reports appeared to be fairly accurate. From Tuesday, it seems that much of the reports from news agencies in the US and UK have been corroborated with the Russian news agency Interfax. On April 23rd, William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for space operations, gave a statement as to what went wrong. So here’s what we know:

• Due to a technical fault, and not crew error, the Soyuz descent capsule did not separate from its propulsion module as planned. The explosive bolts used to separate the Soyuz modules before re-entry didn’t work on time. This may have resulted in the descent module and propulsion module hitting the atmosphere before they separated.
• It is not clear if the modules were separated late by the explosive bolts, or if they were pulled apart (Gerstenmaier points out that they may break apart on re-entry, allowing the descent module and crew to make an emergency landing). Either way, a “ballistic re-entry” (rather than the planned guided re-entry) was the result. Ballistic re-entry was likened by Gerstenmaier to, “a bullet out of a rifle,” before the parachutes opened.
• The crew experienced forces up to 8.2 times greater than Earth’s gravity.
• The re-entry caused damage to the capsule escape hatch due to the angle of descent. Areas other than the heat shield had been burnt. The communications antenna was lost at this stage.
• NASA confirms there was no communication with the capsule until cosmonaut Colonel Yuri Malenchenko was able to get free of the cabin and use a satellite phone to contact mission control. This was 30 minutes after touch-down.

So it appears the emergency landing was actually very successful. As pointed out by Gerstenmaier the Soyuz spacecraft design has “an inherent reliability in the system.” After all, the original manned Soyuz spacecraft design was launched in 1967, and since then there have been 99 missions (11 since 2002). It is a rugged and highly dependable space vehicle, and in 2010 when the Space Shuttle is retired we will need Soyuz to supply the space station and transport personnel. The Orion space ship isn’t scheduled to launch until 2015, so there is a five year gap that will need to be filled. NASA is looking into commercial options, but the tried, tested and reliable Soyuz remains the best option.

However, the way this incident was handled is highly worrying. I just hope that a thorough investigation into the technical fault and the way Russian officials covered up events is carried out, so future re-entries can be better managed.

In case you missed the Universe Today coverage of this story:

• April 22nd: Soyuz Capsule Hatch Nearly Burned Up and Crew’s Lives Were on a “Razor’s Edge”
• April 21st: New Facts Emerge from Soyuz Emergency Landing
• April 20th: Soyuz Crew Safe After a Violent Re-entry and Landing 400km Off-target

Sources: McClatchy
, Orlando Sentinel

First, Russian space officials tried to cover up the emergency landing of the Soyuz descent capsule on Saturday. Then they blamed the crew for changing their flight plan without communicating with mission control. Compounding the problem, an official cited a bad omen as a contributing factor to the hard landing. Within a couple of days, the truth behind the Soyuz “ballistic re-entry” began to come to light. Today, even more shocking revelations are being reported, including how the escape hatch nearly failed during the uncontrolled, fiery re-entry…

On Sunday, the Universe Today reported on the off-target landing of the Russian Soyuz descent capsule carrying South Korea’s first astronaut, Yi So-yeon, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko and NASA record breaker (for most time spent in space) American Peggy Whitson back from the International Space Station (ISS). The capsule had landed short of its intended target, 20 minutes behind schedule. The authorities later blamed the mishap on a change in flight plan and suggested the crew were to blame. Then, surprisingly, Federal Space Agency chief Anatoly Perminov placed some of the blame on the female dominant crew, saying women on board space missions were bad luck.

Yesterday, I reported on some updates to the drama that had unfolded. Apparently, even before the rescue helicopters had located the capsule, the Russian space agency publicised the crew’s safe return, covering up the fact they had no idea where they were. What’s more, the helicopters had been sent to the wrong location, and it was by chance that the capsule’s parachutes were spotted. The capsule had landed in a zone reserved for emergency touch-downs and the crew suffered a “hard landing”. Not being able to send a signal to mission control, the crew remained upside down, strapped to their seats for 25 minutes. Malenchenko was able to unlatch himself to get outside to use a satellite phone. Some news agencies reported that the parachute had even caught alight and set the surrounding vegetation on fire.

Today, even more revelations have been reported. According to an unnamed Russian space official, the capsule had entered the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner. Rather than the capsule’s heat shield taking the frictional re-entry burn, the escape hatch became exposed and bore the brunt of the high temperatures outside. The hatch sustained substantial damage. The antenna was also exposed to the heat, completely burning it up, explaining why the crew were unable to communicate with the ground. A valve that equalizes cabin with atmospheric pressure was also damaged.

“The fact that the entire crew ended up whole and undamaged is a great success. Everything could have turned out much worse. You could say the situation was on a razor’s edge.” – Anonymous Russian space official involved in the descent investigation.

Russian Federal Space Agency spokesman, Alexander Vorobyov, continued to downplay the series of events saying that antennae were regularly damaged during capsule re-entries. He rated Saturday’s event as a “3”, where “5” on the scale would be critical.

This troubled landing has naturally raised questions about the safety record of the Soyuz capsules currently being used. This is the second time in a row (and the third since 2003) that there have been serious problems during re-entry of Soyuz capsules. The official continued to say that there can be no guarantee that this will not happen again:

“Considering that this situation has repeated itself, it is obvious that the technological discipline in preparing space equipment for a flight is declining. There is no guarantee that the crew of a Soyuz spacecraft landing a half a year from now would not face the same difficulties.” – Anonymous Russian space official

During the confusion as to where the Soyuz capsule had landed, there are unconfirmed reports that the U.S. Defence Department tracked the off-target landing and pinpointed its location for Russian helicopters. NASA is reserving comment until the Russian Federal Space Agency finds the cause of the uncontrolled descent.

Investigators suspect that the ballistic re-entry was caused by an electrical short in the cable that connects the crew capsule’s control panel with the Soyuz descent hardware. A short circuit in this cable can automatically trigger the ballistic re-entry mode and there is little the crew could have done to prevent it.

Sources: The Associated Press, New Scientist

The facts behind the “ballistic re-entry” of the Soyuz descent capsule are beginning to come to light. According to several news sources, after the capsule made an unusual steep descent through the atmosphere, putting it at least 400km off-target, the parachute was set alight causing a small bush fire on landing. The crew, who had to wait upside down, reported smoke inside the capsule. Although the Russian space agency overseeing the rescue helicopters reported that the crew were safely on the ground, in reality they were struggling to find their location. Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko had to unhook himself from the askew craft, get outside and use a satellite phone to confirm they were alive and well. Tough questions are now being asked as to why mission control lost track of the capsule in the first place and why they covered up the reality of the landing till so long after the event…

As previously reported on the Universe Today, something went wrong with the Soyuz descent capsule as it completed its return mission from the International Space Station on Saturday. Back then, the Russian space authority reported the capsule had undergone a ballistic re-entry (rather than the planned “guided descent”) after the crew changed the flight plan without communicating the alteration to mission control. This was the sole (official) reason given for the hard landing the three crew members suffered. South Korea’s first astronaut, Yi So-yeon, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko and American Peggy Whitson endured forces exceeding nine-G (nine-times Earth gravity) as they tumbled through the atmosphere.

One Russian space official cited an old naval superstition that having women on board the flight was a “bad omen” and that planners would reconsider having a female-dominant crew in the future. These remarks understandably caused a stir.

According to one news source, it is more likely that the capsule’s autopilot failed, causing the ballistic re-entry. On the ground, Russian officials guessed that the capsule had overshot the landing zone and sent rescue helicopters to a location far east. By chance a helicopter in the west (a location reserved for emergency landings) reported seeing the parachutes of the capsule, but no contact was made with the crew until 30 minutes after landing. Way before contact was made (via satellite phone), the Russian space agency had been publicising the safe return of the Soyuz crew to divert attention from the problems they were having.

Perhaps the most worrying report is that the descent parachute caught fire and burnt surrounding vegetation. Apparently smoke even got into the capsule. This would have undoubtedly caused a lot of stress to the crew.

In a recent interview with South Korea’s first astronaut Yi So-yeon, the 29 year-old bioengineer remembered her ordeal and admitted she was “really scared” as the capsule began its emergency re-entry:

“During descent I saw some kind of fire outside as we were going through the atmosphere. At first I was really scared because it looked really, really hot and I thought we could burn.” – Yi So-yeon

The shaken crew members were still shaken as they gave a press conference on Monday. Malenchenko remained adamant that none of the crew were to blame for the ballistic re-entry. “There was no action of the crew that led to this,” he said. “Time will tell what went wrong.”

This incident highlights the risk involved with space travel, and whilst access to space is becoming more and more routine, the fact remains that things can go wrong. Many news sources are highly critical of the Russian space agency, arguing that they are incompetent. This might be a little strong, but in matters such as the safe return of astronauts, absolute clarity is needed. Attempts to cover up technical faults, citing of “bad omens” and misinformation will not help the Russian efforts in space.

Sources: AP, MSNBC, Yahoo!, Space.com