After deleting my website and blog in a fit of depression last month (February) (and perhaps due to a bit of PMS), we are back – Blogger were able to restore the blog (email for this is support@blogger.com – it is quite hard to find contact details in the Help section). Some annoying company also grabbed the URL to redirect it to their stupid commercial site (which is another reason not to delete – opportunistic spammers wait to grab the URL). So the two or three people who actually read this blog (and presumably weren’t too bored by it) can continue to be riveted by my ramblings :-).
Now for some catching up! I’ll just go through the postings in my manual journal. There is rather a lot, sorry!
February news
Expedition 14 completed a spacewalk wearing the Orlan spacesuits on 22 February – see Spacewalkers Successfully Retract Progress Antenna at NASA.
Space junk in Siberia, CollectSpace.com. Russia launches its rockets over land as its launch centers are not near any ocean, and the accumulated debris is a source of environmental pollution from the toxic fuels used (though the locals can make a trade in scrap metal from the rockets). The photo essay Spaceship Junkyard at Slate.com shows images of crashed rockets. I am not sure if there is any organized clean-up by the government. It poses a vexed question of whether the environment or space program should have priority.
“Why are we fighting for the Moon again?”, Andrei Kislyakov, RIA Novosti, 19/2 on why is the space race to the Moon being re-enacted again?
More details on the retraction of the stuck Progress antenna during the last spacewalk – it took quite a lot of effort – and the problems with Mikhail Tyurin’s Orlan spacesuit (the “phantom torque” experienced on previous spacewalks does appear to be due to “high-velocity water molecule ejection by the sublimators of the Russian spacesuits.”
A possibly interesting new novel featuring a Soviet cosmonaut. I hope the ending isn’t disappointing – i.e. that he defects! Probably won’t be available in Australia though (as usual). Though the excerpt (which I just read) is somewhat stomach-churning (involves rape and graphic violence). Ugh – maybe I will give it a miss!
A RIA Novosti letter:
Sir, thank you for producing such an informative and useful online resource. I am writing today in response to the opinion editorial piece by writer, Andrei Kislyakov. As a person who came of age during the “bad old days” of the cold war space race, I was steeped in the competitive nature of those endeavors. Now that I have gone back and studied the awesome and heroic achievements of the Soviet and Russian space programs, I really appreciate the talent and courage displayed by Korolev and the cosmonaut community. NASA has a great deal to learn from the logical, step-by-step approach used by Russia’s space pioneers. Too often our space program is driven by short-term politics in Washington. You can count me as one American who does not ever wish to see again the close-minded space races of the past. America and Russia should work together and share their strengths, not work against each other. Thank you for the fine piece. Ad Astra!
– Vernon Helvey, 21/2
The Soyuz launch base construction site in French Guiana was officially opened on 26 February. A commemorative stone from the Soyuz L-1 launch pad at Baikonur was placed at the new site. It is possible that manned launches could take place there in the future (especially if Russian relations with Kazakhstan break down). Though French Guiana is a colony (which some people there oppose); it has many social problems.
March news
The Independent Safety Task Force’s final report is online (as a PDF). Makes for some interesting reading! The Russian Segment unfortunately doesn’t get a good report, though the problems are old ones. Some extracts:
Acoustics (p.57)
An important aspect of human space flight is the control of the ambient noise level in the crew’s working and sleeping environment. The ISS acoustic environment has been high in the Russian SM, with continuous noise levels exceeding limits by 5-10 dBA in work and sleep areas. Hearing protection systems have been provided and are necessary for the crew while in the SM; however, comfort and the operational need to communicate prevent continuous use of hearing protection. Acoustic mitigation hardware has been developed and launched for the highest noise-contributing hardware in the SM, and installation of some of this hardware has improved the acoustic environment. As limited crew time is available, additional hardware will be installed that is expected to bring the SM acoustic levels to within design specifications. Hearing acuity of the crew is monitored before, during, and after the mission. There has been a permanent hearing threshold shift (hearing damage) at the highest frequency tested (8000 Hz) in one U.S. ISS crew member. There have also been temporary hearing deficits documented in other U.S. and Russian crew members, all of which recovered to pre-mission levels. The ISS Program continues to monitor the acoustic environment, and is making efforts to adequately address this threat to crew health.
5.1 Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (p.60)
It should be noted that Russians technical specialists believe that the U.S. models are too conservative in their predictions related to potential MMOD damage. This is based upon their experience from operating the Mir space station, where only four MMOD events are known to have occurred in its 15 years of flight. The Russians have a debris strike measuring system deployed on the Station that measures MMOD strikes on the system.
In general, NASA, ESA, and JAXA elements meet the specification for MMOD protection. The Russian docking compartment does not meet this requirement; however, it is a small contributor to the total MMOD risk. Russian hardware elements that were designed before they were intended for use on the ISS (i.e., Russian SM, Soyuz, and Progress) fall short of meeting the specifications. Modifications are being implemented to increase the SM MMOD protection as follows:
- Conformal debris panels installed on the SM outer skin
- Flight UF-2 delivered six debris panels in June 2002 that remain stowed but uninstalled.
- Flight 12A.1 delivered 17 more debris panels in December 2006 to be stowed on orbit.
- Installation of these panels is planned during spacewalks in April 2007.
- Orientation of the SM solar arrays in the vertical position relative to the velocity vector (this option is available after the NASA power configuration is completed, enabling NASA to supply additional power to the Russian elements)
- Deploying additional “wings” forward of the SM arrays
Technical agreements on possible enhancements to the Russian Progress and Soyuz vehicles have been made, but implementation is pending a Russian decision to proceed. The primary impact of the enhancements would be approximately 48 pounds of additional launch weight for each vehicle.
[…]
The data above do not include the Russian multipurpose laboratory module (MLM), which is currently under development. The MLM meets the Program’s specified requirements for MMOD protection, and its installation does not significantly alter the overall ISS MMOD posture.
5.11 Service Module Windows
Observations
The 13 SM windows are Russian-heritage hardware for which designers did not consider currently available data regarding MMOD in their design. The design consists of a two-windowpane (primary and secondary) configuration with the volume between the panes pressurized. This results in the external pane being the primary pressure pane. Unlike other windows on the ISS, most Russian windows do not have an external debris pane to protect against MMOD or an internal scratch pane to protect against damage caused by inadvertent crew activities. The probability of a critical failure (i.e., loss of a primary pane) is estimated by NASA to be one chance in six for all SM windows combined and one chance in nine for SM windows 1 and 2 over a six-year period. Loss of the primary pane would result in loss of redundancy in the window with respect to maintaining ISS atmospheric pressure. Early in the NASA assessment of the SM windows there were concerns that failure of the primary pane might cause failure of the secondary pane as well due to near instantaneous change in differential pressure since the volume between the two panes is pressurized. However, tests conducted by NASA using SM window hardware have demonstrated that the loss of the primary pane does not result in the loss of secondary pane.
Should the primary window pane fail, the concern is the need for protection of the secondary pane from damage that might cause a loss of ISS pressure. This protection involves first the determination that the primary pane has failed and then the installation of an internal cover to prevent further damage that might result in a failure of the final remaining pane. There are insufficient pressure covers on orbit at this time to protect against existing and future damage to primary window pressure panes.
Detection of a primary pane failure requires regular and methodical inspection and photography of the SM window so that analysis can be conducted to determine the structural integrity of the pane in question. Well-defined window inspection and photography procedures have not been developed to date, and routine inspections and photography have not been performed. NASA and Russian technical experts agreed on an implementation plan in September 2006, but it is unclear whether Russian management will implement its part of the plan.
Recommendation
5.11.1 The ISS Program should proactively, methodically, and routinely monitor the SM windows for critical damage and be prepared to implement protection of the secondary pane by having hardware available on board or as launch-on-need for implementation.
There are also some concerns about the upcoming ATV flight:
Observations (ATV)
There will be no test flights of the integrated ATV before the first vehicle will rendezvous and dock with the ISS. The ATV safety strategy is operationally implemented at three levels.
- On the first flight, flight safety demonstrations will be conducted before the proximity operations safing functions might be required.
- A two-fault-tolerant vehicle design protects the ISS from critical and catastrophic hazards.
- Flight crew and MCC monitoring and control protect against unexpected scenarios.
The guidelines for the safety demonstrations are that:
- all safety functions will be demonstrated in a region that is not hazardous to the ISS before they would be needed.
- each activity is built upon in distinct demonstration phases.
- success criteria are provided for each demonstration phase.
- contingency plans are provided in the event that success criteria are not met.
- each step is evaluated before proceeding to the next step.
While this is a sound approach, the ATV systems that are used to accomplish a safe rendezvous and docking are complex and require a high degree of human interaction. To guard against failure, all aspects of vehicle design and operation must rigorously adhere to the defined safety strategy. Additionally, new rendezvous technology has been flown on two previous missions: the Japanese engineering test satellite (ETS) series and the NASA demonstration of autonomous rendezvous technology (DART). Both missions had problems with their autonomous rendezvous; and, in fact, the DART spacecraft collided with the target vehicle. The Japanese ETS rendezvous was eventually successful, but only after a month of on-orbit troubleshooting and modifications. With no planned test flight and two instances where other automated rendezvous systems had initial performance problems, the ATV is scheduled to rendezvous and dock with the crewed ISS on its very first mission. Without first requiring a successful test flight, and given the complexities of the new MCC in Toulouse, new flight controllers, the cultural and language differences among the three control centers of France, Russia, and the United States, and U.S. Export Control/ITAR restrictions that limit data exchange and conversations among the technical integrators and operators; the plan to demonstrate safety functions during an actual rendezvous on the first mission is considered ambitious.
Russia also announced it is looking for a new launch site in case Baikonur is unavailable. The main contender is Kapustin Yar (love the sound of that name!).
“Death throes and grand delusions”, The Space Review. Dwayne Day summarizes the current problems in Russia’s space industry and program. Not happy reading.
“Korolev R-7 Rocket Leads The Field For Reliability”, Space Daily.
Lisa Nowak was officially fired from NASA. Every time she is mentioned at the NASASpaceflight.com forum, the threads keep getting locked, rather annoyingly! People keep saying in moralistic tones, “We really shouldn’t discuss this,” but they do anyway :-). It makes a change from the mind-numbingly dull discussions about COTS and so forth. (I have no idea of what COTS is; I just pulled that up at random. :-)
New article posted at the Energiya site: MoonGasTransport Inc., “The interview given by Nikolai N. SEVASTIYANOV, the President and Designer General of the S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia to a reporter from ITOGY weekly Svetlana SUKHOVA.” More ambitious schemes from Mr. Sevast’yanov – he just needs 2.5 billion dollars to implement them! Perhaps one of the oligarches could do something useful with their billions and donate to the cause.
“The Story Of Women In Space”, Space Daily. Russian women were faced with many barriers to getting into orbit, one of the major ones being sexism from their male counterparts; something which is still apparent today. Only three Russian women have made it into orbit so far (the last in 1997).
Through this post at NASASpaceflight.com, found a document written by Sergei Krikalyov (27 December 2004), stored at the Русский фонд (Russian Fund) site. They are the PDF documents (in English and Russian) at the top of the page (the Russian one is online). (I posted this on the 2004 News page at my Sergei site.)
The report on international program for Earth defense from asteroid-comet threat is prepared under a Russian Federation patent from 27.12.2004 (RU 2243621 C1) “Method and device for generation of directed and coherent gamma-radiation”. In this patent under physico-mathematical and quantum analysis as well as work over constructional and technical details there is shown a unique and real way of defense a human civilization from a ruthless outer space.
In other words, using a laser to zap rogue asteroids!
Two recent articles by James Oberg at MSNBC.com:
From Novosti Kosmonavtiki news №614; criticism from the State Duma Deputy Valerii Rashkin over the closing of Svobodnyi Cosmodrome:
15/03/2007/16:56 – The Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Valery Rashkin: Russia does not wish to have free access to space
The deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Valery Rakshin has made a statement in connection with closing of the Svobodnyi Cosmodrome. In the statement he said:
“As it became known today from press statements, the Governor of the Amur area Leonid Korotkov has declared Svobodnyi Cosmodrome, which is located in this region, closed.
“The second is closed remained on territory of our country the space project focused on peace and military use of space. There is the Russian-only northern Plesetsk Cosmodrome. For all educated people it is clear that the more northern the cosmodrome (further from the Equator), there are subsequently reduced opportunities for the launch of large and heavy objects into orbit, let alone devices for distant orbital piloted space flights. The well-known Baikonur Cosmodrome remains in Kazakhstan; we only rent it. The Sea Launch project does not exist without problems and is not wholly Russian. The Kourou Cosmodrome is under the jurisdiction of France.
“Authorities of Russia, having made grand statements for ten years about new space projects and creation of the high-grade Russian Svobodnyi Cosmodrome, have again acted pragmatically and not strategically. They have shown only average thinking at the management level. Almost on the quiet (through the statement of the governor of the area – not that status of event) the country refuses space, scientific and innovative ambitions. And again hundreds and hundreds of qualified experts of the Military-Space forces will be dismissed. If this is innovative Russia with independent democracy, where is the innovativeness and especially the sovereignty?”
(Russian version, Русская версия)
Too Far from Home is a book mentioned in this thread at CollectSPACE.com. Seems to be yet another example of inaccurate reporting, if the reviews are anything to go by:
Though extensive accounts of the Americans’ backgrounds seems at first to put the brakes on, it’s a necessary counterweight to parallel passages about the little-understood Russian space program – essential information because the three eventually took “an accelerated, lung-crushing dive” in a Soyuz capsule.
Um, the Russian program is reasonably well-understood by now?
Too Far from Home vividly captures the hazardous realities of space travel. Every time an astronaut makes the trip into space, he faces the possibility of death from the slightest mechanical error or instance of bad luck: a cracked O-ring, an errant piece of space junk, an oxygen leak… There are a myriad of frighteningly probable events that would result in an astronaut’s death. In fact, twenty-one people who have attempted the journey have been killed.
Everytime a person ventures on the road in a car they face the possibility of maiming or death in an accident, occurrences that happen to people every day. Thousands of people are killed on the roads each year. And people think space travel is dangerous…?
With the launch program suspended indefinitely, these astronauts had suddenly lost their ride home. Too Far from Home chronicles the efforts of the beleaguered Mission Controls in Houston and Moscow as they work frantically against the clock to bring their men safely back to Earth, ultimately settling on a plan that felt, at best, like a long shot. Latched to the side of the space station was a Russian-built Soyuz TMA-1 capsule, whose technology dated from the late 1960s (in 1971 a malfunction in the Soyuz 11 capsule left three Russian astronauts dead.) Despite the inherent danger, the Soyuz became the only hope to return Bowersox, Budarin, and Pettit home.
The crew always had a ride home – the Soyuz served as a backup should the Shuttle be canceled (as it was). The technology in the Soyuz has been upgraded since the 1960s! And the last Soyuz fatalities to date were in Soyuz 11 (though there have been some near-misses).
From another review:
He wrote an award-wining article for Esquire on how American astronauts Donald Pettit and Kenneth Bowersox and Russian engineer Nikolai Budarin were stranded on the International Space Station after their ride home – the shuttle Columbia – exploded on re-entry Feb. 1, 2003. With the remaining shuttles grounded, there seemed to be no way to retrieve them. (They eventually returned aboard a Russian space capsule.)
*Exasperated sigh* No, the crew were not stranded… Inaccuracy really, really irritates me!
In the 19 March edition of The Space Review there is an article by Dwayne Day about the movie Virus – “V is for Virus, Volkov, and Vandenberg”! Turns out that the ship used in the movie was not the Academican Vladislav Volkov, «Аладемикан Владислав Вольков» (as I thought when I saw the movie screened on TV last year), but a decommissioned American missile tracking ship, the Vandenberg.
“Russian contradictions”, Taylor Dinerman, The Space Review. A typical neoconservative view of Russia’s intentions in politics (President Putin’s “vicious anti-American speech”, which can be read at Kremlin.ru, was stating a few truths and was hardly vicious), but does point out that Russia is doing quite well in its space program.
Regarding The Space Review site, Nicolas Pillet says in this forum thread, Article dans The Space Review sur le programme russe (in French) (approximate translation):
Before even reading the article, I would like simply to warn those who do not know “The Space Review” that it is an extremely “patriotic” media (I put quotation marks because actually it is necessary to include/understand “nationalist”…) It is the kind of magazine which, at the time of the war in Iraq, told off the “enemies of the freedom” which we are… I do not know any more which article it was, but once they said (one can more explicitly) Europe could not make anything in space, except for Italy which had modest experience in the construction of habitable modules… They are hardly nicer, I believe, with the “Soviets”… Then mistrust…
Taylor Dinerman seems to be one of the resident “Paranoid Patriot” writers there; articles by him (which Nicolas might have meant) include “How much international cooperation is really needed in space exploration?”, “NASA and ESA: a parting of ways?”, “Italy: seeking to maintain its political equilibrium in space”, “More international delusions”, “The French ‘non’, the Dutch ‘nee’, and their impact on Europe’s space policy”, “The European (French) response to Bush’s space strategy”. He has the typical neoconservative view of disliking Europe and its “welfare state”. (The neos wish to cut taxes, eliminate welfare, give corporations free rein and leave people to fend for themselves.)
I neglected to mention that 6 March was Valentina Tereshkova’s 70th birthday. (She is a year older than my mother!) RIA Novosti had an article about her (in Russian): «Валентина Терешкова открыла тайну, которую хранила 40 лет» (The first woman Russian cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova reveals a 40-year-old secret) – no English version, unfortunately (there is a French version which might be easier to translate). At the end of the article:
At present, Tereshkova dreams to go to Mars, “a marvelous and mysterious planet”. “I am ready to go there, perhaps never to return,” acknowledged the woman cosmonaut.
I noticed that the Soyuz Crew Operations Manual (SoyCOM) – final (258 pages) is available in the subscription-only L2 section at NASASpaceflight.com. *Covets* Seems like all the good stuff has been moved over there!
The Kliper spaceship concept is to be resubmitted to Russian Space Agency by late 2007.
Expedition 15 cosmonauts Fyodor Yurchikhin and Oleg Kotov said they would be happy to carry out a spacewalk with an appropriately-trained space tourist.
Information via Anik at NASASpaceflight.com:
New information from Sergey Shamsutdinov (one of editors of Novosti Kosmonavtiki magazine): On March 6 the Russian Main Medical Commission (GMK) has declared Konstantin Kozeev and Aleksandr Lazutkin unusable to spaceflight due to medical problems, therefore they will leave RSC Energia’s Cosmonaut Group very soon… Also the new commander for the backup Expedition 17 crew is Gennadii Padalka now (instead of Sergei Krikalyov)… And Yuri Lonchakov, not Michael Barratt, will be the commander of the backup Expedition 18 crew…
Sergei is still commanding Expedition 19/TMA-14; he does not want to train as backup as he is very busy (and knows everything, anyway!).
