[ad_1]
The failed launch of the Soyuz MS-10 space shuttle, embarking two planes in space, adds a new chapter to a long history of mishaps and failures in the Russian space industry, according to experts in space security.
The incident yesterday (11 October) was the first aborted launch of a Soyuz capsule for more than three decades. However, he points to serious underlying issues that undermine confidence in space power, said Tommaso Sgobba, president of the International Association for Space Security Development, at Space.com.
In March of this year, the Parabolic Arc website calculated that in the past 30 years, Russian launchers have failed 60 times – which represents an average of two failures per year. [In Photos: Space Station Crew’s Harrowing Abort Landing After Soyuz Launch Failure]
Among the most important fiascos of the last decade are three losses of the Progress M robotic vehicle that powers the International Space Station, two satellites of the European Galileo satellite navigation constellation placed in an incorrect orbit, and the Phobos Grunt debacle. ambitious project. The March return mission samples crashed into the Pacific Ocean two months after its launch.
The three losses of the Progress M cargo vehicle, which occurred in 2011, 2015 and 2016, were then attributable to problems related to the third phase of the Soyuz rocket. The two Galileos were stuck in an unnecessary orbit following a partial failure of Fregat's upper tier, commonly used with Russian rockets Soyuz and Zenit. Fregat was also at the origin of Phobos Grunt's inability to leave the Earth's orbit.
According to Michal Vaclavik of the Czech Republic's Space Office, a former Soviet satellite country that is now a member of the European Space Agency, the Soyuz FG rocket, used for crewed flights, is a more advanced Soyuz rocket. commonly used for launching satellites. The FG was the rocket used during the launch missed yesterday (October 11).
Since its inaugural flight in 2001, the rocket has achieved 55 launches and, with the Soyuz capsule, is the only way to transport astronauts to the International Space Station since the withdrawal of NASA's space shuttle fleet in 2011.
"Reliability is increasingly being taken into account when manufacturing equipment for manned flights," Vaclavik told Space.com. "There are more inspections during assembly, more tests."
Sgobba agrees: "When we compare the reliability of the crewed Soyuz version with that of the unmanned Soyuz version, which of course shares a number of common parts, we find that the failure rate is much higher. for the unmanned version. "
In fact, Sgobba said, the Russians have not lost cosmonauts since 1971. By comparison, the failures of NASA's space shuttle program killed 14 astronauts aboard the Challenger and Columbia orbiters in 1986 and 2003.
According to Mr Sgobba, there were several close calls to the Russians, including a launch abandonment on a launch pad in 1983 and the failure in 2008 of a Soyuz capsule back in time to part with its service module. As a result, the capsule hit the atmosphere under the wrong angle and the crew had to undergo a return to Earth much more bumpy than usual.
"If we look at the results of almost 40 years, we can consider that it is a rather reliable system," Sgobba said.
He added that he was personally more concerned about the hole that had been found in the previous Soyuz capsule – MS-09 – docked at the International Space Station this summer. Ground controllers detected a drop in air pressure inside the capsule on August 30th. Originally, officials thought that the shell of the capsule had been pierced by space debris or micrometeorite. An investigation, however, showed that the hole was probably created by the man and was created during the manufacturing process.
"What happened is not clear, but they apparently have not found it during inspections and field tests," Sgobba said.
This incident, he said, highlights a major problem: the lack of adequate quality assurance procedures in Russia's space manufacturing facilities.
"The Russians do not seem to have made the transition to modern methods of quality control," Sgobba said. "They do not seem to have proper written procedures that would prevent mistakes." The older generation of experienced engineers has retired, and there does not appear to be any systematic training of young people and procedures to deal with. to follow." "
Mr Sgobba said that emerging commercial space flight companies should learn from the history of failures in Russia and make safety management and quality control an integral part of their manufacturing practices.
"Sometimes, bureaucratic measures are needed to put in place a quality and safety policy within the company and to prevent accidents and failures," he said.
Follow us on twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook. Original article on Space.com.
[ad_2]
Source link
