Recommended Posts

A sh**storm?

Seriously, that could ground Russian vehicles until after the investigation and put even more pressure on Dragon and getting Cygnus flying regularly. An Enhanced Cygnus (stretched, center below) is on for an Atlas V launch November 19, 2015.

Accelerate Dragon 2? Possible, but the flight abort and the IDA docking ports have to fly first.

Cygnus variants

Cygnus-Congigurations.jpg

What would happen if the next Progress fails?

I may be wrong, but I thought there was an "expiry date" for the Russian escape module (ie 200 days for systems use). Could emergency escape also be a problem as well as supply depletion. As a side note, I wonder if Dragon2, in present state of development, could be used in an extreme emergency to rescue crew should an unthinkable event occur..... :(  

Oooops..posted too soon, got DocM reply just as I posted...Cheers... 

For those that missed it, as part of the fall-out from the Progress loss the ISS crewmembers that were supposed to go home today will now be staying an additional couple of weeks untill early June.

Sounds like a weird reaction, if anything, they should leave earlier, since they now have less provisions than expected?!

 

I wonder if Dragon2, in present state of development, could be used in an extreme emergency to rescue crew should an unthinkable event occur..... :( 

As far as I understand they always have enough capsules docked to the ISS to send all the inhabitants home.

If one of them broke, perhaps an emergency solution would be in order, I don't think they have redundancy?

Anyway, the docking port for the Dragon 2 has not been installed yet, and is flying up with the next dragon (1) mission as far as I recall.

But I guess they could always just lay on the floor of the cargo dragon and hope for the best :-P

(Everything is written from memory, so a fact check might be in order, but I have to go to bed now :-P )

 

Sounds like a weird reaction, if anything, they should leave earlier, since they now have less provisions than expected?!

 

As far as I understand they always have enough capsules docked to the ISS to send all the inhabitants home.

If one of them broke, perhaps an emergency solution would be in order, I don't think they have redundancy?

Anyway, the docking port for the Dragon 2 has not been installed yet, and is flying up with the next dragon (1) mission as far as I recall.

But I guess they could always just lay on the floor of the cargo dragon and hope for the best :-P

(Everything is written from memory, so a fact check might be in order, but I have to go to bed now :-P )

 

Thank's for the reply. I went checking on a few sources. I did not know, but at one time a CRV (Crew Return Vehicle) was in the works but was cancelled when Russia paired up with the  ISS, The Soyuz TMA's were now to be used, 3 person each BUT, the capsules do have a "shelf Life" and are rotated out every 6 months due to the corrosive fuel eating tanks, among other things. It would appear to be a real problem as DocM has stated, if a multiple failure or "grounding" of craft were to occur. We definitely need alternate "sources of transport"...Cheers...

Just an amendment to my prior post, I had checked multiple sources but did not know the verification of these sources and did not include them...So with a "grain of salt", it appears that the TMA-M have life support abilities of 30 person days, and 200 day "shelf life". I assume the 30 person days would be 10 days for a 3 person crew. It appears the TMA-M can be used for evacuation with a 3.5 hour return sequence for departure. Surprisingly, there are quite a few "user manuals" available for Progress, Soyuz launchers and TMA-M from sites such as ESA, Arianespace and Russian space sources in pdf format. I have some reading to do....Sorry about the unverified sources...Cheers...

The problem is that you can't really launch new Soyuz to re-crew and serve as lifeboats during an investigation, and another loss of a Progress (or, God forbid, a Soyuz) could cause an extensive grounding.

Depending on the initial 'cause theory,' ex: a guidance or maneuvering system failure, it may even preclude the lifeboats use to return to Earth.

There's a lot of ways this could go to Hell in a handbasket.

Especially with all the static SpaceX and the other "New Generation" companies have been running into trying to get their gear certified and tested. Nobody would like the new systems to be on-line more than they would, but these things take time. Exhaustive testing, retesting, test some more, then prove to the "adults" that you know what you're doing .. it can be tedious and frustrating, but the process is as it is for a reason.

 

After all, as far as the "established space companies" are concerned (ULA, Lockheed/Martin, etc), these new companies are "the new kids" and need to prove themselves.

 

No worries, folks. Things will work out.

With the crew extension, the female record for time in space will be broken But...one TMA-M will be slightly over 200 days....I assume the engineering  safety factor will cover them.

 

Imagine the migraines when OldSpace has to deal with not only SpaceX but Blue Origin, Orbital Sciences and at least 2 other outfits flying affordable launchers.

It will be great to see all the "young guns" revolutionize space travel....Cheers.... :D

Propellant Tanks ruptured on the Soyuz Upper Stage, eh. I knew it was either a fuel/propellant rupture (tanks or lines) or flight computer failure.

 

It took an investigation to get Roscosmos to finally come clean about what happened. Shame on them. They can't not have known about that problem when it occurred.

 

Anyway, they'll find out what went wrong and deal with it. Hopefully in the future they'll be more direct and forthright. This kind of thing can (and WILL) lose business for their organization.

Yep. :( And it's likely that they use those same tanks on all Soyuz-Class craft. Those will need to be checked for integrity before installation, now. Those units that have already been installed will likely need to be removed and inspected in the same fashion.

 

Another Soyuz TMA prepped for flight in a month means that it's going through final certification for flight readiness -- so it's likely that the tanks in that one will have come from the same lot as the ones in Progress that failed. If they don't check those, and there's another failure, Roscosmos will have a massive debacle on their hands, not limited to gross negligence for using them. I truly hope they err on the side of caution, as Russian common sense dictates that they adhere to.

Yep. :( And it's likely that they use those same tanks on all Soyuz-Class craft. Those will need to be checked for integrity before installation, now. Those units that have already been installed will likely need to be removed and inspected in the same fashion.

 

Another Soyuz TMA prepped for flight in a month means that it's going through final certification for flight readiness -- so it's likely that the tanks in that one will have come from the same lot as the ones in Progress that failed. If they don't check those, and there's another failure, Roscosmos will have a massive debacle on their hands, not limited to gross negligence for using them. I truly hope they err on the side of caution, as Russian common sense dictates that they adhere to.

This link is informative...about the Progress composition...

http://www.space.com/12725-russia-progress-cargo-spacecraft-infographic.html

Progress and Soyuz-TMA use much of the same hardware to save on production time & cost. The Soyuz platform is a very flight-proven design, having flown for 30+ years and has been continually upgraded the whole time. But Roscosmos needs to be careful -- they are prudent, common-sense, and quite expert at what they do, and they don't need another accident that potentially takes the lives of three people when it could have been avoided.

 

Those tanks need to be inspected for manufacturing defects -- the entire production run of those tanks using that shipment of materials, personnel, equipment, and installation practices. They need to be absolutely certain the failure won't happen again, because human lives will depend on it. Nothing left to chance.

 

If it turns out that the Progress failure was caused by a strike from a piece of space debris (entirely possible), then the notion of cleaning up launch corridors needs to be revisited.

 

I suppose that's the point I'm trying to make.

I see what you mean. What compounds this even worse is the corrosive fuel generating the "shelf life" for "good tanks". You are right...They need to really put  emphasis on the quality control of these units and do an inspection on all tanks and processes.....cheers...

Those propellants are pretty rough on whatever they are being held in. There are stories about how nasty Hypergolics (in particular) are on storage tanks. The stuff Soyuz uses isn't nearly as extreme, but the metals are subjected to extremes of cold and pressure and become quite brittle if the alloy isn't perfect. Launch forces, not to mention the vibration itself, could easily damage and even outright shatter a tank that isn't up to specs.

 

I'd be very interested in metallurgical testing of those Progress tanks, if they can even find any that survived reentry. I'd bet a box of Twinkies that there are anomalies in the alloy's composition unrelated to reentry heating and seawater. What they CAN do, however, is take a look at the tanks whose alloy was mixed and poured into moulds the same day (preferably within a few hours) as the ones used in Progress and check for any irregularities in the alloy, as well as run full integrity checks on the tanks themselves. They'll likely reproduce the failure on the ground at that point.

 

Cheers!

Those propellants are pretty rough on whatever they are being held in. There are stories about how nasty Hypergolics (in particular) are on storage tanks. The stuff Soyuz uses isn't nearly as extreme, but the metals are subjected to extremes of cold and pressure and become quite brittle if the alloy isn't perfect. Launch forces, not to mention the vibration itself, could easily damage and even outright shatter a tank that isn't up to specs.

 

I'd be very interested in metallurgical testing of those Progress tanks, if they can even find any that survived reentry. I'd bet a box of Twinkies that there are anomalies in the alloy's composition unrelated to reentry heating and seawater. What they CAN do, however, is take a look at the tanks whose alloy was mixed and poured into moulds the same day (preferably within a few hours) as the ones used in Progress and check for any irregularities in the alloy, as well as run full integrity checks on the tanks themselves. They'll likely reproduce the failure on the ground at that point.

 

Cheers!

That would be the way to do it...similar to industrial QC and QA......You are right about the harsh environment those tanks are subjected to.... Makes you wonder about the integrity of the tanks installed on the TMA-M's on the ISS, more so as 200 days approach. I hope the Dragon V2 docking mechanism will be on CRS7...one step closer to an alternate...Cheers... 

  • 4 weeks later...

Russia just completed a surprise launch with same rocket as the Progress failure....

 

 

 

Russia has launched its Soyuz 2-1A rocket in a surprise mission from the Plesetsk cosmodrome at 15:24 UTC. The launch, using a rocket that recently failed during the Progress M-27M mission, was clouded under secrecy due to its payload, the Kobalt-M spy satellite

post-546174-0-97675200-1433662664.jpg

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
    • Usually the bigger ones with many fixes/changes take a few, theyre an exception to the rule most likely
    • If you don’t get lucky with Valve’s Steam Machine reservation system, you can make your own Steam Machine instead. Valve says that “starting with the SteamOS 3.8 release, you can put together your own Steam Machine using whatever PC parts you want.” SteamOS 3.8.10 launched last week with a slew of updates, including “improved compatibility with recent Intel and AMD platforms.” Alongside that improved compatibility, Valve is giving gamers the green light to install SteamOS on their own desktops. In an interview with The Verge, Valve’s Pierre-Loup Griffais said Valve has been “rolling out improvements to [SteamOS] so it’s more compatible with desktop hardware,” including eventual support for Nvidia graphics. Griffais says Valve has “a growing team” working on Nvidia driver support for SteamOS, adding, “We’re collaborating with Nvidia very closely.” While he mentioned that Nvidia support might not come this year, Griffais emphasized that “it’s certainly something that we’re working on in the background.”     Subscription not needed: https://archive.fo/Tssfc Subscription needed: https://www.theverge.com/games/953411/valve-steamos-desktop-nvidia
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      452
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!