Soyuz TMA-18 Descent Module Landing Photos

[Simpo Two]

A Soyuz capsule carrying Russians Alexander Skvortsov and Mikhail Korniyenko, and NASA's Tracy Caldwell Dyson came back to Earth September 25, 2010 from the International Space Station and landed safely in Kazakhstan, a day after an initial attempt to return was aborted after latches holding the Soyuz TMA-18 craft to the orbital station failed to open.

http://cryptome.org/info/soyuz-tma18/soyuz-tma18.h...

I say: 'Oooff!'

[Eric Mc]

The touchdown isn't too bad normally. That big puff of dust is caused by a ring of small solid rocket motors which fire a split second before touchdown. They help cushion the impact.

[El Diablo]

looks like back to earth with a bump.
At least the get to play on a slide when they get out.

[Mojocvh]

Eric Mc said:

The touchdown isn't too bad normally. That big puff of dust is caused by a ring of small solid rocket motors which fire a split second before touchdown. They help cushion the impact.

It always looks bad but your right Eric.

[mrloudly]

Got to say, looking at the state of the capsule, they're brave brave folk! That chute only gets one chance, feeling that deploy/jolt has to be the best feeling in the world, well nearly :-)

[Eric Mc]

The Soyuz sapcecraft is a pretty basic affair - and a couple of times in the last few years the re-entry process has not gone according to plan. On two occasions the rear Service Module failed to separate and teh re-entry capsule had to enter the atmosphere with the huge "bin" of the Serice Module still attached. This affected the re-entry, throwing the sopacecraft off its proper re-entry path and also subjecting the heat shield to greater temperatures than it is really designed to withstand.

But it's a tough old bird and made it through.

[SkinnyBoy]

The Soyuz looks so damn cool, I love russian tech , so steampunk it hurts!

[Eric Mc]

I often wonder did H G Wells have a hand in the design.

[ktcanuck]

Mojocvh said:

Eric Mc said:

The touchdown isn't too bad normally. That big puff of dust is caused by a ring of small solid rocket motors which fire a split second before touchdown. They help cushion the impact.

It always looks bad but your right Eric.

What about Eric's right?

[TEKNOPUG]

Great Success!!

[Simpo Two]

ktcanuck said:

What about Eric's right?

Nothing; it's the left hook that's the killer.

[XB70]

They are amazingly cramped (seen them at Star City and also in TECHNIK MUSEUM SPEYER in Germany.

On one section of it is a handy picture diagram informing anyone that finds it that there are people in it, how to detach and use the unlocking tool and get the people out.

I don't have the photo to hand but akin to this:



Not on your life would you get me into that dustbin to land in some farmers field in the back of nowhere.

Reliable yes but not.a.chance

[Simpo Two]

Surely there's a way to get out from the inside, just in case they land in Nowheresville and the tracking fails?





As for Spacepunk, I give you: The Russian Lunar Lander!

[XB70]

I am guessing there is but, as the photos show, they may not always be in a condition to get out.

When you think of the mind boggling complexity of the Orbiter/Shuttle, they have been amazingly reliable.

And a lot more comfortable to travel in too!

How to land in style:

Edited by XB70 on Friday 12th November 22:30

[Eric Mc]

XB70 said:

I am guessing there is but, as the photos show, they may not always be in a condition to get out.

When you think of the mind boggling complexity of the Orbiter/Shuttle, they have been amazingly reliable.

And a lot more comfortable to travel in too!

How to land in style:

Edited by XB70 on Friday 12th November 22:30

Shuttles amazingly reliable?

[Simpo Two]

Eric Mc said:

XB70 said:

I am guessing there is but, as the photos show, they may not always be in a condition to get out.

When you think of the mind boggling complexity of the Orbiter/Shuttle, they have been amazingly reliable.

Shuttles amazingly reliable?

I suppose he means that given their mind boggling complexity, it's amazing they haven't blown up every time.

[MKnight702]

Simpo Two said:

I suppose he means that given their mind boggling complexity, it's amazing they haven't blown up every time.

Especially since they are built using the cheapest components the Government contractor can supply.

[Eric Mc]

MKnight702 said:

Simpo Two said:

I suppose he means that given their mind boggling complexity, it's amazing they haven't blown up every time.

Especially since they are built using the cheapest components the Government contractor can supply.

That applies to ALL rockets.

Shuttles have been spectacularly unreliable and even 30 years after entering service technical issues still arise with them that haven't been seen before. How many Shuttles have lifted off on the original date set for the launch?

[Cupramax]

Eric Mc said:

XB70 said:

I am guessing there is but, as the photos show, they may not always be in a condition to get out.

When you think of the mind boggling complexity of the Orbiter/Shuttle, they have been amazingly reliable.

And a lot more comfortable to travel in too!

How to land in style:

Edited by XB70 on Friday 12th November 22:30

Shuttles amazingly reliable?

Wasn't it the solid fuel booster that exploded, not the shuttle...? and wasn't the damage that caused the re-entry burnup also caused by bits falling off the booster on takeoff...

[Simpo Two]

To be fair the problems are most likely caused by the fact it's used many times. Most spacecraft only get used once, and if they're 99% buggered after that one use it doesn't matter. Trying to launch the same thing in and out of the earth's atmosphere dozens of times may just be pushing available technology too far. Maybe?