Cosmonaut Yurchikhin named a possible reason for the depressurization of Progress MS-21: Manufacturing defect

Recall how events unfolded. On February 11, the Progress MS-22 spacecraft docked to the Zvezda Service Module of the ISS Russian Segment in automatic mode. It happened at 11.45 Moscow time. And already at 12.40, a liquid leak was recorded from the cooling circuit of the Progress MS-21, which had previously arrived at the ISS, docked to another module, Poisk, back in October 2022.

The story with the Soyuz MS-22 of December 15 was repeated. This, in fact, was announced late in the evening on February 11 by Sergey Krikalev, executive director for manned programs of Roscosmos. In the first case, Roscosmos concluded that the manned Soyuz was damaged by a meteor. The ship, devoid of a cooling system, it was decided to undock and try to lower to Earth without astronauts in March. For the descent of his crew – Sergey Prokopiev, Dmitry Petelin and Francisco Rubio working on the ISS, they agreed to send the unmanned Soyuz MS-23 (it is now at Baikonur and is preparing to launch on February 20).

Now, after the refrigerant again leaked out of a similar radiator of the instrument-assembly compartment (PAO), only this time in Progress, a number of experts are increasingly inclined to a different conclusion, namely, to a systemic defect in production. There has already been talk about the risk of sending a new rescue ship to the ISS.

– Fedor Nikolaevich, in December, the head of Roscosmos said that a meteor was “involved” in the damage to the Soyuz MS-22. Can the same be assumed in this case as well?

– Let’s remember how events developed with Soyuz MS-22, or rather, with versions around the state of emergency. At first, it was announced that a meteorite from the Geminid stream could be the cause of the hole in the thermal control system. Then there were statements that the Geminids had nothing to do with it. In January, there was a version about a “sporadic meteoroid”, which could be anything: from the same meteor that suddenly decided to attack a Russian ship, to a fragment of space debris. And, for some reason, no one voiced the version of a possible manufacturing defect …

– But you said in December in an interview with our newspaper that it was not only a meteorite that should be considered as a version of what happened …

– Yes, indeed, in that interview there were thoughts that the version with meteorites is not the only one, and other versions should be considered. Even then, it would be a good idea to check the version of the manufacturing defect. Now that the second radiator breakdown has happened in a row, the version of some kind of external influence, whether it be a meteorite, a “sporadic meteoroid” or just a bolt that has come off an old satellite, looks, you see, very pale. Although in life there is always a place for miracles, including unpleasant ones.

– Could provoke a leak of the docking of the Progress MS-22 spacecraft with the ISS?

– No matter how soft the docking is, in any case it is a mechanical effect. Do not forget that a cargo ship that has come into orbit weighs more than 7 tons. And yet, before drawing more or less unambiguous conclusions, I would like to ask the question again – was the question of a possible manufacturing defect in the situation with Soyuz MS-22 considered?

– Well, what if it was considered?

– Then specialists should have answers to many questions that arise in such a situation: did anything change during the time preceding the launch of Soyuz MS-22 in the production technology of PAO and, in particular, in the manufacture of thermoregulation circuits? Perhaps new equipment was used. Has the test sequence changed? How were the checks? At the same time, it is necessary to understand that new technologies and new equipment should definitely appear in production. I’m sure the experts understand this and will figure it all out.

– How could the state commission dismiss the version with a manufacturing defect?

– Shouldn’t have. But, perhaps, everyone was satisfied with the version with a meteorite? How are decisions made, how are emergency situations analyzed? These are all questions for the work of various commissions. Is it possible to process various checks to fit the desired conclusion? What is wrong with the decision-making mechanism? Perhaps the time has come to carry out MOT of the decision-making mechanism of the commission with a check of gears, oil … What am I talking about. Now we will definitely delve into production, look for the root cause there. But I am tormented by a worm of doubt – what if the causes of similar emergency situations are different? In the first case, a meteorite, in the second, a manufacturing defect. I am sure of one thing – the commission must carefully check all the versions both in the first case and in the second, no matter how fantastic they may seem. Then, in theory, additional checks of the Soyuz MS-23, which is being prepared for the launch, are possible. Time is running out.

– What if a possible other reason, other than a meteor, is still not clear to the members of the state commission? Is it dangerous to send Soyuz then?

– Just imagine: our cosmonauts have already been in space for the third (!) month without a serviceable rescue ship. We are working in time pressure. Time to make quick but right decisions.

– Well, what would you do in such a situation, if you were responsible for making a decision?

– It is necessary to continue preparing the ship for launch. Before refueling the ship and assembling it with a launch vehicle, the state commission must find out everything about the production of PAO, with regards to manufacturing technology, testing, to make sure that nothing is broken. Unfortunately, time is not on our side.

– And if it turns out that it was violated?

– Then sit down and think. If serious doubts arise in the production cycle, then it is necessary to clearly answer the questions – is it really a manufacturing defect in both cases, how quickly can we eliminate it. The launch date of the Soyuz MS-23 depends on this. We can consider the most, perhaps, fantastic option in this situation – the return of the Russian crew on the American ship “Dragon”. One thing I can say is that the members of the State Commission will have to do very difficult, painstaking work in conditions of time pressure and, most importantly, without the right to make a mistake. And the last thing – we wish good luck and patience to our guys in orbit. Everything will be fine

According to Sergei Krikalev, at present, experts are planning to examine in detail the leak on the Progress MS-21 radiator using a manipulator arm, although they say it is not very conveniently located for such an operation. However, so far this is the only way to quickly find out the cause of the breakdown. “You need to make sure that this is not a systematic error, because it can affect the following ships,” he said.

As for the emergency ship Progress MS-21, according to Roscosmos, all the cargo planned for flooding on February 18 is already in it, the passage hatch to the station is closed, and thus isolated from the total volume of the ISS. “The temperature regime and pressure on board the space station are normal, nothing threatens the life and health of the crew,” the state corporation said.