24 ms·

Astronauts escape malfunctioning Soyuz rocket

830 points by farseer 8y ago

hacker_9 8y ago
It says escape, as in past tense, in the title, but is there confirmation of this? The article body seems to suggest they are still in the air?
- zaarn 8y ago
  It's still going down according to @NASA@twitter.com about 4 minutes as of this time, like in Kazakhstan, the crew is well.
- DarkCow 8y ago
  NASA TV reports that the capsule is down and the S&R team is in contact with the astronauts, who are in "good condition".
  - hacker_9 8y ago
    Phew, thankfully a good ending.
mxfh 8y ago
NASA Twitter feed has near real time updates on the developing situation: https://twitter.com/NASA https://twitter.com/NASA
Tossrock 8y ago
First the mysterious hole and now this. Quality control at Energia is looking really questionable. Commercial Crew can't get here soon enough.
- nhoss2 8y ago
  The Soyuz-FG which has been used since 2001 has had a 100% success rate till today. Seems pretty good to me.
  - Tossrock 8y ago
    I agree that the Soyuz has been very reliable historically, but two major incidents involving it within a few weeks has the appearance of a trend.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      Soyuz is literally the most reliable launch vehicle and two datapoints are not a trend. Any two datapoints form a line, ie a trend.
      - Tossrock 8y ago
        "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's not. I think it's very reasonable to want alternatives in any case.
        zaarn 8y ago
        Even with three failures I would not consider it a trend unless they are related in nature. For the current trend of "basically no failures" to go to "some failures" you'd need a couple dozen failures at minimum. The alternative is to fix whatever broke Soyuz.
        varjag 8y ago
        Russia at this point is largely deindustrialized and rapidly losing its tech know-how. The recent string of failures in space programme is only one (but certainly high profile) manifestation of it.
      - DanBC 8y ago
        > Any two datapoints form a line, ie a trend. Two datapoints are not a trend. People who use run charts (control charts,time series charts) talk about trends being a set of five points all going the same way. http://www.qihub.scot.nhs.uk/media/529936/run%20chart%20rules.pdf http://www.qihub.scot.nhs.uk/media/529936/run%20chart%20rule...
- calcifer 8y ago
  > Commercial Crew can't get here soon enough. You mean the option with 0% success rate so far is better than the one with 100% (till this incident)?
  - Tossrock 8y ago
    You're playing some weird games with numbers here. "100% if we subtract the failures" isn't 100%, and something that hasn't been tested yet doesn't really have a 0% success rate, it just doesn't have a success rate at all. I'm not saying that Commercial Crew is "better" than the Soyuz program, but I am definitely saying that after two high profile incidents within a few weeks, I am concerned about the long term viability of relying on it for human access to space.
    - gdhbcc 8y ago
      Its not unusual to remove the top and bottom outliers
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        Not a good habit in rocketry.
        zaarn 8y ago
        Even in rocketry, you just need to keep even more distance to the top and bottom of any ratings on any part than in normal engineering and put in a few redundancies in case it does fail.
        ams6110 8y ago
        We continued to fly the shuttle even after it killed 14 astronauts. By measure of total astronauts killed, it was the worst spacecraft design in history. Though not sure how it ranks in deaths per flight.
- yummybear 8y ago
  I may have heard wrong, but wasn't the purpose of the two astronauts to (among other things) investigate the hole?
  - sianns 8y ago
    Serenas?
- myth_drannon 8y ago
  I saw some articles that were blaming someone on the station for making the hole. Basically blaming an American in an attempted sabotage. I don't know if it was just sensationalist headlines or an official government stance.
  - secfirstmd 8y ago
    Why would anyone want to sabotage a spaceship they are relying on for their life?
    - myth_drannon 8y ago
      US's and Russian's modules are separate, their life systems are separate. So an emergency in one module will not impact the other. I highly doubt it happened because for sure they have camera surveillance, it's just frustratingly dumb to accuse the others in your own shortcomings.
  - codedokode 8y ago
    While that sounds wild, there is really an article in an Russian newspaper that tells, that allegedly Roskosmos was investigating whether an American astronaut could drill the hole to return home his ill collegue sooner. Here is that article, machine translated: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kommersant.ru%2Fdoc%2F3738617&edit-text=&act=url https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev...
okket 8y ago
"The Soyuz capsule has landed back on Earth carrying two crew members. Search and rescue teams are in contact with the crew and are en route to the landing location." "Search and rescue teams report they are in contact with the Soyuz crew, who report they are in good condition. The teams are en route to the landing site." https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1050316612304175104 https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1050316612304175104 Possible implications: "You can be sure Soyuz launches will be grounded indefinitely. Commercial Crew has to conduct a successful uncrewed launch next year before flying astronauts to the ISS (and no - they will not 'fast track' anything that involves crew safety)." https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1050318472859840512 https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/10503184728598405...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tfha 8y ago
  May not be what we wanted to happen, but everyone got home safely. That's a win in my book, glad the emergency systems are working as intended.
  - martin-adams 8y ago
    I agree. Knowing and trusting the fail safes is a good thing.
    - theandrewbailey 8y ago
      I guess I've watched too many movies and TV shows where "activating the failsafe" means everyone gets killed.
  - rory096 8y ago
    Worth noting: launch escape tower was jettisoned nominally moments before the failure. Escape was via the capsule separation mechanism followed by ballistic then parachute descent. If the booster had exploded, the crew would have been in extreme danger.
exDM69 8y ago
This occured minutes ago. This live stream coverage shows the failure in the end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8d9CqS2cvc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8d9CqS2cvc NASA live stream last minutes have audio track (in russian and translated to english) following the failure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDcYgYQbHg8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDcYgYQbHg8 Both streams were abruptly halted, but links work for now. Crew survived.
- modernerd 8y ago
  Timestamp of booster failure / eject seems to be 3:06:36. https://youtu.be/O8d9CqS2cvc?t=11194 https://youtu.be/O8d9CqS2cvc?t=11194
  - lstodd 8y ago
    No, that's first stage separation.
  - scoggs 8y ago
    Thanks! If you want to watch the entire take-off itself as well it starts @ 3:03:20 https://youtu.be/O8d9CqS2cvc?t=11000 https://youtu.be/O8d9CqS2cvc?t=11000
  - bulatb 8y ago
    Between 3:06 and 3:07 they're reporting first stage separation was good and the rocket is performing well. 3:07:15: The male Russian voice says "Booster failure, right? Two minutes, forty-five seconds."
    - modernerd 8y ago
      Ah! Thank you.
    - bulatb 8y ago
      Other sources are saying the problem happened at booster separation. Maybe that was the initial cause and the actual failure developed some seconds later? Not sure how to reconcile that with this audio.
mikejb 8y ago
It'll be interesting for how long this will ground the Soyuz fleet. The next scheduled Soyuz launch is Progress 71P on October 31st. I'm curious if that's going to happen, considering crewed and cargo use the same launch vehicle. There's also 3 more (unmanned) flights scheduled for Soyuz in November (MetOp C, Glonass M and EgyptSat-A) - so there might be pressure to find/"solve" the problem as quickly as possible. The next human flight is scheduled for December 20th (ISS 57S).
- mellow-lake-day 8y ago
  Maybe this incident will open up the ISS schedule to allow SpaceX to do their DM-1 test flight sooner.
  - Klathmon 8y ago
    NASA doesn't normally push timelines up like that. They aren't "holding back" SpaceX, the validation, testing, and scheduling mostly has little to do with others, and more to do with validating SpaceX alone.
    - azernik 8y ago
      The latest messaging was actually exactly this - that they had a milestone of readiness for DM-1 set for December, but that launch couldn't happen until January because of ISS docking schedule availability. It's not a big difference, but it could shave off a few weeks on the margins.
      - Klathmon 8y ago
        Thats fair! I just keep seeing a lot of comments whenever something happens about how "SpaceX might get to launch sooner", and it kinda annoys me because there's a pretty well set schedule and they aren't going to cut corners just because an opportunity arose. You are right though that scheduling might let this move up a bit.
        8y ago
vbezhenar 8y ago
Looks like diversion from competitors.
ithkuil 8y ago
I was just reading Phillip P. Peterson's Paradox - On the Brink of Eternity, which starts (mini spoiler alert) with an adventure with a Soyuz module, so when I read this news for a moment I though I was still dreaming after having fell asleep on the book.
freddier 8y ago
Does this mean we're out of options to get humans to the ISS? SLS is nowhere near, Dragon is coming next year. Soyuz has been extremely reliable but with two incidents they'll surely ground flights for a while. Is there any other option?
- imdsm 8y ago
  Perhaps this means the priority of SpaceX manned flights will be pushed up. We could end up seeing this much sooner.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rtkwe 8y ago
    They already said they won't rush anything because that's just as dangerous as using the Soyuz again before figuring out the reason for the failure. That said this does open up a visiting vehicle slot that Dragon could use for their unmanned test flight. That'd only push it up about a month though compared to their current estimate and would require SpaceX to be ready to launch earlier than planned.
- makerofspoons 8y ago
  SLS will likely never service the ISS if it flies- it is designed for deep space missions and constructing the Deep Space Gateway station in cislunar orbit. Orion also is not ready for use, and even if it was it has only been flown on the Delta IV which is not human-rated. One other option is the Boeing CST-100, however after its engine test failure this last summer it likely won't fly this year either. But like Dragon it is thought to be almost ready.
TomK32 8y ago
With the holed one docked to the ISS that no one is keen to de-orbit with and this flight having one crew less they are getting into some situation now. I guess they could send Soyuz MS-11 without crew so the current ISS crew has a more reliable craft for their own return.
- 24gttghh 8y ago
  The hole in [the orbital module of] the docked Soyuz is on the part that is jettisoned before re-entry. "The orbital module is a spherical portion of the Soyuz that allows more gear to go up with the spacecraft. Unlike the lower crew capsule, the orbital module does not survive re-entry into Earth's atmosphere."[0] [0]https://www.space.com/41738-soyuz-spacecraft-air-leak-hole-origin-report.html https://www.space.com/41738-soyuz-spacecraft-air-leak-hole-o...
interfixus 8y ago
Some Gell-Mann amnesia urgently required. A local paper headlines that "*a rocket with two astronauts has made emergency landing". Same media house which some years ago told me that the Voyager spacecraft was provided with "a radioactive fuel ensuring continual thrust".
wiz21c 8y ago
FTA : >>> The crew had to return in "ballistic descent mode", Nasa tweeted, which it explained was "a sharper angle of landing compared to normal". is it me or is it a very diplomatic qay to sell : "fallen vertically" ?
- hacker_9 8y ago
  Yep. 8g's apparently.
  - dmurray 8y ago
    The part when they are falling is only at an acceleration of 1g (that's what falling is). If they experienced 8g acceleration, it was before the ballistic part of the descent.
    - larkeith 8y ago
      8g was probably from the parachutes deploying, although you do experience very slightly more than 1g acceleration while in freefall, as you encounter increasing air resistance (and significantly more in reentry).
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        I suspect the high G period is mostly when the escape rocket fires. edit: Never mind. Chris Hadfield says it's hitting the atmosphere. https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/1050385343625740289 https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/1050385343625740289
        rpeden 8y ago
        Although that didn't happen this time - the escape rocket had already been jettisoned before the failure occurred.
        JshWright 8y ago
        The high g period was then they ran into the thicker part of the atmosphere at faster than terminal velocity (so the deceleration caused by the air is what led to the g forces).
sample2448 8y ago
Good to know astronauts are alive, I just hope spacex gets to launch manned missions sooner, roskosmos is abysmal nowdays
supahfly_remix 8y ago
It's amazing that the escape mechanisms worked, though we have yet to see the crew's conditions. I thought these mechanisms were only put in place to put people at ease but were never actually going to work (kind of like how the seats in commercial jets serve as flotation devices but how likely are they to be used in most flights).
- nolok 8y ago
  Wasn't this Soyuz escape mechanism already triggered in 1975 ?
  - piva00 8y ago
    I think it was in 1983 but not the same mechanism, it was the Launch Escape System, this time (as far as I've read in the news) it was a failure of a stage that put the capsule in a ballistic trajectory instead of in orbit.
    - azernik 8y ago
      The LES is the only way the capsule can separate from a malfunctioning booster. That activation happened to be on the ground, so the ballistic trajectory was rather short and dominated by the velocity the LES itself imparted; but activate it for an in-flight failure like this one and you will be off on a more substantial suborbital trajectory.
      - rory096 8y ago
        This is false. LES tower jettison was prior to the failure today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIxkVAXPYPc&t=134 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIxkVAXPYPc&t=134
        maxxxxx 8y ago
        It sounds like you are right.
        8y ago
acoye 8y ago
This video has the crew audio with a translator. It amazes me that the telemetry is faked (all is good and well), yet the audio is legit. https://youtu.be/c0l5QBmqQoI?t=271 https://youtu.be/c0l5QBmqQoI?t=271
- mikejb 8y ago
  On one hand, it's indeed odd to hear that shit's on fire whilst the screen shows an all happy scenario; On the other hand, it's the cheaper way of doing things - instead of having to live-render the spacecraft and all telemetry that you need to get from a probably isolated system, just play a video. Trajectory and events are predetermined, so unless something goes wrong, the video is fully sufficient. I'm reminded a bit of the moment when I learned that the action movie heroes are just actors.
  - acoye 8y ago
    I do agree on the cheap and pragmatic approach, yet they could display actual telemetry over the 3d render. Speeds do not match reality in graphs. It is not a movie but Science to me here. I'd love to hear from a SpaceX engineer if their webcasts indeed shows live telemetry (speed / altitude) or not. Also SpaceX's webcasts illustrations looks like they run in a game engine which is both cheap and highly customizable with input data.
    - mikejb 8y ago
      Yes, SpaceX puts a lot more effort into the webcasts. I don't know if their telemetry is live or precomputed (though it is likely live, see below) - but the fact that they show live feed of the rocket rather than a simulation (except for Stage 2 coasting periods where they render the spacecrafts' orbit) already gives the entire display a different feel. (At this point it's also important to note that this live feed got them into trouble once [1]). I also agree with your sentiment that the movie removes a bit of the scientific aspect. Insert here a good 30 minutes spent on watching launch footage and writing down numbers Ok, at this point I'm deep in looking at launch footage, and I'm more disappointed by the Soyuz launch footage. Whilst it's possible that they followed the exact same launch trajectory (on paper and reality), it's unlikely: MS-08 [2] and MS-09 [3] had the exact same speed, altitude and downrange distance throughout the time telemetry was visible. In contrast, SpaceX showed very different telemetry during launches to the ISS ([4], [5], [6]). Also, it doesn't seem pre-computed: The telemetry during the CRS-7 webcast [7] at least doesn't just continue when the rocket explodes, indicating that it doesn't just display pre-computed numbers. In Soyuz' defense: They probably have a different (older?) system to get telemetry, and it might bear additional challenges to feed them into a publicly accessible live-stream. [1] https://www.space.com/40153-spacex-launch-video-noaa-restrictions.html https://www.space.com/40153-spacex-launch-video-noaa-restric... [2] https://youtu.be/iDebCdDHHpg?t=365 https://youtu.be/iDebCdDHHpg?t=365 [3] https://youtu.be/00uftjSjcnk?t=364 https://youtu.be/00uftjSjcnk?t=364 [4] https://youtu.be/C_Gmgj3N_Z0?t=1270 https://youtu.be/C_Gmgj3N_Z0?t=1270 [5] https://youtu.be/FCCyVCvN2bo?t=1179 https://youtu.be/FCCyVCvN2bo?t=1179 [6] https://youtu.be/rUDLxFUMC9c?t=1036 https://youtu.be/rUDLxFUMC9c?t=1036 [7] https://youtu.be/JYFLoTgO-xQ?t=1286 https://youtu.be/JYFLoTgO-xQ?t=1286
sAbakumoff 8y ago
Hmm...it's the 2nd emergency situation with Russian Soyuz happened within ±1 month. is there anything SpaceX can do to safely deliver austonauts in ISS?
- imandride 8y ago
  Add an emergency escape system.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    SpaceX's crewed Dragon is the escape system. It's built into the capsule, and has been successfully tested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8 The BFR, to my knowledge, lacks one. Not sure if Musk has commented on that; I'd imagine his likely argument is that airliners don't either.
- sAbakumoff 8y ago
  Hmmm...I am really confused...why it has been downvoted?
latchkey 8y ago
The footage inside: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/inside-soyuz-capsule_uk_5bbf2083e4b0b27cf47adfe1 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/inside-soyuz-capsule_...
ashelmire 8y ago
Ballistic descent mode is an interesting euphemism for falling like a rock. The US really needs to invest more in our own infrastructure and astronaut delivery system.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  It's supposed to fall like a rock. The difference is the angle, not the fundamental method.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  A rock with parachutes, FWIW.
  - rMVxV3YwoF 8y ago
    Parachutes deploy when descent is almost over, not when you experience 8g.
- xvf22 8y ago
  I wonder how badly a descent like that would beat you up. Seems pretty violent but it's certainly better than dead.
- zaarn 8y ago
  The crucial difference is that (IIRC) in ballistic descent you don't angle the craft to gain altitude and prolong reentry. Normally you'd slightly angle the craft downwards or upwards to alter the trajectory in the air, during reentry this allows you to stay longer at high altitudes and burn off more speed before you burn it at lower altitudes (literally). The shape of the craft not being a wing is largely irrelevant, with sufficient speed even a brick can fly.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    Yes, ballistic here apparently means without propulsion, and without generating lift (only drag).
Separo 8y ago
It's worrying that there isn't an escape system on SpaceX BFR.
- ygra 8y ago
  The rocket doesn't need one. The spaceship does. But considering that the whole thing gets redesigned every two months I wouldn't worry too much. It's still years from flying, so plenty of time to change stuff.
- kitsunesoba 8y ago
  Escape on BFR will likely be similar to escape with Falcon 9/Crew Dragon: that is, BFS itself has more than enough thrust to very quickly distance itself from a failing BFB, and it would probably be able to land itself on a nearby but safely distant emergency landing pad. Now an argument can be made that BFS needs an escape pod or two, but those would mostly be useful in circumstances other than failure during launch. (For those unfamiliar, BFB = Big Falcon Booster, BFS = Big Falcon Ship. BFR is both working in unison)
- InclinedPlane 8y ago
  The escape system used here and on a previous Soyuz abort in 1975 didn't use the LES, it used the Soyuz spacecraft's own engines, a very similar abort mode to what the BFR would use.
PuffinBlue 8y ago
This footage appears to show the the Launch Escape System striking the booster as it separates: https://youtu.be/sE4BSAcQCfo https://youtu.be/sE4BSAcQCfo
- cpv 8y ago
  Those might be the boosters separating. And probably a small explosion, or just the gases from the separation. Edit: the boosters separated, and due to failure it might activated the escape capsule.
r721 8y ago
>Crew now in helicopters and heading back to the launch site, not Moscow. Nick will be picked up by NASA and flown to the States. https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1050343263163600896 https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/10503432631636008... UPD Crew photos: https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1050351423022669825 https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1050351423022669825
- mikejb 8y ago
  It's sad to see them so disappointed! They were lucky as fuck considering that the incident happened approximately when the escape tower gets jettisoned (i.e. it wouldn't have been an option even if the booster RUDs), but I'd probably disappointed as well when I'm planning on getting the most amazing views possible for months, but get a short high-force roller coaster ride instead.
  - dba7dba 8y ago
    They are indeed lucky and unlucky AF. Lucky to be alive after such an incident. Unlucky to have gotten on top of a Soyuz rocket system that failed, when it's been proven to be so incredibly reliable all these years.
avaika 8y ago
TIL: every start is blessed by Orthodox Priest (what? :) ). They claim that only the capsules they didn't bless might crash. The very this capsule was blessed [1]. So the Russian Church might have a hard time to explain how the crash happened :) [1]: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1049897639393861632 https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1049897639393861632
- yread 8y ago
  well the capsule itself worked fine!
- fapjacks 8y ago
  Hey, so... Orthodox priests bless literally everything. It's so common for them to bless things like rifles, tanks, parachutes, liquor, et cetera, that it's kind of an in-joke in Orthodox cultures and regions. But you go look online and you'll see them blessing I mean literally everything.
  - r721 8y ago
    Examples: Orthodox Priests Blessing Things https://twitter.com/blagoslovie https://twitter.com/blagoslovie
  - gambiting 8y ago
    It's not just orthodox church either.....in Poland it's extremely common for Roman Catholic priests to be invited to military and government events to bless things too.
    - vectorEQ 8y ago
      this just makes me think of scene from life of brian :') blessed be the cheesemakers
- hazz99 8y ago
  Or maybe the blessing is why they survived ;)
TickleSteve 8y ago
"ballistic descent mode" == "falling".
wmblaettler 8y ago
A little more footage from moments before the failure of the booster which happens sometime between 3m39 and 4m39s in the video, listen to the Russian comms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0l5QBmqQoI&t=3m38s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0l5QBmqQoI&t=3m38s
johndill 8y ago
I'm gonna need a new spacesuit
mar77i 8y ago
Long ago I watched this video that describes Soyuz reentry. I thought it was cool at the time, and I think it really gives context to the occasion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII
- Latteland 8y ago
  That's a great video. Around the 14 minute and 40 second point they discuss briefly ballistic return but they don't really put any details. A few minutes before that they do talk about the return. That's actually the best video I've ever seen about the specifics of returning from space. Thank you so much.
larkeith 8y ago
Does "ballistic descent mode" mean that the braking thrusters were inoperable, or just that the launch escape system was not in use?
- sathackr 8y ago
  It means that the angle of descent of the capsule was much greater, so they encountered thicker atmosphere quicker than ideal, causing greater decelleration forces on the capsule than they would normally experience.
- Symmetry 8y ago
  A Soyuz only fires thrusters twice during descent. Once to go from orbit to re-entry and once immediately before impact to provide a gentler landing. During descent it normally generates a bit of lift from positioning a weight inside the crew capsule which makes the CoM off center which makes the descent not-quite-ballistic. I imagine the phrase refers to that not happening here.
AdverseAffect 8y ago
> There is already much discussion about the current state of Russian industry and its ability to maintain the standards of yesteryear. Whatever the outcome of the inquiry, this event will only heighten those concerns and will underline to the US in particular the need to bring online new rocket systems. These vehicles, produced by the Boeing and SpaceX companies, are set to make their debut next year. Is it just me, or is this unnecessarily hostile writing? This is literally rocket science, and the escape mechanisms seem to have worked perfectly. And at least the Russians do have (had) a working way to get stuff to iss, so I don't think these (uncited!) accusations are called for
- erazor42 8y ago
  BBC article, UK is not exactly best friend with Russia. (cf. Skripal stuff)
  - vasili111 8y ago
    Does Russia has any friend?
    - gdy 8y ago
      Yes, oil and gas, err, I meant fleet and army.
  - Koshkin 8y ago
    “Great Britain has no friends, only interests."
- sschueller 8y ago
  I agree, the writing seems quite hostile. Everything get politicized immediately nowadays which is quite sad.
  - gameswithgo 8y ago
    Sir, there was nothing political about the quoted paragraph assuming that it is accurate that the industry have been discussing russian space reliability. In fact it would be you who has politicized it now.
andyjohnson0 8y ago
I've seen multiple reports that the crew's first indication of a problem was that they felt weightless and that objects in the cabin were floating. Maybe there was also an instrumentation-based warning for the crew or ground, but it's odd that nobody is mentioning it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
SpikeDad 8y ago
Didn't even make any news sources that I've seen. 8-(
glenrivard 8y ago
I did not even realize this was possible.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
Presumably this will push up the schedule for the live abort tests for the SpaceX and Boeing systems. That would appear to be the "nut" in the schedule before those systems become operational. Of course there is still a Soyuz attached to the Space Station and it can return the crew, but that that would leave the station unmanned. Not something it is really designed for as I understand it. And even before that drastic call is made we can still send supplies up so it isn't like they would be in danger of running out of stuff. Personally I'm very impressed with the reliability of the Soyuz system. Still I would love to have Boeing and SpaceX get certified sooner rather than later.
- walkingolof 8y ago
  >Personally I'm very impressed with the reliability of the Soyuz system. I was surprised to learn that the abort was performed manually by the Cosmonaut and that it happened after the escape tower had been jettison. They apparently used the "RUS" system that is using thrusters on the fairing.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    I wasn't able to find hardly any information about the post-escape-tower-jettisoning abort mechanism. Do you know somewhere I can read about it?
- InclinedPlane 8y ago
  It could go either way actually, depending on how people feel about potential outcomes. Things could be pushed up a bit to try to accelerate getting new crew rotation capabilities in place. Or things could be pushed back to avoid extra workload and pressure on a short-staffed station.
- rst 8y ago
  Rescheduling the SpaceX in-flight abort test would be tricky; they were planning to reuse the Dragon capsule from the uncrewed test flight, which also hasn't happened yet. (Boeing does not have an in-flight abort test scheduled at all, but they have a ground abort test pending, in addition to their uncrewed test flight -- and they otherwise seem to be further behind than SpaceX.)
avmich 8y ago
I want to remind everybody that Soyuz spacecraft - including the one with the famous drilled hole in the orbital module - is manufactured in Energiya, Korolev - about an hour drive from Moscow. The Soyuz-FG rocket - the one used and malfunctioned in today's launch - is manufactured by Progress in Samara, a major industrial center on Volga river, about 17 hours by rail from Moscow. Rocket design is traced back to Energiya historically, but Progress was making them last 40+ years. Soyuz-FG is planned to be replaced with modified version of the rocket, Soyuz-2. Soyuz-2 is already used for launches of unmanned supply ship, Progress. Yes, I know, a lot of similar names makes things confusing.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mito88 8y ago
Everytime an article mentions ISS my brain immediately parses ISIS... :)
supergirl 8y ago
everyone that thinks spacex will transport people soon is naive / drunk on hype. they are at least 5 years away from flying humans in space. depends on how many test flights they can do. you just can’t rush this. it is one domain where “move fast break things” is a bad idea.
djohnston 8y ago
"The malfunction became apparent about 90 seconds into the flight" Shows 90 second video I am annoyed..
kolderman 8y ago
Why is this a bad thing? A working abort system is a very good thing. Rockets fail.
alberteinstein 8y ago
The system with worst or no abort procedures is the Space Shuttle. Earlier versions had ejection seats, but they got rid of that. Imagine if they had Soyuz like capsule which can popped off. Both Challenger and Discovery crew would have been ok. No wonder they discontinued that program.
magwa101 8y ago
Why are we doing this with Russia?

830 points by farseer 8y ago

It says escape, as in past tense, in the title, but is there confirmation of this? The article body seems to suggest they are still in the air?

zaarn 8y ago
It's still going down according to @NASA@twitter.com about 4 minutes as of this time, like in Kazakhstan, the crew is well.
DarkCow 8y ago
NASA TV reports that the capsule is down and the S&R team is in contact with the astronauts, who are in "good condition".
- hacker_9 8y ago
  Phew, thankfully a good ending.

mxfh 8y ago

NASA Twitter feed has near real time updates on the developing situation: https://twitter.com/NASA https://twitter.com/NASA

Tossrock 8y ago

First the mysterious hole and now this. Quality control at Energia is looking really questionable. Commercial Crew can't get here soon enough.

nhoss2 8y ago
The Soyuz-FG which has been used since 2001 has had a 100% success rate till today. Seems pretty good to me.
- Tossrock 8y ago
  I agree that the Soyuz has been very reliable historically, but two major incidents involving it within a few weeks has the appearance of a trend.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    Soyuz is literally the most reliable launch vehicle and two datapoints are not a trend. Any two datapoints form a line, ie a trend.
    - Tossrock 8y ago
      "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action." Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it's not. I think it's very reasonable to want alternatives in any case.
      - zaarn 8y ago
        Even with three failures I would not consider it a trend unless they are related in nature. For the current trend of "basically no failures" to go to "some failures" you'd need a couple dozen failures at minimum. The alternative is to fix whatever broke Soyuz.
      - varjag 8y ago
        Russia at this point is largely deindustrialized and rapidly losing its tech know-how. The recent string of failures in space programme is only one (but certainly high profile) manifestation of it.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      > Any two datapoints form a line, ie a trend. Two datapoints are not a trend. People who use run charts (control charts,time series charts) talk about trends being a set of five points all going the same way. http://www.qihub.scot.nhs.uk/media/529936/run%20chart%20rules.pdf http://www.qihub.scot.nhs.uk/media/529936/run%20chart%20rule...
calcifer 8y ago
> Commercial Crew can't get here soon enough. You mean the option with 0% success rate so far is better than the one with 100% (till this incident)?
- Tossrock 8y ago
  You're playing some weird games with numbers here. "100% if we subtract the failures" isn't 100%, and something that hasn't been tested yet doesn't really have a 0% success rate, it just doesn't have a success rate at all. I'm not saying that Commercial Crew is "better" than the Soyuz program, but I am definitely saying that after two high profile incidents within a few weeks, I am concerned about the long term viability of relying on it for human access to space.
  - gdhbcc 8y ago
    Its not unusual to remove the top and bottom outliers
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Not a good habit in rocketry.
      - zaarn 8y ago
        Even in rocketry, you just need to keep even more distance to the top and bottom of any ratings on any part than in normal engineering and put in a few redundancies in case it does fail.
      - ams6110 8y ago
        We continued to fly the shuttle even after it killed 14 astronauts. By measure of total astronauts killed, it was the worst spacecraft design in history. Though not sure how it ranks in deaths per flight.
yummybear 8y ago
I may have heard wrong, but wasn't the purpose of the two astronauts to (among other things) investigate the hole?
- sianns 8y ago
  Serenas?
myth_drannon 8y ago
I saw some articles that were blaming someone on the station for making the hole. Basically blaming an American in an attempted sabotage. I don't know if it was just sensationalist headlines or an official government stance.
- secfirstmd 8y ago
  Why would anyone want to sabotage a spaceship they are relying on for their life?
  - myth_drannon 8y ago
    US's and Russian's modules are separate, their life systems are separate. So an emergency in one module will not impact the other. I highly doubt it happened because for sure they have camera surveillance, it's just frustratingly dumb to accuse the others in your own shortcomings.
- codedokode 8y ago
  While that sounds wild, there is really an article in an Russian newspaper that tells, that allegedly Roskosmos was investigating whether an American astronaut could drill the hole to return home his ill collegue sooner. Here is that article, machine translated: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kommersant.ru%2Fdoc%2F3738617&edit-text=&act=url https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev...

okket 8y ago

"The Soyuz capsule has landed back on Earth carrying two crew members. Search and rescue teams are in contact with the crew and are en route to the landing location." "Search and rescue teams report they are in contact with the Soyuz crew, who report they are in good condition. The teams are en route to the landing site." https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1050316612304175104 https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1050316612304175104 Possible implications: "You can be sure Soyuz launches will be grounded indefinitely. Commercial Crew has to conduct a successful uncrewed launch next year before flying astronauts to the ISS (and no - they will not 'fast track' anything that involves crew safety)." https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1050318472859840512 https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/10503184728598405...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tfha 8y ago
May not be what we wanted to happen, but everyone got home safely. That's a win in my book, glad the emergency systems are working as intended.
- martin-adams 8y ago
  I agree. Knowing and trusting the fail safes is a good thing.
  - theandrewbailey 8y ago
    I guess I've watched too many movies and TV shows where "activating the failsafe" means everyone gets killed.
- rory096 8y ago
  Worth noting: launch escape tower was jettisoned nominally moments before the failure. Escape was via the capsule separation mechanism followed by ballistic then parachute descent. If the booster had exploded, the crew would have been in extreme danger.

exDM69 8y ago

This occured minutes ago. This live stream coverage shows the failure in the end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8d9CqS2cvc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8d9CqS2cvc NASA live stream last minutes have audio track (in russian and translated to english) following the failure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDcYgYQbHg8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDcYgYQbHg8 Both streams were abruptly halted, but links work for now. Crew survived.

modernerd 8y ago
Timestamp of booster failure / eject seems to be 3:06:36. https://youtu.be/O8d9CqS2cvc?t=11194 https://youtu.be/O8d9CqS2cvc?t=11194
- lstodd 8y ago
  No, that's first stage separation.
- scoggs 8y ago
  Thanks! If you want to watch the entire take-off itself as well it starts @ 3:03:20 https://youtu.be/O8d9CqS2cvc?t=11000 https://youtu.be/O8d9CqS2cvc?t=11000
- bulatb 8y ago
  Between 3:06 and 3:07 they're reporting first stage separation was good and the rocket is performing well. 3:07:15: The male Russian voice says "Booster failure, right? Two minutes, forty-five seconds."
  - modernerd 8y ago
    Ah! Thank you.
  - bulatb 8y ago
    Other sources are saying the problem happened at booster separation. Maybe that was the initial cause and the actual failure developed some seconds later? Not sure how to reconcile that with this audio.

mikejb 8y ago

It'll be interesting for how long this will ground the Soyuz fleet. The next scheduled Soyuz launch is Progress 71P on October 31st. I'm curious if that's going to happen, considering crewed and cargo use the same launch vehicle. There's also 3 more (unmanned) flights scheduled for Soyuz in November (MetOp C, Glonass M and EgyptSat-A) - so there might be pressure to find/"solve" the problem as quickly as possible. The next human flight is scheduled for December 20th (ISS 57S).

mellow-lake-day 8y ago
Maybe this incident will open up the ISS schedule to allow SpaceX to do their DM-1 test flight sooner.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  NASA doesn't normally push timelines up like that. They aren't "holding back" SpaceX, the validation, testing, and scheduling mostly has little to do with others, and more to do with validating SpaceX alone.
  - azernik 8y ago
    The latest messaging was actually exactly this - that they had a milestone of readiness for DM-1 set for December, but that launch couldn't happen until January because of ISS docking schedule availability. It's not a big difference, but it could shave off a few weeks on the margins.
    - Klathmon 8y ago
      Thats fair! I just keep seeing a lot of comments whenever something happens about how "SpaceX might get to launch sooner", and it kinda annoys me because there's a pretty well set schedule and they aren't going to cut corners just because an opportunity arose. You are right though that scheduling might let this move up a bit.
      - 8y ago

vbezhenar 8y ago

Looks like diversion from competitors.

ithkuil 8y ago

I was just reading Phillip P. Peterson's Paradox - On the Brink of Eternity, which starts (mini spoiler alert) with an adventure with a Soyuz module, so when I read this news for a moment I though I was still dreaming after having fell asleep on the book.

freddier 8y ago

Does this mean we're out of options to get humans to the ISS? SLS is nowhere near, Dragon is coming next year. Soyuz has been extremely reliable but with two incidents they'll surely ground flights for a while. Is there any other option?

imdsm 8y ago
Perhaps this means the priority of SpaceX manned flights will be pushed up. We could end up seeing this much sooner.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rtkwe 8y ago
  They already said they won't rush anything because that's just as dangerous as using the Soyuz again before figuring out the reason for the failure. That said this does open up a visiting vehicle slot that Dragon could use for their unmanned test flight. That'd only push it up about a month though compared to their current estimate and would require SpaceX to be ready to launch earlier than planned.
makerofspoons 8y ago
SLS will likely never service the ISS if it flies- it is designed for deep space missions and constructing the Deep Space Gateway station in cislunar orbit. Orion also is not ready for use, and even if it was it has only been flown on the Delta IV which is not human-rated. One other option is the Boeing CST-100, however after its engine test failure this last summer it likely won't fly this year either. But like Dragon it is thought to be almost ready.

TomK32 8y ago

With the holed one docked to the ISS that no one is keen to de-orbit with and this flight having one crew less they are getting into some situation now. I guess they could send Soyuz MS-11 without crew so the current ISS crew has a more reliable craft for their own return.

24gttghh 8y ago
The hole in [the orbital module of] the docked Soyuz is on the part that is jettisoned before re-entry. "The orbital module is a spherical portion of the Soyuz that allows more gear to go up with the spacecraft. Unlike the lower crew capsule, the orbital module does not survive re-entry into Earth's atmosphere."[0] [0]https://www.space.com/41738-soyuz-spacecraft-air-leak-hole-origin-report.html https://www.space.com/41738-soyuz-spacecraft-air-leak-hole-o...

interfixus 8y ago

Some Gell-Mann amnesia urgently required. A local paper headlines that "*a rocket with two astronauts has made emergency landing". Same media house which some years ago told me that the Voyager spacecraft was provided with "a radioactive fuel ensuring continual thrust".

wiz21c 8y ago

FTA : >>> The crew had to return in "ballistic descent mode", Nasa tweeted, which it explained was "a sharper angle of landing compared to normal". is it me or is it a very diplomatic qay to sell : "fallen vertically" ?

hacker_9 8y ago
Yep. 8g's apparently.
- dmurray 8y ago
  The part when they are falling is only at an acceleration of 1g (that's what falling is). If they experienced 8g acceleration, it was before the ballistic part of the descent.
  - larkeith 8y ago
    8g was probably from the parachutes deploying, although you do experience very slightly more than 1g acceleration while in freefall, as you encounter increasing air resistance (and significantly more in reentry).
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      I suspect the high G period is mostly when the escape rocket fires. edit: Never mind. Chris Hadfield says it's hitting the atmosphere. https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/1050385343625740289 https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/1050385343625740289
      - rpeden 8y ago
        Although that didn't happen this time - the escape rocket had already been jettisoned before the failure occurred.
      - JshWright 8y ago
        The high g period was then they ran into the thicker part of the atmosphere at faster than terminal velocity (so the deceleration caused by the air is what led to the g forces).

sample2448 8y ago

Good to know astronauts are alive, I just hope spacex gets to launch manned missions sooner, roskosmos is abysmal nowdays

supahfly_remix 8y ago

It's amazing that the escape mechanisms worked, though we have yet to see the crew's conditions. I thought these mechanisms were only put in place to put people at ease but were never actually going to work (kind of like how the seats in commercial jets serve as flotation devices but how likely are they to be used in most flights).

nolok 8y ago
Wasn't this Soyuz escape mechanism already triggered in 1975 ?
- piva00 8y ago
  I think it was in 1983 but not the same mechanism, it was the Launch Escape System, this time (as far as I've read in the news) it was a failure of a stage that put the capsule in a ballistic trajectory instead of in orbit.
  - azernik 8y ago
    The LES is the only way the capsule can separate from a malfunctioning booster. That activation happened to be on the ground, so the ballistic trajectory was rather short and dominated by the velocity the LES itself imparted; but activate it for an in-flight failure like this one and you will be off on a more substantial suborbital trajectory.
    - rory096 8y ago
      This is false. LES tower jettison was prior to the failure today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIxkVAXPYPc&t=134 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIxkVAXPYPc&t=134
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        It sounds like you are right.
      - 8y ago

acoye 8y ago

This video has the crew audio with a translator. It amazes me that the telemetry is faked (all is good and well), yet the audio is legit. https://youtu.be/c0l5QBmqQoI?t=271 https://youtu.be/c0l5QBmqQoI?t=271

mikejb 8y ago
On one hand, it's indeed odd to hear that shit's on fire whilst the screen shows an all happy scenario; On the other hand, it's the cheaper way of doing things - instead of having to live-render the spacecraft and all telemetry that you need to get from a probably isolated system, just play a video. Trajectory and events are predetermined, so unless something goes wrong, the video is fully sufficient. I'm reminded a bit of the moment when I learned that the action movie heroes are just actors.
- acoye 8y ago
  I do agree on the cheap and pragmatic approach, yet they could display actual telemetry over the 3d render. Speeds do not match reality in graphs. It is not a movie but Science to me here. I'd love to hear from a SpaceX engineer if their webcasts indeed shows live telemetry (speed / altitude) or not. Also SpaceX's webcasts illustrations looks like they run in a game engine which is both cheap and highly customizable with input data.
  - mikejb 8y ago
    Yes, SpaceX puts a lot more effort into the webcasts. I don't know if their telemetry is live or precomputed (though it is likely live, see below) - but the fact that they show live feed of the rocket rather than a simulation (except for Stage 2 coasting periods where they render the spacecrafts' orbit) already gives the entire display a different feel. (At this point it's also important to note that this live feed got them into trouble once [1]). I also agree with your sentiment that the movie removes a bit of the scientific aspect. Insert here a good 30 minutes spent on watching launch footage and writing down numbers Ok, at this point I'm deep in looking at launch footage, and I'm more disappointed by the Soyuz launch footage. Whilst it's possible that they followed the exact same launch trajectory (on paper and reality), it's unlikely: MS-08 [2] and MS-09 [3] had the exact same speed, altitude and downrange distance throughout the time telemetry was visible. In contrast, SpaceX showed very different telemetry during launches to the ISS ([4], [5], [6]). Also, it doesn't seem pre-computed: The telemetry during the CRS-7 webcast [7] at least doesn't just continue when the rocket explodes, indicating that it doesn't just display pre-computed numbers. In Soyuz' defense: They probably have a different (older?) system to get telemetry, and it might bear additional challenges to feed them into a publicly accessible live-stream. [1] https://www.space.com/40153-spacex-launch-video-noaa-restrictions.html https://www.space.com/40153-spacex-launch-video-noaa-restric... [2] https://youtu.be/iDebCdDHHpg?t=365 https://youtu.be/iDebCdDHHpg?t=365 [3] https://youtu.be/00uftjSjcnk?t=364 https://youtu.be/00uftjSjcnk?t=364 [4] https://youtu.be/C_Gmgj3N_Z0?t=1270 https://youtu.be/C_Gmgj3N_Z0?t=1270 [5] https://youtu.be/FCCyVCvN2bo?t=1179 https://youtu.be/FCCyVCvN2bo?t=1179 [6] https://youtu.be/rUDLxFUMC9c?t=1036 https://youtu.be/rUDLxFUMC9c?t=1036 [7] https://youtu.be/JYFLoTgO-xQ?t=1286 https://youtu.be/JYFLoTgO-xQ?t=1286

sAbakumoff 8y ago

Hmm...it's the 2nd emergency situation with Russian Soyuz happened within ±1 month. is there anything SpaceX can do to safely deliver austonauts in ISS?

imandride 8y ago
Add an emergency escape system.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  SpaceX's crewed Dragon is the escape system. It's built into the capsule, and has been successfully tested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8 The BFR, to my knowledge, lacks one. Not sure if Musk has commented on that; I'd imagine his likely argument is that airliners don't either.
sAbakumoff 8y ago
Hmmm...I am really confused...why it has been downvoted?

latchkey 8y ago

The footage inside: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/inside-soyuz-capsule_uk_5bbf2083e4b0b27cf47adfe1 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/inside-soyuz-capsule_...

ashelmire 8y ago

Ballistic descent mode is an interesting euphemism for falling like a rock. The US really needs to invest more in our own infrastructure and astronaut delivery system.

Dylan16807 8y ago
It's supposed to fall like a rock. The difference is the angle, not the fundamental method.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
A rock with parachutes, FWIW.
- rMVxV3YwoF 8y ago
  Parachutes deploy when descent is almost over, not when you experience 8g.
xvf22 8y ago
I wonder how badly a descent like that would beat you up. Seems pretty violent but it's certainly better than dead.
zaarn 8y ago
The crucial difference is that (IIRC) in ballistic descent you don't angle the craft to gain altitude and prolong reentry. Normally you'd slightly angle the craft downwards or upwards to alter the trajectory in the air, during reentry this allows you to stay longer at high altitudes and burn off more speed before you burn it at lower altitudes (literally). The shape of the craft not being a wing is largely irrelevant, with sufficient speed even a brick can fly.
- FabHK 8y ago
  Yes, ballistic here apparently means without propulsion, and without generating lift (only drag).

Separo 8y ago

It's worrying that there isn't an escape system on SpaceX BFR.

ygra 8y ago
The rocket doesn't need one. The spaceship does. But considering that the whole thing gets redesigned every two months I wouldn't worry too much. It's still years from flying, so plenty of time to change stuff.
kitsunesoba 8y ago
Escape on BFR will likely be similar to escape with Falcon 9/Crew Dragon: that is, BFS itself has more than enough thrust to very quickly distance itself from a failing BFB, and it would probably be able to land itself on a nearby but safely distant emergency landing pad. Now an argument can be made that BFS needs an escape pod or two, but those would mostly be useful in circumstances other than failure during launch. (For those unfamiliar, BFB = Big Falcon Booster, BFS = Big Falcon Ship. BFR is both working in unison)
InclinedPlane 8y ago
The escape system used here and on a previous Soyuz abort in 1975 didn't use the LES, it used the Soyuz spacecraft's own engines, a very similar abort mode to what the BFR would use.

PuffinBlue 8y ago

This footage appears to show the the Launch Escape System striking the booster as it separates: https://youtu.be/sE4BSAcQCfo https://youtu.be/sE4BSAcQCfo

cpv 8y ago
Those might be the boosters separating. And probably a small explosion, or just the gases from the separation. Edit: the boosters separated, and due to failure it might activated the escape capsule.

r721 8y ago

>Crew now in helicopters and heading back to the launch site, not Moscow. Nick will be picked up by NASA and flown to the States. https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1050343263163600896 https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/10503432631636008... UPD Crew photos: https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1050351423022669825 https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1050351423022669825

mikejb 8y ago
It's sad to see them so disappointed! They were lucky as fuck considering that the incident happened approximately when the escape tower gets jettisoned (i.e. it wouldn't have been an option even if the booster RUDs), but I'd probably disappointed as well when I'm planning on getting the most amazing views possible for months, but get a short high-force roller coaster ride instead.
- dba7dba 8y ago
  They are indeed lucky and unlucky AF. Lucky to be alive after such an incident. Unlucky to have gotten on top of a Soyuz rocket system that failed, when it's been proven to be so incredibly reliable all these years.

avaika 8y ago

TIL: every start is blessed by Orthodox Priest (what? :) ). They claim that only the capsules they didn't bless might crash. The very this capsule was blessed [1]. So the Russian Church might have a hard time to explain how the crash happened :) [1]: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1049897639393861632 https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1049897639393861632

yread 8y ago
well the capsule itself worked fine!
fapjacks 8y ago
Hey, so... Orthodox priests bless literally everything. It's so common for them to bless things like rifles, tanks, parachutes, liquor, et cetera, that it's kind of an in-joke in Orthodox cultures and regions. But you go look online and you'll see them blessing I mean literally everything.
- r721 8y ago
  Examples: Orthodox Priests Blessing Things https://twitter.com/blagoslovie https://twitter.com/blagoslovie
- gambiting 8y ago
  It's not just orthodox church either.....in Poland it's extremely common for Roman Catholic priests to be invited to military and government events to bless things too.
  - vectorEQ 8y ago
    this just makes me think of scene from life of brian :') blessed be the cheesemakers
hazz99 8y ago
Or maybe the blessing is why they survived ;)

TickleSteve 8y ago

"ballistic descent mode" == "falling".

wmblaettler 8y ago

A little more footage from moments before the failure of the booster which happens sometime between 3m39 and 4m39s in the video, listen to the Russian comms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0l5QBmqQoI&t=3m38s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0l5QBmqQoI&t=3m38s

johndill 8y ago

I'm gonna need a new spacesuit

mar77i 8y ago

Long ago I watched this video that describes Soyuz reentry. I thought it was cool at the time, and I think it really gives context to the occasion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII

Latteland 8y ago
That's a great video. Around the 14 minute and 40 second point they discuss briefly ballistic return but they don't really put any details. A few minutes before that they do talk about the return. That's actually the best video I've ever seen about the specifics of returning from space. Thank you so much.

larkeith 8y ago

Does "ballistic descent mode" mean that the braking thrusters were inoperable, or just that the launch escape system was not in use?

sathackr 8y ago
It means that the angle of descent of the capsule was much greater, so they encountered thicker atmosphere quicker than ideal, causing greater decelleration forces on the capsule than they would normally experience.
Symmetry 8y ago
A Soyuz only fires thrusters twice during descent. Once to go from orbit to re-entry and once immediately before impact to provide a gentler landing. During descent it normally generates a bit of lift from positioning a weight inside the crew capsule which makes the CoM off center which makes the descent not-quite-ballistic. I imagine the phrase refers to that not happening here.

AdverseAffect 8y ago

> There is already much discussion about the current state of Russian industry and its ability to maintain the standards of yesteryear. Whatever the outcome of the inquiry, this event will only heighten those concerns and will underline to the US in particular the need to bring online new rocket systems. These vehicles, produced by the Boeing and SpaceX companies, are set to make their debut next year. Is it just me, or is this unnecessarily hostile writing? This is literally rocket science, and the escape mechanisms seem to have worked perfectly. And at least the Russians do have (had) a working way to get stuff to iss, so I don't think these (uncited!) accusations are called for

erazor42 8y ago
BBC article, UK is not exactly best friend with Russia. (cf. Skripal stuff)
- vasili111 8y ago
  Does Russia has any friend?
  - gdy 8y ago
    Yes, oil and gas, err, I meant fleet and army.
- Koshkin 8y ago
  “Great Britain has no friends, only interests."
sschueller 8y ago
I agree, the writing seems quite hostile. Everything get politicized immediately nowadays which is quite sad.
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  Sir, there was nothing political about the quoted paragraph assuming that it is accurate that the industry have been discussing russian space reliability. In fact it would be you who has politicized it now.

andyjohnson0 8y ago

I've seen multiple reports that the crew's first indication of a problem was that they felt weightless and that objects in the cabin were floating. Maybe there was also an instrumentation-based warning for the crew or ground, but it's odd that nobody is mentioning it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

SpikeDad 8y ago

Didn't even make any news sources that I've seen. 8-(

glenrivard 8y ago

I did not even realize this was possible.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

Presumably this will push up the schedule for the live abort tests for the SpaceX and Boeing systems. That would appear to be the "nut" in the schedule before those systems become operational. Of course there is still a Soyuz attached to the Space Station and it can return the crew, but that that would leave the station unmanned. Not something it is really designed for as I understand it. And even before that drastic call is made we can still send supplies up so it isn't like they would be in danger of running out of stuff. Personally I'm very impressed with the reliability of the Soyuz system. Still I would love to have Boeing and SpaceX get certified sooner rather than later.

walkingolof 8y ago
>Personally I'm very impressed with the reliability of the Soyuz system. I was surprised to learn that the abort was performed manually by the Cosmonaut and that it happened after the escape tower had been jettison. They apparently used the "RUS" system that is using thrusters on the fairing.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  I wasn't able to find hardly any information about the post-escape-tower-jettisoning abort mechanism. Do you know somewhere I can read about it?
InclinedPlane 8y ago
It could go either way actually, depending on how people feel about potential outcomes. Things could be pushed up a bit to try to accelerate getting new crew rotation capabilities in place. Or things could be pushed back to avoid extra workload and pressure on a short-staffed station.
rst 8y ago
Rescheduling the SpaceX in-flight abort test would be tricky; they were planning to reuse the Dragon capsule from the uncrewed test flight, which also hasn't happened yet. (Boeing does not have an in-flight abort test scheduled at all, but they have a ground abort test pending, in addition to their uncrewed test flight -- and they otherwise seem to be further behind than SpaceX.)

avmich 8y ago

I want to remind everybody that Soyuz spacecraft - including the one with the famous drilled hole in the orbital module - is manufactured in Energiya, Korolev - about an hour drive from Moscow. The Soyuz-FG rocket - the one used and malfunctioned in today's launch - is manufactured by Progress in Samara, a major industrial center on Volga river, about 17 hours by rail from Moscow. Rocket design is traced back to Energiya historically, but Progress was making them last 40+ years. Soyuz-FG is planned to be replaced with modified version of the rocket, Soyuz-2. Soyuz-2 is already used for launches of unmanned supply ship, Progress. Yes, I know, a lot of similar names makes things confusing.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mito88 8y ago

Everytime an article mentions ISS my brain immediately parses ISIS... :)

supergirl 8y ago

everyone that thinks spacex will transport people soon is naive / drunk on hype. they are at least 5 years away from flying humans in space. depends on how many test flights they can do. you just can’t rush this. it is one domain where “move fast break things” is a bad idea.

djohnston 8y ago

"The malfunction became apparent about 90 seconds into the flight" Shows 90 second video I am annoyed..

kolderman 8y ago

Why is this a bad thing? A working abort system is a very good thing. Rockets fail.

alberteinstein 8y ago

The system with worst or no abort procedures is the Space Shuttle. Earlier versions had ejection seats, but they got rid of that. Imagine if they had Soyuz like capsule which can popped off. Both Challenger and Discovery crew would have been ok. No wonder they discontinued that program.

magwa101 8y ago

Why are we doing this with Russia?