5 ms·

I wonder what it’s like for the astronauts. One moment you’re sitting in a rocket ready to spend the next six months in space, you’ve said your goodbyes, you’re

I wonder what it’s like for the astronauts. One moment you’re sitting in a rocket ready to spend the next six months in space, you’ve said your goodbyes, you’re thinking about what it will be like, what sorts of pictures you want to take, what you’ll say when you make that first phone call home from space... and then ten minutes later you stumble out into the Kazakh wilderness and start scanning the sky for rescue helicopters.

phyller 8y ago
Yea, wonder if they felt disappointed or relieved. Regardless, they are part of a very small club of "astronaut's whose rocket broke during launch and are still alive". I wonder who else is in that club?
- dba7dba 8y ago
  I honestly cannot think of any such incident happening in all the years of space exploration. Crewed or not-crewed capsule. And I've watched enough documentaries on Apollo and other space programs. It's the beginning of a very very small, exclusive club, one that will hopefully not be too big.
  - avmich 8y ago
    Something similar happened with another Soyuz in 1983, right?
    - docbrown 8y ago
      The Soyuz T-10-1 launch in 1983, maybe? The escape system launched minutes before the explosion on the launching pad happened.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L
      - jpatokal 8y ago
        2 to 6 seconds before the explosion, not minutes.
  - justinator 8y ago
    They mention another Soyuz accident in the article.
  - dba7dba 8y ago
    Learned something new today. The other Soyuz incident in 1983 was Soyuz 7K-ST No.16L, sometimes known as Soyuz T-10a or T-10-1. Found below from wiki. It was an unsuccessful Soyuz mission intended to visit the Salyut 7 space station, which was occupied by the Soyuz T-9 crew. However, it never finished its launch countdown; the launch vehicle was destroyed on the launch pad by fire on September 26, 1983. The launch escape system of the Soyuz spacecraft fired two seconds before the launch vehicle exploded, saving the crew. It is the first case in which a launch escape system has been fired with a crew aboard. In early US space program, in one of the test flights before Apollo program, a 2 stage rocket failed mid flight. The rocket escape system attached on top of the capsule fired and successfully saved the capsule. But there was no crew in the capsule. Just watched this PBS special on the US space program. Pretty interesting footage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jia78xRMTEc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jia78xRMTEc
    - mikeash 8y ago
      The best part about that Apollo test flight is that it was intended to be a test of the escape system, but it was not intended to involve the rocket exploding underneath the capsule. It ended up being an even better test of the escape system than was planed. There have been some other, less consequential manned launch failures. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning during ascent, and only some quick thinking saved the mission. Apollo 13 suffered extreme vibration in the second stage center engine that nearly tore the rocket apart. (This is unrelated to the more famous problem Apollo 13 experienced later in the mission.) Fortunately the vibrations messed with sensors which caused the engine to shut down, and the launch continued on the remaining four. STS-51-F lost an engine a few minutes after launch. It was still able to make orbit on the remaining engines, but ended up in a lower orbit than planned.
  - mulmen 8y ago
    Aborted takeoffs and go arounds are generally routine in avaiation right? Surely using an abort mechanism is preferable to killing the passengers and crew. I see nothing wrong with adding some names to the list of people who survived.
    - dba7dba 8y ago
      I did not mean to come across as saying I want escape systems to not work. With space launch systems, any use of escape system is dangerous and best to avoid. I think it will be a long time before aborting/escaping from botched space launch and recovery will be as routine as aborted takeoffs and go arounds.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        Just to compare the two a bit more: NASA’s requirements for the Commercial Crew program (where Boeing and SpaceX are building capsules to visit ISS) is for a loss of crew probability of 1 in 270. Note that this isn’t an abort probability, it’s the probability that everyone dies despite the abort system’s best efforts. The probability for commercial airliners is something around 1 in 100 million.
- mulmen 8y ago
  The crew of STS-51-F although they aborted to orbit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-F https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-F
  - skrause 8y ago
    Here is the broadcast of that mission: https://youtu.be/JSbMs_OnE4c?t=3m8s https://youtu.be/JSbMs_OnE4c?t=3m8s
  - phyller 8y ago
    Classic, the sensors whose purpose is to ensure that something doesn't kill you, actually become the things that almost kill you.
- hcrisp 8y ago
  Apollo 12 crew, if you count a lightning strike taking out the electronics of the vehicle, but not rocket. https://www.universetoday.com/98484/this-day-in-space-history-apollo-12-and-sce-to-aux/ https://www.universetoday.com/98484/this-day-in-space-histor...
borkt 8y ago
I would not be surprised if the astronauts go into a launch fully expecting a malfunction, even though the soyuz hasn't had a failure since 1983 if wikipedia is to be believed.
- anovikov 8y ago
  The spaceship wasn't on a launch which involved failure, since 1983. Soyuz rocket fails once every few years. Just the crewed launched were lucky (and also crewed rockets are checked better + in many cases, older, lower performance, but better tested AND downrated for increased reliability, mods were used). For example, Progress ship (very close in design to Soyuz ship, unmanned ship to deliver supplies, not recoverable) failed less than 2 years ago due to launcher failure.
  - avmich 8y ago
    Crewed rockets are Soyuz-FG, other rockets used to be Soyuz-U, then Soyuz-2, variations Soyuz-2.1a and Soyuz-2.1b . Those are slightly different rockets - mainly engines of first stage (four booster parts) are different (if I'm not mistaken) and 3rd stage is different.
- vkou 8y ago
  The reason astronauts are trained so much is so that they know what to do in case of equipment malfunction. So, yes, they all go into launches hoping that everything will work, but being ready when it doesn't.
  - tobylane 8y ago
    All that training in fluent, technical Russian, as the manuals haven't been translated.
ezoe 8y ago
There are more than 500 people visited the space. Not many people experienced the rocket failure and lives to tell about it.
- djsumdog 8y ago
  The Challenger and the Columbia both had catastrophic failures during launch and re-entry respectively. Of course those were shuttles and not rockets, but still as far as space flight goes, the statistics were against them.
  - ohithereyou 8y ago
    The Challenger crew is thought to have to survived the initial explosion[1], though how long they would have remained conscious is questioned. The collision with the ocean is what killed them, not the explosion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#Cause_and_time_of_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...
rbanffy 8y ago
"Months of boredom punctuated by moments of terror." I imagine you are happily doing 3, maybe 4 G's, then an alarm sounds and suddenly the escape system (or mission control, your the commander) decides you are not going to space after all, adds 10 G's or so to what you are already doing for a couple seconds, then a couple seconds of free fall until the parachutes open, then the final kick when you are about to land. They had a very bad day. At least it's not a very long time inside a Soyuz. I don't think I fit inside one.
- Rebelgecko 8y ago
  I think their first indication that something was wrong was that they felt weightless at a time when they should've been experiencing 4g's. Apparently after the abort they still stayed under 7g
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    Yes. It happened right after they ejected the escape rocket (which is probably terrifying to use), so they used the stage separation mechanism. That's a much gentler experience, provided the booster doesn't explode.
    - mikejb 8y ago
      Jep, the escape system is definitely not a walk in the park. As far as I know, the Soyuz escape system is the only one that was deployed with people inside, in the Soyuz T-10a accident. Suffice to say, the cosmonauts didn't like it very much. They got between 14g-17g for 5 seconds, which removed them 4km downwards from the exploding launch vehicle. After landing safely (and being badly bruised), they asked for cigarettes and were given shots of Vodka. [1] [1] http://www.americaspace.com/2013/09/28/we-were-swearing-thirty-years-since-russias-close-shave-with-disaster/ http://www.americaspace.com/2013/09/28/we-were-swearing-thir...
- mito88 8y ago
  addding a little insult to injury, they landed 400km away from their base, in the very middle of god knows where... "A few hundred miles."
dotancohen 8y ago
> I wonder what it’s like for the astronauts. It is better to be on the ground wishing that you were in orbit, than to be in orbit wishing that you were on the ground.
mabbo 8y ago
I suspect they've mentally prepared for far worse outcomes. Space is cool, but the Kazahk wilderness sure beats the third option.

phyller 8y ago

Yea, wonder if they felt disappointed or relieved. Regardless, they are part of a very small club of "astronaut's whose rocket broke during launch and are still alive". I wonder who else is in that club?

dba7dba 8y ago
I honestly cannot think of any such incident happening in all the years of space exploration. Crewed or not-crewed capsule. And I've watched enough documentaries on Apollo and other space programs. It's the beginning of a very very small, exclusive club, one that will hopefully not be too big.
- avmich 8y ago
  Something similar happened with another Soyuz in 1983, right?
  - docbrown 8y ago
    The Soyuz T-10-1 launch in 1983, maybe? The escape system launched minutes before the explosion on the launching pad happened.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L
    - jpatokal 8y ago
      2 to 6 seconds before the explosion, not minutes.
- justinator 8y ago
  They mention another Soyuz accident in the article.
- dba7dba 8y ago
  Learned something new today. The other Soyuz incident in 1983 was Soyuz 7K-ST No.16L, sometimes known as Soyuz T-10a or T-10-1. Found below from wiki. It was an unsuccessful Soyuz mission intended to visit the Salyut 7 space station, which was occupied by the Soyuz T-9 crew. However, it never finished its launch countdown; the launch vehicle was destroyed on the launch pad by fire on September 26, 1983. The launch escape system of the Soyuz spacecraft fired two seconds before the launch vehicle exploded, saving the crew. It is the first case in which a launch escape system has been fired with a crew aboard. In early US space program, in one of the test flights before Apollo program, a 2 stage rocket failed mid flight. The rocket escape system attached on top of the capsule fired and successfully saved the capsule. But there was no crew in the capsule. Just watched this PBS special on the US space program. Pretty interesting footage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jia78xRMTEc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jia78xRMTEc
  - mikeash 8y ago
    The best part about that Apollo test flight is that it was intended to be a test of the escape system, but it was not intended to involve the rocket exploding underneath the capsule. It ended up being an even better test of the escape system than was planed. There have been some other, less consequential manned launch failures. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning during ascent, and only some quick thinking saved the mission. Apollo 13 suffered extreme vibration in the second stage center engine that nearly tore the rocket apart. (This is unrelated to the more famous problem Apollo 13 experienced later in the mission.) Fortunately the vibrations messed with sensors which caused the engine to shut down, and the launch continued on the remaining four. STS-51-F lost an engine a few minutes after launch. It was still able to make orbit on the remaining engines, but ended up in a lower orbit than planned.
- mulmen 8y ago
  Aborted takeoffs and go arounds are generally routine in avaiation right? Surely using an abort mechanism is preferable to killing the passengers and crew. I see nothing wrong with adding some names to the list of people who survived.
  - dba7dba 8y ago
    I did not mean to come across as saying I want escape systems to not work. With space launch systems, any use of escape system is dangerous and best to avoid. I think it will be a long time before aborting/escaping from botched space launch and recovery will be as routine as aborted takeoffs and go arounds.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Just to compare the two a bit more: NASA’s requirements for the Commercial Crew program (where Boeing and SpaceX are building capsules to visit ISS) is for a loss of crew probability of 1 in 270. Note that this isn’t an abort probability, it’s the probability that everyone dies despite the abort system’s best efforts. The probability for commercial airliners is something around 1 in 100 million.
mulmen 8y ago
The crew of STS-51-F although they aborted to orbit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-F https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-F
- skrause 8y ago
  Here is the broadcast of that mission: https://youtu.be/JSbMs_OnE4c?t=3m8s https://youtu.be/JSbMs_OnE4c?t=3m8s
- phyller 8y ago
  Classic, the sensors whose purpose is to ensure that something doesn't kill you, actually become the things that almost kill you.
hcrisp 8y ago
Apollo 12 crew, if you count a lightning strike taking out the electronics of the vehicle, but not rocket. https://www.universetoday.com/98484/this-day-in-space-history-apollo-12-and-sce-to-aux/ https://www.universetoday.com/98484/this-day-in-space-histor...

borkt 8y ago

I would not be surprised if the astronauts go into a launch fully expecting a malfunction, even though the soyuz hasn't had a failure since 1983 if wikipedia is to be believed.

anovikov 8y ago
The spaceship wasn't on a launch which involved failure, since 1983. Soyuz rocket fails once every few years. Just the crewed launched were lucky (and also crewed rockets are checked better + in many cases, older, lower performance, but better tested AND downrated for increased reliability, mods were used). For example, Progress ship (very close in design to Soyuz ship, unmanned ship to deliver supplies, not recoverable) failed less than 2 years ago due to launcher failure.
- avmich 8y ago
  Crewed rockets are Soyuz-FG, other rockets used to be Soyuz-U, then Soyuz-2, variations Soyuz-2.1a and Soyuz-2.1b . Those are slightly different rockets - mainly engines of first stage (four booster parts) are different (if I'm not mistaken) and 3rd stage is different.
vkou 8y ago
The reason astronauts are trained so much is so that they know what to do in case of equipment malfunction. So, yes, they all go into launches hoping that everything will work, but being ready when it doesn't.
- tobylane 8y ago
  All that training in fluent, technical Russian, as the manuals haven't been translated.

ezoe 8y ago

There are more than 500 people visited the space. Not many people experienced the rocket failure and lives to tell about it.

djsumdog 8y ago
The Challenger and the Columbia both had catastrophic failures during launch and re-entry respectively. Of course those were shuttles and not rockets, but still as far as space flight goes, the statistics were against them.
- ohithereyou 8y ago
  The Challenger crew is thought to have to survived the initial explosion[1], though how long they would have remained conscious is questioned. The collision with the ocean is what killed them, not the explosion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#Cause_and_time_of_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...

rbanffy 8y ago

"Months of boredom punctuated by moments of terror." I imagine you are happily doing 3, maybe 4 G's, then an alarm sounds and suddenly the escape system (or mission control, your the commander) decides you are not going to space after all, adds 10 G's or so to what you are already doing for a couple seconds, then a couple seconds of free fall until the parachutes open, then the final kick when you are about to land. They had a very bad day. At least it's not a very long time inside a Soyuz. I don't think I fit inside one.

Rebelgecko 8y ago
I think their first indication that something was wrong was that they felt weightless at a time when they should've been experiencing 4g's. Apparently after the abort they still stayed under 7g
- rbanffy 8y ago
  Yes. It happened right after they ejected the escape rocket (which is probably terrifying to use), so they used the stage separation mechanism. That's a much gentler experience, provided the booster doesn't explode.
  - mikejb 8y ago
    Jep, the escape system is definitely not a walk in the park. As far as I know, the Soyuz escape system is the only one that was deployed with people inside, in the Soyuz T-10a accident. Suffice to say, the cosmonauts didn't like it very much. They got between 14g-17g for 5 seconds, which removed them 4km downwards from the exploding launch vehicle. After landing safely (and being badly bruised), they asked for cigarettes and were given shots of Vodka. [1] [1] http://www.americaspace.com/2013/09/28/we-were-swearing-thirty-years-since-russias-close-shave-with-disaster/ http://www.americaspace.com/2013/09/28/we-were-swearing-thir...
mito88 8y ago
addding a little insult to injury, they landed 400km away from their base, in the very middle of god knows where... "A few hundred miles."

dotancohen 8y ago

> I wonder what it’s like for the astronauts. It is better to be on the ground wishing that you were in orbit, than to be in orbit wishing that you were on the ground.

mabbo 8y ago

I suspect they've mentally prepared for far worse outcomes. Space is cool, but the Kazahk wilderness sure beats the third option.