4 ms·

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

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...

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...