20 ms·

I feel like too big deal is being made of this, as if people are about to suggest that we should shut down all human space flight on the Soyuz for good. The eme

by jon889 8y ago

I feel like too big deal is being made of this, as if people are about to suggest that we should shut down all human space flight on the Soyuz for good. The emergency systems worked exactly as they were meant to. There is risk in going to space but it's worth it, the astronauts know what they're doing and what could happen. Everyone needs to calm down, wait for the investigation and then almost certainly get back to putting people in space.

User23 8y ago
Agreed. Every Astronaut and Cosmonaut is well aware of the safety (danger?) statistics and yet there is still a wait list.
eps 8y ago
> Everyone needs to calm down That's just Arstechnica and Eric Berger. His space flight coverage including the Rocket Report is generally very good, but it always had this rather noticeable anti-Russian slant - every failure is yet another complete disaster, Russian space industry is a company of hacks, rockets are held together by sheer luck, etc.
- warp_factor 8y ago
  it is a shame though because the soyuz rocket is probably the most reliable rocket ever so far. The huge amount of launches provides also a statistical significance on the failure rate. Yes, some parts of it date back to the soviet union, but it is a very reliable rocket http://www.starsem.com/soyuz/log.htm http://www.starsem.com/soyuz/log.htm
  - toyg 8y ago
    The fact alone that it’s still used so much, more than 30 years from design, is testament to its quality. The much-celebrated Shuttle, in the meantime, is dead.
    - iamthirsty 8y ago
      The Space Shuttle is the most advanced and capable flying machine ever created by humans — it’s just too expensive and overqualified to send up to the ISS for routine missions, compared to what service the Russians can provide for relatively cheap.
      - sbradford26 8y ago
        One of the comments on the article actually covered that the space shuttle was not qualified to shuttle crew to the ISS. It ran off of fuel cells that could not be fully shut off. So the shuttle had a maximum mission length even if connected to the space station of 17 days. Whereas the soyuz capsule is qualified for 200 days. Which means that even if the shuttle took a crew member up, they had to have a spot on a soyuz capsule to get back.
      - acqq 8y ago
        > it’s just too expensive It never reached the point in being worth using it, compared to the alternatives. At least in the use scenarios publicly known.
        deelowe 8y ago
        > At least in the use scenarios publicly known This is key. The shuttle was a military project. It's usefulness and congress' appetite for continuing to fund it ended once alternatives[1] were put into service. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
    - sbradford26 8y ago
      I also agree that a couple failures do not make an unreliable rocket. The Soyuz has a been a work horse for a long time. I think the concern that people have though is that even if everything is designed correctly it means nothing if it not built correctly. There has been turmoil in management for Roscosmos and from what I have seen pressure from management can lead to poor quality.
- yread 8y ago
  Soyuz did have a lot of close calls and disasters over the years though. See http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html 35 anomalies over 222 flights up to 1997
  - pc86 8y ago
    How many anomalies and flights from 1997-2018? Why exclude 21-22 years of data?
    - cldellow 8y ago
      Because the article was written in 1997.
      - pc86 8y ago
        I know, but I mean is that kind of data easily accessible? Would be interesting to see if there was any significant change in anomaly rate over time, no?
mikejb 8y ago
I agree. Luckily, Soyuz will likely fly again. The issue will be identified, and procedures will be out in place to avoid it in the future. Accidents happened in the past, accidents will happen again. Best we can do is make sure we don't repeat mistakes and prepare for things we don't know can go wrong. I'm just hoping that it's a unknown failure mode. Worst case would (in my opinion) be human error during manufacturing (again).
grecy 8y ago
Agree. Even here in Africa it's a headline story on the BBC World Service. The fact this is the first time ever that system has been used on the Soyuz speaks volumes for it's reliability. They'll figure out what happened, and the entire system will get safer as a result.
- foxyv 8y ago
  It's been used before during a pad fire. I think this is the second time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L

by jon889 8y ago

User23 8y ago

Agreed. Every Astronaut and Cosmonaut is well aware of the safety (danger?) statistics and yet there is still a wait list.

eps 8y ago

> Everyone needs to calm down That's just Arstechnica and Eric Berger. His space flight coverage including the Rocket Report is generally very good, but it always had this rather noticeable anti-Russian slant - every failure is yet another complete disaster, Russian space industry is a company of hacks, rockets are held together by sheer luck, etc.

warp_factor 8y ago
it is a shame though because the soyuz rocket is probably the most reliable rocket ever so far. The huge amount of launches provides also a statistical significance on the failure rate. Yes, some parts of it date back to the soviet union, but it is a very reliable rocket http://www.starsem.com/soyuz/log.htm http://www.starsem.com/soyuz/log.htm
- toyg 8y ago
  The fact alone that it’s still used so much, more than 30 years from design, is testament to its quality. The much-celebrated Shuttle, in the meantime, is dead.
  - iamthirsty 8y ago
    The Space Shuttle is the most advanced and capable flying machine ever created by humans — it’s just too expensive and overqualified to send up to the ISS for routine missions, compared to what service the Russians can provide for relatively cheap.
    - sbradford26 8y ago
      One of the comments on the article actually covered that the space shuttle was not qualified to shuttle crew to the ISS. It ran off of fuel cells that could not be fully shut off. So the shuttle had a maximum mission length even if connected to the space station of 17 days. Whereas the soyuz capsule is qualified for 200 days. Which means that even if the shuttle took a crew member up, they had to have a spot on a soyuz capsule to get back.
    - acqq 8y ago
      > it’s just too expensive It never reached the point in being worth using it, compared to the alternatives. At least in the use scenarios publicly known.
      - deelowe 8y ago
        > At least in the use scenarios publicly known This is key. The shuttle was a military project. It's usefulness and congress' appetite for continuing to fund it ended once alternatives[1] were put into service. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
  - sbradford26 8y ago
    I also agree that a couple failures do not make an unreliable rocket. The Soyuz has a been a work horse for a long time. I think the concern that people have though is that even if everything is designed correctly it means nothing if it not built correctly. There has been turmoil in management for Roscosmos and from what I have seen pressure from management can lead to poor quality.
yread 8y ago
Soyuz did have a lot of close calls and disasters over the years though. See http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html 35 anomalies over 222 flights up to 1997
- pc86 8y ago
  How many anomalies and flights from 1997-2018? Why exclude 21-22 years of data?
  - cldellow 8y ago
    Because the article was written in 1997.
    - pc86 8y ago
      I know, but I mean is that kind of data easily accessible? Would be interesting to see if there was any significant change in anomaly rate over time, no?

mikejb 8y ago

I agree. Luckily, Soyuz will likely fly again. The issue will be identified, and procedures will be out in place to avoid it in the future. Accidents happened in the past, accidents will happen again. Best we can do is make sure we don't repeat mistakes and prepare for things we don't know can go wrong. I'm just hoping that it's a unknown failure mode. Worst case would (in my opinion) be human error during manufacturing (again).

grecy 8y ago

Agree. Even here in Africa it's a headline story on the BBC World Service. The fact this is the first time ever that system has been used on the Soyuz speaks volumes for it's reliability. They'll figure out what happened, and the entire system will get safer as a result.

foxyv 8y ago
It's been used before during a pad fire. I think this is the second time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_7K-ST_No._16L