4 ms·

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 signific

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.

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.