4 ms·

Top post on the 2016 version of this repost, links to an NPR article that debunks the whole thing: https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/05/03/135919389/a-

by m0zg 8y ago

Top post on the 2016 version of this repost, links to an NPR article that debunks the whole thing: https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/05/03/135919389/a-cosmonauts-fiery-death-retold https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/05/03/135919389/a...

neffy 8y ago
Well... it doesn't exactly debunk it, does it Comrade? I'm with the authors, I wouldn't trust a Soviet era transcript of a space mission, anymore I would of a show trial.
enoch_r 8y ago
"Debunked" is a pretty strong word. The disputed elements of the story are mostly based on the account of one person (Venyamin Russayev, the KGB minder assigned to Yuri Gagarin) and they are contradicted by official transcripts and the memoirs of the people involved. But, this occurred in the USSR, so I don't think we really know what happened with any high level of certainty.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
newman8r 8y ago
Good article. It sounds like the true story will never fully be known.
fao_ 8y ago
So, as the article says, the majority of the facts about the story are true, and the things that make it memorable -- the 'embellishments' -- have dubious sources and rely on eyewitness accounts only. Pretty much like most other stories like this (Check out the inaccuracies in the Apollo 13 movie, for example). How exactly does that debunk the entire thing?
- js2 8y ago
  Hmm, I've read A Man on the Moon and Failure is not an Option and I don't recall any inaccuracies in the Apollo 13 movie. According to the wikipedia there were a few but it mostly seems like simplifications, not embellishments: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13_(film)#Technical_and_historical_accuracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13_(film)#Technical_a...
  - fao_ 8y ago
    At the time the astronauts were fixing the problem, neither they nor Huston knew they were venting oxygen, just fuel. That's kind of a major plot point, a driver of much of the tension of the movie, and goes a little bit beyond an "embellishment" or "simplification". There are also some other, similar flaws.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    Having read a far amount about the mission prior to seeing the movie, I recall thinking at the time that the movie presented the various hacks that saved the mission as being inventions of the astronauts.
    - d4mi3n 8y ago
      Watch again. The whole scene about building the air filter was portrayed as a hack developed by the ground teams while they instructed the astronauts over radio: https://youtu.be/1cYzkyXp0jg https://youtu.be/1cYzkyXp0jg
mannykannot 8y ago
I don't think the transcript of the descent is plausible - no mention of the problem with the parachutes?
- m0zg 8y ago
  FWIW, the Russian Wikipedia mentions the following: during descent the drag parachute failed to deploy the main parachute, either because they screwed up during manufacturing (there was supposed to be some paper between the parachute and the box which it was in, and instead the box got hot, the paint melted, and the parachute stuck to it; a hypothesis - there is no evidence - but a plausible one), or because of thermal protection, or because the walls of the parachute compartment caved in because of pressure differential. The main parachute did actually deploy later, but got tangled up in the straps of the drag parachute which was supposed to be blown off by an explosive device, which didn't fire. It is true that the flight was in response to the increased number of US flights over the preceding year. But I wouldn't necessarily say the catastrophe was caused by the rushed schedule here (remember, this was the _very first_ manned flight of the Soyuz), nor would I say that anyone was "saving" anyone else, or that Komarov knowingly embarked on a death mission. To say so would imply mind-reading powers, and I don't know anyone who possesses them, least of all some American dudes who wrote the book to make a buck. The Wikipedia article also says the Soviets stopped manned flights for a year and a half after this disaster. All three of the hypothetical flaws in the parachute system were preemptively addressed, the Soyuz was considerably re-designed to improve safety, and six additional unmanned flights were carried out to make sure shit like this never happens again. To this day, only two of Soyuz capsules resulted in crew loss out of 142 launches, and Soyuz is considered the world's safest manned space platform, and also the only one that's operational at the moment. To "embellish" a tragedy like this is extremely disrespectful and irresponsible. I lived in the Soviet union in 1986 and remember when Challenger blew up Russians reacted with shock and commiseration, not some bullshit "embellishment" that invents astronauts "cursing" as they plunge to their death. The capsule doesn't even have radio during the stage of the descent, where it is claimed Komarov cursed everyone, especially if it's spinning, as Soyuz-1 was, and there was no recorder left after the hydrogen peroxide fire. From this I conclude that everything that's not supported by the Soviet archive documents is total made up bullshit.

by m0zg 8y ago

neffy 8y ago

Well... it doesn't exactly debunk it, does it Comrade? I'm with the authors, I wouldn't trust a Soviet era transcript of a space mission, anymore I would of a show trial.

enoch_r 8y ago

"Debunked" is a pretty strong word. The disputed elements of the story are mostly based on the account of one person (Venyamin Russayev, the KGB minder assigned to Yuri Gagarin) and they are contradicted by official transcripts and the memoirs of the people involved. But, this occurred in the USSR, so I don't think we really know what happened with any high level of certainty.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

newman8r 8y ago

Good article. It sounds like the true story will never fully be known.

fao_ 8y ago

So, as the article says, the majority of the facts about the story are true, and the things that make it memorable -- the 'embellishments' -- have dubious sources and rely on eyewitness accounts only. Pretty much like most other stories like this (Check out the inaccuracies in the Apollo 13 movie, for example). How exactly does that debunk the entire thing?

js2 8y ago
Hmm, I've read A Man on the Moon and Failure is not an Option and I don't recall any inaccuracies in the Apollo 13 movie. According to the wikipedia there were a few but it mostly seems like simplifications, not embellishments: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13_(film)#Technical_and_historical_accuracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13_(film)#Technical_a...
- fao_ 8y ago
  At the time the astronauts were fixing the problem, neither they nor Huston knew they were venting oxygen, just fuel. That's kind of a major plot point, a driver of much of the tension of the movie, and goes a little bit beyond an "embellishment" or "simplification". There are also some other, similar flaws.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  Having read a far amount about the mission prior to seeing the movie, I recall thinking at the time that the movie presented the various hacks that saved the mission as being inventions of the astronauts.
  - d4mi3n 8y ago
    Watch again. The whole scene about building the air filter was portrayed as a hack developed by the ground teams while they instructed the astronauts over radio: https://youtu.be/1cYzkyXp0jg https://youtu.be/1cYzkyXp0jg

mannykannot 8y ago

I don't think the transcript of the descent is plausible - no mention of the problem with the parachutes?

m0zg 8y ago
FWIW, the Russian Wikipedia mentions the following: during descent the drag parachute failed to deploy the main parachute, either because they screwed up during manufacturing (there was supposed to be some paper between the parachute and the box which it was in, and instead the box got hot, the paint melted, and the parachute stuck to it; a hypothesis - there is no evidence - but a plausible one), or because of thermal protection, or because the walls of the parachute compartment caved in because of pressure differential. The main parachute did actually deploy later, but got tangled up in the straps of the drag parachute which was supposed to be blown off by an explosive device, which didn't fire. It is true that the flight was in response to the increased number of US flights over the preceding year. But I wouldn't necessarily say the catastrophe was caused by the rushed schedule here (remember, this was the _very first_ manned flight of the Soyuz), nor would I say that anyone was "saving" anyone else, or that Komarov knowingly embarked on a death mission. To say so would imply mind-reading powers, and I don't know anyone who possesses them, least of all some American dudes who wrote the book to make a buck. The Wikipedia article also says the Soviets stopped manned flights for a year and a half after this disaster. All three of the hypothetical flaws in the parachute system were preemptively addressed, the Soyuz was considerably re-designed to improve safety, and six additional unmanned flights were carried out to make sure shit like this never happens again. To this day, only two of Soyuz capsules resulted in crew loss out of 142 launches, and Soyuz is considered the world's safest manned space platform, and also the only one that's operational at the moment. To "embellish" a tragedy like this is extremely disrespectful and irresponsible. I lived in the Soviet union in 1986 and remember when Challenger blew up Russians reacted with shock and commiseration, not some bullshit "embellishment" that invents astronauts "cursing" as they plunge to their death. The capsule doesn't even have radio during the stage of the descent, where it is claimed Komarov cursed everyone, especially if it's spinning, as Soyuz-1 was, and there was no recorder left after the hydrogen peroxide fire. From this I conclude that everything that's not supported by the Soviet archive documents is total made up bullshit.