8 ms·
Cosmonaut Crashed Into Earth 'Crying In Rage' [in 1967]
- corin_ 16y agoAs posted at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2342058 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2342058 four hours ago.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- vamsee 16y agoFascinating. Thanks for sharing.
- adriand 16y agoThis reminds me of an interview with former NASA astronaut (and current director of the Veteran Administration's National Center for Patient Safety) who related that most people don't realize that the astronauts who died in the Challenger accident didn't die in the explosion: > There are still many people that don't understand that the crew of the Challenger didn't die until they hit the water. They were all strapped into their seats in a basically intact crew module; their hearts were still beating when they hit the water. People think they were blown to smithereens, but that's not what happened. http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/thewrongstuff/archive/2010/06/28/risky-business-james-bagian-nasa-astronaut-turned-patient-safety-expert-on-being-wrong.aspx http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/thewrongstuff/archive/2010/...
- yogipatel 16y agoI forget where I learned this from, but the astronauts were also very likely to be unconscious very soon after the break up of the shuttle. They died when they hit the water, but they probably weren't conscious. Not that that makes it any better.
- pekinb 16y agoreally? I think that makes it significantly better.
- ars 16y agoI too thought so at first, but after reflection I think it's worse.
- noarchy 16y agoSome of them may have been conscious: "At least some of the astronauts were likely alive and briefly conscious after the breakup, as three of the four Personal Egress Air Packs (PEAPs) on the flight deck were found to have been activated. Investigators found their remaining unused air supply roughly consistent with the expected consumption during the 2 minute 45 second post-breakup trajectory." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#Cause_and_time_of_death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disast...
- nickff 16y agoIt was mentioned in the MIT OCW 16.885/ESD35J lecture series that they were likely conscious briefly while still ascending, when they turned on those PEAPs, (after the shuttle had disintegrated); but they were later unconscious, because of the high altitude and low pressures the non-airtight cockpit was subjected to. Source: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-885j-aircraft-systems-engineering-fall-2005/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-8...
- mcritz 16y agoIn former astronaut Mike Mullane's book Riding Rockets he details how some of the Challenger's controls had been moved from their standard launch positions. NASA tests would later confirm that they could not have been moved by the force of the initial explosion nor the impact with the ocean. At least some of the Challener crew survived the blast, and died in panic.
- 16y ago
- juiceandjuice 16y agoI like this part: It seems that NASA's been willing to accept a fair amount of it, given the tragedies that have bedeviled our space program. NASA has been terrible on this. Not because of how much risk they're willing to accept, and not because they don't do the work to understand it. They always know what the probability of failure is. But, historically at least, they haven't been honest and forthright in taking to the public about it. In the early '80s, before the Challenger accident, they would say—and this is where I think they actually lied, I don't think that's too strong a word—they would say, "Flying the shuttle is like flying a 727 to Disney World." That's absurd. Not only are you more likely to get killed in the shuttle than in an airplane; you're more likely to get killed going up once in the shuttle than if you had flown combat missions for two years in Vietnam. That's a statistical fact, but NASA doesn't make it clear. They might tell the House [of Representatives] that there's a 1.5 percent failure rate, but most Americans don't understand what that means. I mean, 1.5, what is that? Is that a lot? You have to relate it to something that means something to somebody. Otherwise, people have the perception that space flight is safe, and when there's an accident, they're shocked. It's like, "We gotta stop flying." If we want to add additional safeguards because now we're feeling emotional about it, okay, we can do that. But if we're still meeting our design specs for loss, why would we stop flying? I like this approach.
- eliasmacpherson 16y agoIf you haven't seen it here's R. P. Feynman's Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle. I think the reason that additional safeguards were added was not because they begun to feel emotional about it, but rather NASA had underestimated the failure rate in the first instance. The emotional factor is what prompted the investigation. http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roger...
- gvb 16y agoAppendix F is a must read. The tl;dr summary is: Engineers at Rocketdyne, the manufacturer, estimate the total probability [of catastrophic failure] as 1/10,000. Engineers at Marshal estimate it as 1/300, while NASA management, to whom these engineers report, claims it is 1/100,000. An independent engineer consulting for NASA thought 1 or 2 per 100 a reasonable estimate. — Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle by R.P. Feynman Empirical post script (as of STS-133 24 February 2011) Total launches 132 Failures 2 Successes 130 Failure rate: 1.5% Edit: add opinions: See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_of_Richard_Feynman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_o... The reason for appalling and wildly inaccurate estimate of the failure probability is because the failure probability was a top-down "estimate." Someone Important apparently said "the space shuttle needs a reliability of 1/100,000". This mandate was pushed down on all the suppliers. The result was that the probability of failure was divided out onto all the systems, subsystems, subsubsystems... ad nausium all the way down to the bolts. The result was that all the subsystems had reliability numbers that could not be refuted (e.g. bolts at 1/10^12 IIRC), but could not be realistically substantiated either. Unfortunately, some of the probabilities of the major subsystems (SRB and ice damaging the heat shield tiles) were not accurate. The most accurate estimate was the engineer with a lot of experience in extremely complicated systems who gave an experience-based estimate, not a top-down (dictated) numerically derived estimate.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- koski 16y agoThere is something touching in these stories. Not sure if it's something that these guys "did that no one knew about" or the "brotherhood" or ... but .. Something I think was brave. I'm sure some people disagree, but I would have left a vodka glass on this guy's grave. For sure! Spasibo!
- irfn 16y agoWell i agree this is really touching.Indeed Something really brave. There is so much agony in that audio.
- rdtsc 16y agoFor me it is because he did it for his friend. If he didn't go, Gagarin would have been sent.
- mak120 16y agoThere is something heroic about taking a bullet for your friend and not shying away from your duty for your country (even if it is run by evil maniacs). Couldn't help feeling sad.
- rriepe 16y agoThis reminds me of my favorite conspiracy theory, The Lost Cosmonauts, which proposes that Yuri Gagarin was the first man to survive space travel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cosmonauts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cosmonauts
- earl 16y agoI was fortunate enough to visit Star City while in Russia in 2004 or so. There is a statue of Yuri Gagarin there, and according to an engineer at the facility, it is a popular place to get married. I don't have a hard time believing that either the USSR or the USA would have hidden space deaths if they or we could in order to build a national mythology.
- archgoon 16y agoIt would have required both sides to agree to that mythology. As the article points out, we knew when things went wrong with them (via the NSA), and chances are sooner or later they'd find out when things went wrong with us (via the KGB). It would have required not only secrecy on their half, but secrecy on our half.
- pbhjpbhj 16y agoI don't find it that hard to believe that it was bilateral. At first it gives too much up to show how much detail one knows about the other side. Then one doesn't want to announce your own deaths because the other side hasn't and you don't want to appear to be losing/weaker/less capable. If you leak the deaths on the other side then they'll leak yours (like a sort of mutually assured destruction) and possibly cause an end to space exploration programmes - neither side that knows enough wants to do that surely? tl;dr seems reasonable to me that both sides may have had more deaths they all kept secret about
- hammock 16y agoPrisoner's dilemma. Easily solved by cooperation.
- 16y ago
- vl 16y agoIt's the most link-batish title I've seen in weeks. Adding date would be appropriate.
- myth_drannon 16y agoJust one comment , the book is not new but from 1998 . This is just softcover release.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- thefool 16y agoThe bit about the translation is misleading. I speak russian. The audio is very fuzzy, but I think at the end he says something that roughly translates to "the former cosmonaut is dead" Before that he says something about the people, I can't make out anything about heat or temperature. Apparently the people on the ground couldn't either, which is why you hear "mission control" asking him to repeat himself. I couldn't make out the word they asked him to repeat either.
- fedd 16y agoi am russian and i bothered to press the play button. what i heard was an obvious, poorly composed fake. the calm and proud voice repeats about Komarov making the way to Comminism for the whole mankind [edit: apparently Komarov himself in official radio appeal]. this is intersected with some voices that could not be understood. the way to communism mantra is obviously copy-pasted several times, some times partially, just to make some russian soudns, like this: "Komarov prokladyvaet put k Kommunizmu!" - "phshphs-bla!-bla!" - "-mmunizmu!" - pshshsh!blabla! - "prokladyvaet put k Kommunizmu!" imagine how Russians watch movies where Hollywood tries to show something Russian, labels or written names. mostly it is just a meaningless set of letters. this is also looks like a bullshit that some CIA guys presented to their local Brezhnevs to justify their work
- pvg 16y agoIt's probably not fake, it sounds like pretty standard (in terms of stiltedness and bombast) Soviet verbiage, probably intended for quoting or retransmission later. There's a lengthy analysis of the flight here http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Soyuz1Land/Soyanaly.htm http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Soyuz1Land/Soyanaly.htm by someone who doesn't seem like a tinfoil hat wearer. He seems to think intercepts of some of his other communication are likely but reports are 'embellished'.
- thefool 16y agoSo you heard the part I couldn't make out. I think I made out the entire thing, but I was fuzzy on the last word. I hear: "K narodom nashe rodie, prakldavuyu chilvetchistvu put k Kommunizmu, bifshi cosmonaft umru?" The first part translates roughly to: to the people of our homeland, I am laying the way for civilization to communism. The last part to, this former cosmonaut is dead. But I could totally be mishearing that last bit (as the grammar doesn't really work if that is what he's saying).
- J3L2404 16y agoand here's Ivanovich(middle name), in his rocketship, spinning helplessly up above the earth, and though his heart is splintered, all the girls of winter, are buried in their coats anonymous....
- saturnine 16y agoThis incident sounded familiar so I pulled my copy of James Bamford's Puzzle Palace[1] (1982) and managed to find it on page 215: "Another high-priority target for the signal chasers at Karamursel [Turkey] is the Soviet space program. On April 23, 1967, a number of analysts were routinely copying the return of Soyuz I, bringing Soviet cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov back from twenty-six hours in space, when problems suddenly developed on re-entry. Recalled one of the intercept operators: 'They couldn't get the chute that slowed his craft down in re-entry to work. They knew what the problem was for about two hours...and were fighting to correct it. It was all in Russian, of course, but we taped it and listened to it a couple of times afterward. Kosygin called him personally. They had a video-phone conversation. Kosygin was crying. He told him he was a hero and that he had made the greatest achievement in Russian history, that they were proud, and that he'd be remembered. The guy's wife got on too. They talked for a while. He told her how to handle their affairs and what to do with the kids. It was pretty awful. Toward the last few minutes he began falling apart, saying, "I don't want to die, you've got to do something." Then there was just a scream as he died. I guess he was incinerated.'" [1] http://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Palace-National-Intelligence-Organization/dp/0140067485/ http://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Palace-National-Intelligence-Or...
- jonah 16y agoReminds me of the article I read about a couple Italian kids listening in on the Soviet's [lost] space missions: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2342986 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2342986 Not sure how much they sensationalized their efforts but quite interesting look into the history nonetheless.
- edge17 16y agothis is a great story. whether it's fact or fiction, it's riveting
- spacemanaki 16y agoBe sure to click through to the Amazon page for this recording... for the cover art and "album title". http://www.amazon.com/Sojuz-Death-Komarov-During-Re-Entry/dp/B002SHRCYU http://www.amazon.com/Sojuz-Death-Komarov-During-Re-Entry/dp...
- thought_alarm 16y agoThis analysis [1] pours cold water on the CIA's interpretation of Komarov's transmissions. It's an interesting read, regardless. [1] http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Soyuz1Land/Soyanaly.htm http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Soyuz1Land/Soyanaly.htm
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- hoag 16y agoThis is a chilling story. But such is the plight of man setting out on new frontiers of exploration: from Francisco and Columbus setting out across the seas, to Earhart's one way flight, so too will man flounder in his trek through the stars. Look: explorers of all elements -- land, air, sea -- undertake their endeavors to accomplish a singular goal: the discovery of the unknown. An uncertainty of one's destination brings with it, therefore, an uncertainty of one's success and therefore of one's survival. And this is a risk that all explorers knowingly and willingly undertake -- it is a condition precedent to being such a brave traveller. Accordingly, I think to shed so dark and negative a light on the several tragedies during mankind's nascent years of exploration is to miss the point and indeed forsake the very thing for which those pioneers lived: the furthering of our race, the advancement of our species. Rather than mourn the loss of our fellow adventurers in their quest into the unknown, we should instead celebrate them, not only for their accomplishments in life, but additionally and especially in death. After all, but for their risks, but for their selfless ability to consciously put their lives on the line both for their countries -- and indeed for our species as a whole -- and, certainly, to satisfy their thirst for knowledge and discovery, we would still be travelling the European continent on horseback. As indecent as it may sound, I am certain our great explorers would be disappointed to see us saddened by their loss, and that they would far rather their memories be praised with all the pomp and circumstance worthy of their triumphant accomplishments, failures and successes alike.
- VladRussian 16y ago>But such is the plight of man setting out on new frontiers of exploration: from Francisco and Columbus setting out across the seas, Columbus sent across the ocean on a wood rotten ship just to make it right on time to the celebration of 50 years of Revolut... err.. coronation. I guess, Columbia would have some another name and it would be some other, not 1492, year of America discovery.
- JoachimSchipper 16y agoNice rhetoric, but exploration looks like setting out westward with three fairly decent ships to see if you can find something - it doesn't look like giving a man a canoe and telling him to paddle that way, or else.
- varjag 16y agoThis is on par with "Alien Autopsy" and 9/11 conspiracies. That said, it invokes the "crazy Russikies" stereotype, so it must be true.
- pyre 16y ago> This is on par with "Alien Autopsy" and 9/11 conspiracies. What is it about this that is so unbelievable? That there was political pressure from the top that this flight 'had to happen no matter what?' > That said, it invokes the "crazy Russikies" stereotype, > so it must be true. What is the 'crazy Russikies [sic]' stereotype, and how does this invoke it?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- nice1 16y agoThis reminds me of the Chernobyl story.
- karolist 16y agoI know this is probably inappropriate, but I've googled his wife out of interest, to see if USSR took good care of her, this is what I've found http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/valentina-Komarov/1315569098 http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/valentina-Komarov/131556909...
- gobongo 16y agoIn Soviet Russia, duckface does you!