3 ms·

> One thing that I always find surprising is that Soviet space programs have about the same fatality rate as NASA. Funny enough, but it's the same thing that s

> One thing that I always find surprising is that Soviet space programs have about the same fatality rate as NASA. Funny enough, but it's the same thing that surprises me, though for the exactly opposite reasons. Growing up in Soviet Union era I have this ingrained belief that Soviet space program was the safest one, which is actually true if you look at the absolute numbers and also consider zero fatalities since the early 70s. I don't know if it were propaganda or not, but the common knowledge was that Soviet launch vehicles were built for the safety of the crew first and foremost, even if at expense of other priorities. Also the same went for the fighter jet safety systems and a common story goes that for a long time only Soviet jets had ejection seats capable of safely rescuing pilots if activated on the ground.

znowi 13y ago
> Soviet space program was the safest one I've always had a similar perception. Incidentally, Soyuz is considered the safest craft with only two accidents (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11) in 46 years.
- tanzam75 13y ago
  > Incidentally, Soyuz is considered the safest craft with only two accidents (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11) in 46 years. No. There were only two Soyuz missions with fatal accidents. However, there have been a number of Soyuz missions with nonfatal accidents. Multiple ballistic reentries, multiple engine failures, multiple docking issues, multiple failures of the braking rockets on landing. Cosmonauts have suffered bruises, broken teeth, broken ribs -- one crewmember on Soyuz 18a was so badly injured that he never flew in space again. But Soyuz was an inherently robust design. It is designed to be survivable, to have backups to backups. You may not enjoy the experience, but the Soyuz will try its best to bring you back to earth alive. For example, there have been three separation failures during reentry, most recently in 2008. This is an extremely harrowing event, because the unseparated spacecraft assumes a head-first orientation, unprotected by the heat shield. However, the Soyuz is robustly built, and in all three cases the reentry module survived long enough for the connection to the orbital module to burn free. Once that happened, the mass distribution of the reentry module automatically rotated it to face heat-shield forward. Those three separation failures could've killed 8 cosmonauts. Instead, they killed no cosmonauts. Because the Soyuz could tolerate this particular failure mode.
Sharlin 13y ago
Fun fact: The Russian Kamov KA-50 [1] is one of the very few helicopters equipped with ejection seats. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50
- unimpressive 13y ago
  "For improved pilot survivability the Ka-50 is fitted with a NPP Zvezda (transl. Star) K-37-800 ejection seat, which is a rare feature for a helicopter.[17] Before the rocket in the ejection seat deploys, the rotor blades are blown away by explosive charges in the rotor disc and the canopy is jettisoned." - wiki Besides the risk of the explosives failing, I don't see a problem here.

znowi 13y ago

> Soviet space program was the safest one I've always had a similar perception. Incidentally, Soyuz is considered the safest craft with only two accidents (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11) in 46 years.

tanzam75 13y ago
> Incidentally, Soyuz is considered the safest craft with only two accidents (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11) in 46 years. No. There were only two Soyuz missions with fatal accidents. However, there have been a number of Soyuz missions with nonfatal accidents. Multiple ballistic reentries, multiple engine failures, multiple docking issues, multiple failures of the braking rockets on landing. Cosmonauts have suffered bruises, broken teeth, broken ribs -- one crewmember on Soyuz 18a was so badly injured that he never flew in space again. But Soyuz was an inherently robust design. It is designed to be survivable, to have backups to backups. You may not enjoy the experience, but the Soyuz will try its best to bring you back to earth alive. For example, there have been three separation failures during reentry, most recently in 2008. This is an extremely harrowing event, because the unseparated spacecraft assumes a head-first orientation, unprotected by the heat shield. However, the Soyuz is robustly built, and in all three cases the reentry module survived long enough for the connection to the orbital module to burn free. Once that happened, the mass distribution of the reentry module automatically rotated it to face heat-shield forward. Those three separation failures could've killed 8 cosmonauts. Instead, they killed no cosmonauts. Because the Soyuz could tolerate this particular failure mode.

Sharlin 13y ago

Fun fact: The Russian Kamov KA-50 [1] is one of the very few helicopters equipped with ejection seats. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50

unimpressive 13y ago
"For improved pilot survivability the Ka-50 is fitted with a NPP Zvezda (transl. Star) K-37-800 ejection seat, which is a rare feature for a helicopter.[17] Before the rocket in the ejection seat deploys, the rotor blades are blown away by explosive charges in the rotor disc and the canopy is jettisoned." - wiki Besides the risk of the explosives failing, I don't see a problem here.