It Finally Happened: Russian Soyuz to ISS fails to launch, Astronauts bail out.

[Voidwielder]

Unrelated https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contrac...ticle/1658771/ thoughts @Skroe?

[caervek]

Playing devil's advocate here, this is the first failure of this type in 43 years and the abort system worked flawlessly. That's a good safety record (better than the average plane, the space shuttle, and most of the stuff currently in development). Don't forget, this is the first launch failure of the Soyuz-FG in 65 launches, and while one is still one too many, it's not exactly the end of the world.

Having said that, the Russians do seem to be having a number of issues this year, whether this is due to failing standards or higher transparency remains to be seen, but either way it's worrying.

Random historical note: Apollo 13 also suffered a similar booster failure and would have also resulted in a ballistic abort however NASA decided to gamble running on the remaining boosters (the criteria for aborting a moon mission was higher than the criteria for aborting an ISS resupply mission). Had the launch been aborted it would have avoided the critical systems failure that occured later in space.

- - - Updated - - -

No one is getting in a Soyuz for a few months. Meanwhile the (damaged) capsule docked to the ISS is nearing expiration. That capsule is the crews only ride home until the Soyuz program resumes, there if there's an emergency and the capsule has gone beyond its 200 day shelf life they as SoL up there...left for dead essentially.

IIRC the damage to the Soyuz currently docked has been repaired, but was on the orbital module anyway so wouldn't affect reentry.

Basically the spacecraft has three modules, the rear engine/power module (Instrument Service Module), the centre reentry (descent) module, and the frontal (Orbital/Utility) module. When it's time to come home the front/rear modules are jettisoned in space and the centre reentry module descends.

[Danner]

I'm actually rather impressed nobody died. Challenger is half a lifetime ago, but fresh in mind still.

As to whether the Russian space program is diminishing as OP says... yeah, most likely.
But I feel that is true for NASA as well. There is a reason people are putting their hopes on SpaceX these days.

[caervek]

The Russian Federation inherited a world-class space program from the Soviet Union.

It also inherited a bankrupt space program, don't forget that. It didn't matter what happened before, if the USA gave NASA to Greece (lol) you wouldn't expect NASA to do very well.

I.E The fact that the day the USSR collapsed the Russian Federation instantly became the owners of the newest/best/most advanced space shuttles on the planet meant nothing as they never flew again, they were left to rot in their hangers (which also rotting eventually collapsed on them). Hell it took them until four years ago to finally get their GPS system fully functional again lol.

[Shalcker]

It also inherited a bankrupt space program, don't forget that. It didn't matter what happened before, if the USA gave NASA to Greece (lol) you wouldn't expect NASA to do very well.

I.E The fact that the day the USSR collapsed the Russian Federation instantly became the owners of the newest/best/most advanced space shuttles on the planet meant nothing as they never flew again, they were left to rot in their hangers (which also rotting eventually collapsed on them). Hell it took them until four years ago to finally get their GPS system fully functional again lol.

Well, the problem with space is that outside of ballistic missiles and satellites, it's just prestige thing.

And there are hundreds of other things competing for prestige and promising more immediate benefits (like Olympics/Football).

Most things you can do "in space" you can do in a lot more timely and cheaper manner back on Earth.

[sarahtasher]

The Space Shuttle, while a technological marvel for 1970 was the kind of space vehicle that was an anathema to what was needed


Concept, a space truck that is reusable. Neat ! Except that with 1970 technology, the key problem (every kilogram of payload require massive amounts of fuel and the orbiter is dead weight for lift off and mission proper) remains. But you have to start somewhere.


But the space shuttle was a device that served only to send crews in low orbit (including for tasks that would not have required crews) while being significantly more dangerous for the said crews that classic launchers. To be very direct, a Proton rocket failing is just money. Astronauts casualties are automatically a national tragedy, the least thing NASA can afford politically.

Making the shuttle safe(r) (an oxymoron : space travel is incredibly risky and, again, the shuttle was way more dangerous than Saturn rockets) came at the price of reducing, twice, an already marginal usefulness.

[Kreo]

I actually waited for Skroe thread about it. It's about technology and Russians, your favorite topics.
Getting lazy man, took your sweet time to post it.
I bet he actually wanted people to die, just so he can throw larger rock at Russians. You need help, my friend. That much hate isn't healthy, even if this is your core identity.

[Deleted]

The Space Shuttle was a far more complex system than Soyuz. Soyuz is extremely simple as far as rockets go.

Hope you're not reading too much into what I've written, Personally I think the Space Programs, across the globe are mans greatest achievement. The discovery of fire, the invention of the wheel have lead us to this. The pinnacle of what we can achieved, and the American Program in particular is without doubt the biggest hitter. Big!! thumbs up to the United States. But as another poster said, the problem with the Shuttle program "was", its complexity, perhaps at the time of its design and concept it was a little too ambitious.
And although the Soyuz is definitely beginning to show it age now, and its obvious the only thing keeping it going is the money NASA pay for its service (unfortunately). Its simplicity is it crowning glory.
And I yearn for the day when the US again has its own Program, if anything Just cos you guys name things better, Discovery, Endeavor, Colombia, Atlantis and Challenger kick ass over "Soyuz Capsule" in the names department lol.

[cubby]

I actually waited for Skroe thread about it. It's about technology and Russians, your favorite topics.
Getting lazy man, took your sweet time to post it.
I bet he actually wanted people to die, just so he can throw larger rock at Russians. You need help, my friend. That much hate isn't healthy, even if this is your core identity.

Waited, but obviously didn't read it. If you had, you wouldn't post such bullshit. Speaking of hate . . . you really need to let your obsession with Skroe go. It won't lead to anything good, and intellectually, well, you're obvious out of your class.

Had you read it, you'd know that no rocks were thrown, just an objective analysis of events facts and what the future holds for Russian space flight. But please, do go on about your healthy posts . . . .

[Skroe]

Unrelated https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contrac...ticle/1658771/ thoughts @Skroe?

So this is very interesting. Very very interesting.

If I had to sum up this development in a phrase I would say "industrial policy".

First we have to look at who isn't there because it puts things into focus: SpaceX.

SpaceX's Falcon Rocket is the foundation of what is by far the most advanced Space Program on the planet, No other company or any government has anything as close or as cost effective. A rocket that can launch 22.8 tons to LEO, and land and be reused, for $60 million (after about $14 million in build costs), and be strapped together with two other cores to be a super heavy lift launcher is absolutely incredible. Any country or government starting today will be working about 10 years to catch up to what SpaceX has been doing for a few years now.

In truth SpaceX's technology is so far ahead, and so much more cost effective than its competitors, whoever and wherever they are, that by rights, they should put them all out of business. Why on earth would anyone buy a $225 million Atlas V rocket launch from ULA when you can buy a more capable launch for $60 million or less? You wouldn't. All things being equal, SpaceX should cause the shuttering of almost every rocket builder in the world that isn't working on similar cost effective technology, which most of them are not.

What this contract is is basically partially a government bailout of beleaguered companies that SpaceX is killing, but also an attempt by the Pentagon to diversify its launch options and develop its technology. Both are legitimate for industrial base and launch options reasons. After all, if the Falcon 9 is grounded, the government needs another option to launch to space... that was the entire purpose of developing two rockets for the EELV program in the first place (Delta IV, Atlas V, originally by Lockheed and Boeing respectively, now both by ULA, a joint venture of both).

Now let's talk rockets.

United Launch Services in th contract is ULA. They are getting $967 million to develop the Vulcan-Centaur launcher. Vulcan-Centaur is basically A new first stage with Blue Origin BE-4 engines, and the same (mostly unchanged) Centaur upperstage as the Atlas V. The effective purpose of this rocket was to replace the Atlas V Booster Core first stage, which utilizes a Russian RD-180 engine, with an American Produced engine. While Aerojet made a plug and play replacement for the RD-180, the AR-1 (basically an improved, American-build RD-180), ULA instead decided to go with a full first stage redesign to bring down costs to better compete with SpaceX. So instead of a re-engined Atlas V with AR-1, we get "Vulcan".




Vulcan, though superior to Atlas V in every way conceptually, is a pretty shit rocket in the world that the Falcon 9 exists.

First it won't land. Instead, it's engine module will detach from the first stage and re-enter the atmosphere in an inflatable aeroshell, with parachutes, that will then be caught mid-air by a heavy duty helicopter. Yes. That is their resuability concept. It's as stupid as it sounds.

Secondly it's still hugely expensive. An entire Vulcan-Centuar launch will cost about $125 million for the same payloads SpaceX does for $60 million - $90 million (national security launches). To put it in perspective, the Centaur upper stage costs about $35 million alone.

Thirdly, the promised advanced capability - a replacement for Centaur that is cheaper - is a promise that will come after 2030. In truth, Centaur has been flying since the 1950s. It'll fly until the 2050s. ULA has no history of developing new technology without the government footing the bill nearly in full.

What this contract represents is a bailout for ULA, which will stop flying the Atlas V in 2023 and the Delta IV Heavy in 2025. This is acceptable to the US government to a degree because it can shoulder the expensive costs for a Vulcan-Centaur, as it does Atlas V and Delta IV (which costs $480 million to launch) right now. The rocket is dead insofar as commercial space launch is concerned though. ULA justifies these costs on the grounds of reliability and experience. In truth, though the Air Force is new best friends with SpaceX (NASA is always suspicious of them), they want a plan B, and ULA is their plan B.


Orbital Science (Northrop Grumman) OmegA is the newest entry to the list and from the industrial base standpoint, the most important.

OmegA is essentially a modified Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster as a first stage (4 segement) with two strap on solid boosters, a new liquid fueled upperstage that uses two RL-10, also used on Centaur and the Delta Cryogenic Second Stage.

This is a really interesting design that promises to be highly capable in theory. The Shuttle SRBs are the most powerful individual engines of any type ever built (way, way more than the famous Saturn F-1).

Omega's performance will be less than the Vulcan-Centaur or Falcon 9. Probably closer to the Atlas V 401 (the most popular variant) of about 10 tons to LEO and 5 tons to GTO. But that's ideal for the Pentagon, because by far most of their National Security launches are in that range (and satellites are getting much, much smaller in general). Omega won't be the most capable launcher, but it'll be the one designed, seemingly purpose built, to answer the most common need the Pentagon has.

And it gets better for the Pentagon in two other ways.

First, it'll probably be very cost effective compared to Atlas V 401 and Vulcan-Centaur. The upper stage, we can estimate due to its similarity to Centaur, will cost about $30 million. The first stage, a design based on the Shuttle SRB, will go for $23 million if it costs the same. The side boosters, GEM-63, should cost around $2 million each tops, and each Omega will have 0 to 6 of them (which gives a very cost effective performance throttling ability). In summary, the rocket should cost about $53 million to $65 million in base costs, with probably another $10 million to $15 million in support costs above that. It'll still be much more expensive than a Falcon 9, but a fraction of the cost of the Atlas V or Vulcan Centaur. So for the Air Force, a very positive option.

Secondly, it's a solid booster. This is important. Northrop bought Orbital ATK recently, and ATK is one of the two primary producers of Solid Fueled rocket motors in the US. Solid fuel is different than liquid fuel (such as Kerosene). Some forms have a consistency similar to peanut butter. They make for EXTREMELY powerful rockets, way more on a mass-fuel basis than liquid. In fact, it took Solid fueled boosters to get the shuttle off the ground - a liquid booster replacement would have been very technologically challenging and far larger and heavier at the time. Solid fuel rockets have a key difference from liquid boosters though. Liquid boosters can have their valves closed or throttled. They can turn off then refire. They can shut down for safety reasons. For solid rocket engines, as soon as the fuse is lit, that rocket is going to fly. This made their inclusion in the Shuttle stack very controversial for the duration of the program, with some engineers considering the Shuttle an intrinsically flawed designed because using Solid boosters was a saftey risk to the crew compared to liquid, which could be turned off.

Insofar as the unmanned Omega is concerned, Solid Fuel gives a rocket of this limited size the launch capacity it has. It would ahve to be a larger, more expensive rocket, if it were liquid.

Solid fuel is used in many applications, from air to air missiles to ICBMs and SLBMs. Which brings us to why this is ALSO important to the Pentagon: it keeps Northrop in the Solid Fuel engine business.

From the 1950s to the 1980s, there were lots of manufacturers of solid fueled engines. Why? The US was building and iterating on rocket technology, chiefly in the form of nuclear weapons, on a very regular basis. Every year it would place big orders. By the 1980s, with the Trident II, Minuteman III and Peacekeeper MX, the designs were so mature... so much better than everything that had come before, that orders dramatically fell off. The US will always need to buy some new replacements for its ballistic missile arsenal as it does test firings and refurbishment, but it's not like it was in the 1970s, where the US would order dozens of missiles per year. Instead, it may buy five or six, to replace the five or six it intends to test fire.

This has made the solid fueled business one with very marginal profitability for Orbital ATK (again, now part of Northrop). Orbital ATK did enjoy another revenue stream in the form of Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster support in the 1980s,1990s, and 2000s. While the boosters were reusable, they did need to be refueled, and with the Shuttle flying 4-6 times per year, it was a reliable source of income.

In the present era, the Shuttle is retired. the SLS, which uses two five segment SRBs (and will fly in 2020), is expected to fly "just" once or twice per year through the 2020s. Not nearly enough to be reliably profitable.

Simply put, the Pentagon needs to keep ATK in the solid fuel business. it needs to have a domestic manufacturer of the stuff that makes it's nuclear arsenal fly, in order to maintain them and buy new ones, even though it is unlikely it will ever buy dozens of missiles per year again (even the Minuteman III replacement called GBSD will probably be done at like 20 at a time, over 20 years).

This contract gives Northrop a reason to keep ATK in the solid fuel business, and should it become an operational launcher would provide an additional, reliable revenue stream. So yeah, part bailout. But also a completely different technology, as every other space flight company utilizes liquid fuel (if they use small strap on solid boosters, they subcontract it).


Lastly the Blue Origin option for $500 million for the New Glenn is just strange. New Glenn will be reusable and by far the most capable rocket on the list (45 tons to LEO). It will be more capable than the Falcon 9 (though less than the Falcon Heavy). As a reusable booster, its costs should be close to SpaceXs, and way less than Vulcan Centaur.

The thing is, nothing makes sense with Blue Origin. Aerojet's been building engines since 1942 and their engines have sent countless rockets into space, and the AR-1 a good design. But what does ULA do for Vulcan? Go with the Blue Origin BE-4, which has never flown, and is built by a company that has never put anything in space. And what does the Pentagon do here, give $500 million to Blue Origin to continue developing a rocket more capable than the Falcon 9, despite the fact that Blue Origin's only flight was a suborbital proof of concept (New Shepard). Blue Origin, right now, is a company developing technology that may position them as a viable competitor to SpaceX one day, but right now, it's a lot of promises (promising promises, but promises no doubt).

And yet they keep winning huge contracts, and edging out proven competitors like Aerojet and ULA.

I honestly don't get it with them. Don't get me wrong, I want them to succeed. I think it's hilarious that Boeing is using the BE-4 for the Vulcan Centaur, when BE-4 will also be the first stage of the more capable, reusable New Glenn which is in direct competition to the Vulcan Centaur. That's like Pepsi asking Coke to supply Pepsi with Coke, that Pepsi will put in a Pepsi can.


All in all this is VERY good for America and VERY good for the Pentagon. It means the US government and taxpayers will have highly diversified (in source and technology) and largely cost-effective (compared to prior gen, not necessarily to SpaceX) options to put medium-masses and heavy masses into Space over the next 3-5 years. SpaceX is still by far the market leader, but this is important. But that being said, it can't be overlooked what this is: industrial policy at work. Probably good in this case, but not free market. Because by rights, the $61 million Falcon 9 does everything launch wise all three of these rockets can do, today, for cheaper.


Some pictures for context.

[Deleted]

-snip-

Are you done? Because there's no 100% safety.

Do I need to re-post the same explanation that Soyuz is safest rocket % in a long string of launches? only for you to reply once again with posting some us rockets that only flew a few times no-where near in the vicinity of soyuz launches? Do you want to go through that again? Or are you going to continue making these retarded threads pretending you forgot?

- - - Updated - - -

Putin has shifted space spending and Russian retirement money to defense. Can't fall behind the Americans.

Are you for real? They cut defense. We had thread on this forum about it, n I bet 3 gnomes that you were in it "Russia is falling apart!!!111"

[Skroe]

Waited, but obviously didn't read it. If you had, you wouldn't post such bullshit. Speaking of hate . . . you really need to let your obsession with Skroe go. It won't lead to anything good, and intellectually, well, you're obvious out of your class.

Had you read it, you'd know that no rocks were thrown, just an objective analysis of events facts and what the future holds for Russian space flight. But please, do go on about your healthy posts . . . .

Correct. @Kreo doesn't know what he's talking about.

The irony is, this isn't an anti-Russia thread. I even said it's sad that this happened. The Soviet Union and early Russian Federation had a world class space program. The Russian people were rightfully very proud of their country's historic and important achievement's in space.

Hell, after the Columbia disaster and the Bush Administration's debut of the "Vision of Space Exploration", the primary crewed vehicle under that plan the Ares I... this...(pictures Ares I-X prototype)



Was billed as an "American Soyuz", a phrase used commonly in space circles at the time. Another one was a "Space Taxi", A capsule on a no-frills launcher. A way to get people to space cheaply and reliably, leaving mass hauling to rockets designed for that (and not try and double up people and mass transportation, as with the Shuttle).

Think about this: "American Soyuz". We were envious of the stupid simple "Space Taxi" Russia had. Because the concept itself, which Russia pioneered, is a fundamentally good one. The Soyuz of today is fairly different from ones from 50 years ago, but not all of it. It's been incrimentally improved. It's actually a monument to incremental development, which is something that NASA is just now coming around to (it liked expensive clean sheet designs too much).

So yes, historically, there is much to like about the Soyuz. Not every rocket has to be a Space Shuttle, a Saturn V (with Apollo), or a Falcon 9.

Which makes the fact that the Russian Space Program has been looted and pillaged by Vladimir Putin's goon squad even more an insult to humanity.

It is deeply lamentable what has happened to it. it's a terrible thing that Russia's space-industrial base has so declined. It's even worse how it happened, with billions of dollars missing, and underpaid, insufficiently trained workers supplanting retired veterans, some of which were also pulled to other countries to advise.

This thread isn't a Russian slam. if I wanted to slam Russia, i'd just go post about their ongoing Ukraine misadventure, or how the fact that the US is rapidly moving weapons to Europe just underscores that the KGB's assessment of Vladimir Putin in the 1980s - that he's kind of an imbecile who mistakes luck for skill - is still fundamentally correct.

If anything, this is a slam towards people in that other Russian Space thread (with the drilled holes) who downplayed the significance of the events. I wrote, and sourced information, about Russia's industrial decline and it's effect on their Space Program. It was waved off as anti-Russian propaganda, or just a guy with a blog or something of that nature.

Well no, it isn't. NASA has been concerned about this stuff for a decade, and experts have been warning, particularly after the failure of the latest model of Progress launches to the ISS (which are Soyuz boosted) that it was a matter of time before a similar failure happened to a crewed mission.

We're lucky nobody died. And it's a reminder of how important good Launch Abort systems are. Russians should be proud that the Soyuz LAS worked so well and saved two lives, for the second time in spaceflight history. despite hundreds of manned launches by the US and Russia.

But this is precisely what downplaying stuff because it's politically upsetting gets people. It gets people disasters. Pretending all is well with Russia's space program and industrial base doesn't make it so. All you're doing is gambling the next flight doesn't blow up in somebody's face. Certain individuals here, parroting Russian officials for the record (though not intentionally of course) did that just last week. And look what happened.

Does somebody have to die for them to take it seriously? Or is this enough to do something about it?

As an American Taxpayer, I don't want my Tax dollars financing the space program of an adversary regime. Russia is our adversary. We should not be working with them. Especially when American launch options are almost here, and superior in capability.

But ad an advocate for Spaceflight, i don't want Americans flying on the Soyuz right now because there is a significant burden of proof on the Russians to show that modern Soyuzs are safe to fly. What people have wrote in this thread - how it's flown for 50 years so it must be safe - is fundamentally ridiculous and wrong. That's exactly the same kind of arrogance that got us both Challenger and Columbia. That because years of no failures are behind us, current failures are a lower risk. In actuality, once again, the Russians building Soyuzs in 2005 and after, are different Russians than built them during the 1970s and 1980s, when quality control was better and the workforce more professional.

Instead of papering over it, perhaps some folks should just recognize how things have changed. The Russian Space Program, as it stands now, faces an ignominious end in all but name. With the Space Station deorbiting in 2028 (should be 2024, but booo), and without sufficient funds for a replacement space vehicle or new space station, Russia will be reduced to just sending Soyuz rockets to orbit to "show the flag", or docking at the Chinese Space Station (if that oft-delayed whatever-fest actually ever gets built). And it will do it on a rocket whose failure rate keeps going up every decade.

As one Agent of Russia would say: "Sad!"

- - - Updated - - -

Are you done? Because there's no 100% safety.

Do I need to re-post the same explanation that Soyuz is safest rocket % in a long string of launches? only for you to reply once again with posting some us rockets that only flew a few times no-where near in the vicinity of soyuz launches? Do you want to go through that again? Or are you going to continue making these retarded threads pretending you forgot?

Go ahead, because it's a completely irrelevant number and it's a fucking crock of shit you're bringing it up.

Quality control (and success rate) by Russian rocket engineers building Soyuzes in the 1970s and 1980s is completely irrelevant to the quality control and success rate of Soyuzes built in the 2000s and 2010s. It's different built, different managers and a somewhat different vehicle.

In fact, your thought process is ENTIRELY self defeating. It is this thought you have: "Look at our record! of launches" that lead to the slip in quality control and relaxing of standards that led to Challenger in 1996, and then again to Columbia in 2003. And they had actually some of the same people at the same jobs then too.

At issue isn't the Soyuz's historical successes. Only a fool would argue that (see above re: "American Soyuz"). At issue is that Russia's industrial decline and the looting of the program by Putin's lackeys making it so that TODAYS Soyuzes are built by undertrained, inexperienced people and subject to poorer quality controls that have lead to a directly measurable increased rate of failure that has no comparison in the west.

Am I done? No. Not nearly. But you shouldn't be concerned about me. You should be concerned about whatever poor Russian soul is strapped to the next Soyuz built under the current management regime when Russian officials paper over the root of the problem yet again.

[Malikath]

INB4 Russia claims the astronaut sabotaged the rocket he was on.

[cubby]

Are you done? Because there's no 100% safety.

Do I need to re-post the same explanation that Soyuz is safest rocket % in a long string of launches? only for you to reply once again with posting some us rockets that only flew a few times no-where near in the vicinity of soyuz launches? Do you want to go through that again? Or are you going to continue making these retarded threads pretending you forgot?

If he doesn't, I would like to see it. Can you link the thread/conversation or just cut/paste what you said before? I didn't see the original exchange, hence my request.

Edit: NVM, you're going to argue that past performance is a guarantee of future success, which is perhaps the most ridiculous argument re rocket production know to mankind.

[Skroe]

Well, the problem with space is that outside of ballistic missiles and satellites, it's just prestige thing.

And there are hundreds of other things competing for prestige and promising more immediate benefits (like Olympics/Football).

Most things you can do "in space" you can do in a lot more timely and cheaper manner back on Earth.

Well you won't get to cry when there's an American Territory on Mars in the early 22nd century (if you're around that is).

Jamestown and Early British Colonies gave the United States its distinctive Anglo foundation just as Spanish and Portuguese colonies did the same in Latin America.

Human civilization elsewhere in the Solar System over the next few hundred years will similarly be dictated by whoever sets the foundation in the century ahead. I'm very inclined to see that it has an American character.

It'll be the height of irony if in the early 22nd century Russia, if it is around, is still up to mischief in Ukraine and its near abroad, much like the prior 300 years, while America is building up a territory on Mars.

Unapologetically, I do want the US to annex Mars one day. 100% not joking.

[Deleted]

Space technology is not easy to mantain.

If it's determined the Russians aren't doing a good job, it needs to review it. But lets not act like NASA launches have never botched. The solution and the only solution for space exploration is cooperation. Nationalisms have no place here.

[cubby]

INB4 Russia claims the astronaut sabotaged the rocket he was on.

If there were a betting pool, I would have all my money on that option. They already claimed that was the case with the capsule at ISS.

[Deleted]

Well, the problem with space is that outside of ballistic missiles and satellites, it's just prestige thing.

And there are hundreds of other things competing for prestige and promising more immediate benefits (like Olympics/Football).

Most things you can do "in space" you can do in a lot more timely and cheaper manner back on Earth.

I really hope that's an attempt at sarcasm.

The most important factor in long term human survival starts with space exploration.

You sound like a dinosaur.

- - - Updated - - -

Holy smokes, so much wall of text and it looks like grabbing for straws just to make Russia bad. U.S has been flying years now via Russian spacecrafts and when something like this happens, they get astronauts alive. You went full apeshit mode just because you can and because you have Russian complex.

Disagree with his facts, or his extreme hawk opinions (of which I find distasteful) all you want, but this is not ape shit or grabbing at straws. It's well written mostly fairly neutral commentary on an extremely technical subject.

Soyuz has been a fantastic achievement, but corners can only be cut so far before risks rise to alarming levels.

This not a win for the USA. This is a major setback for us all. Hopefully stop gaps and people willing take continue to risks can save the iss.

[cubby]

Holy smokes, so much wall of text and it looks like grabbing for straws just to make Russia bad. U.S has been flying years now via Russian spacecrafts and when something like this happens, they get astronauts alive. You went full apeshit mode just because you can and because you have Russian complex.

Says the guy who obviously did read any of it. Cite "wall of text" all you want, but don't going crying to your momma because you're too lazy to read it.

Or did you miss the part where he said Soyuz had been the best of all space launch vehicles for decades?

[Tom Anderson]

This thread is gold lol