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

[cubby]

This type of rocket has had 65 launches, this is the first aborted/failed launch. It's been 43 years since the last high altitude booster failure of a manned rocket (Soyuz 18a in 1975, the escape mechanism again saved the crew).

These things are extremely rare but they do happen, and not just to Russia/USSR, IIRC the most notable example of it happening to NASA was the launch of Apollo 13, but due to that being a moon mission it had a higher abort criteria so they gambled to proceed on the remaining boosters.

What about the unmanned Soyuz-esque failures? Are Progess' not essentially unmanned Soyuz? The growing Proton failures weren't warning signs?

And keep in mind, this isn't any criticism of the Soyuz system - that thing is fantastically robust. I mean, you said it yourself, 65 launches and this is the first abort/fail. The issue is in decreasing quality control, manufacturing expertise, and the general decline of a once-great space launch system.

[Nerraw]

What about the unmanned Soyuz-esque failures? Are Progess' not essentially unmanned Soyuz? The growing Proton failures weren't warning signs?

There's overlap between Progress and the manned Soyuz, yes. So it's definitely a concern.

The Proton-M is a completely different rocket though, manufactured by a completely different company.

[AsGryffynn]

Well, 35 years, that's pretty decent safety record.

Let's see what investigation into nature of failure will produce.

Is there (going to be) actual need to carry that many anywhere at Earth orbit?

You're thinking like a peasant friend! Of course we will need more people there. This mudball isn't long for us!

No more Americans on Russian Space craft, period. They said they would fix their shit, and they didn't. No more chances.

Enjoy starving in the ISS or rushing untested private rockets out of the door!

People have no effing respect for history and precedents these days...

"640 kb of memory aught to be enough for anyone". A quote often miss-attributed to Bill Gates, neatly outlines the absurdity of this statement. Yes, the applications for this level of launch capacity and beyond are likely numerous and already well known. Even if they weren't, ideas to fill that void will arrive in short order, of that we can be sure. Internet bandwidth goes up by an order of magnitude every few years and somehow we always need more. Space travel will be the same way, rest assured.

Trust me, even the likes of Falcon Heavy will end up looking small. I forecast the creation of at least one space elevator by 2100... if we make it that far...

I guess after the Challenger and Columbia, Russia decided they needed to catch up to America in their Rocket Fatality numbers.

Ninja'd...

At issue isn't the historic safety record. Historically, the Soyuz is a proven vehicle.

The problem is that the people who made those historically safe ones aren't making Russia's rockets now. They've retired. And the group on the job the last 8-10 years, despite failed launch after failed launch of what is as of today, every major Russian launch vehicle, is proven to be up to the task.

There is no easy way out of this at all. This is where the looting and pillaging... the profiteering... of the Russian Space Program that happened under Vladmir Putin's regime, has lead.

Today the US hitches a ride on Russia's dangerous rockets, in order to free up money to develop our own sucessor systems. With Dragon 2, Starliner and Orion, we'll soon have three independent systems, and we won't be buying seats anymore. How long will it be before Russia hitches rides on Chinese rockets much the same way?

As you said it yourself, it is a proven vehicle. It's also older than my folks.

Basically, what no one seems to understand is that the Soyuz program has clear symptoms of 737-nitis; they get used and relied on too much because...

1. They are a reliable workhorse...
2. They are cheap, and...
3. They are already developed.

The problem is that this leads to quality decay as the older workers are replaced by newer rocketeers. They might be reliable, but when you start adding new stuff to an old design, it develops a host of different issues and makes the old rocket unstable.

Remember the 737 NG? The 737 was so popular Boeing started to crank out newer planes with better engines... before running into the very evident issue of the planes being too close to the ground to add high bypass turbofans.

The same thing is happening with Soyuz. It's old.

For a good comparison, think what would happen if NASA had to work with the original Space Shuttle now. The agency would laugh at your face and outright tell you it would be far more realistic to develop a new launch system from square one.

The problem with this and the Angara program is that since the Soyuz program is seen as the workhorse of the ISS, the development of a newer rocket is not seen as necessary for now, and instead most scientists are being reassigned to the Soyuz project and being told to instead work on increasingly conflicting incremental upgrades for a project that was simply not designed for them, rather than develop a new platform.

There's an easy way out of this: retiring Soyuz, but only when Musk can take care of the launching of new ISS modules and teams.

And pretty soon. Chinese rocketry endorsing the Space program is a must if Russia is to regain new launch capabilities. You can't run two programs at the same time (the US themselves never have. Space X is a private company and Boeing also commands half the plane market. Roscosmos is almost entirely public, compared to those two.

So if Russia wants better spave launch systems, they will need to sit in NASA's seat in the near future and let someone else ferrying cosmonauts.

Also, I am not surprised you seem to belive the West purposefully deindustrialized Russia. Yeltsin is almost certainly the source of all its woes.

Well, Skroe, yes, the space shuttle is more complex than the Soyuz. Which is kinda the point. The space shuttle is WAY too complex for the task it had to do, which is why the US are reverting to capsules….

We're gonna need that one back too sooner than later though. Same with Falcon Heavy and Energiya...

I'm glad nobody died.

Ditto. This above everything else...

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

This. Sarmat alone is already far more sophisticates and as nice for ferry runs (and Angara has some links with it).

The retirement money though? It remains within retirement vaults. The age rise simply means it won't increase further.

Get your priorities checked!

- - - Updated - - -

To bad no country can lay a claim to any territory not on planet Earth. You'd make a good addition to Trumps team, though. Also, aren't you guys on a good course to be mischievous again in, what was it this time, Iran? A new invasion of a souvereign nation every decae or so, wasn't it?

Too bad the American supremacist isn't aware of the fact his country will either decline or evolve. Any version of the US claiming territory in Mars is far more likely to resemble a mega Mexico than the country Skroe knows...

[Masark]

To bad no country can lay a claim to any territory not on planet Earth.

Skroe has long been saying that everyone that matters is going to abandon the OST as soon as interplanetary colonization becomes feasible.

Given the potential wealth in the solar system, it's difficult to refute that view.

[cubby]

To bad no country can lay a claim to any territory not on planet Earth.

According to . . . ?

You'd make a good addition to Trumps team, though.

Ignorance isn't your friend. You shouldn't embrace it so willingly.

[Masark]

According to . . . ?

The Outer Space Treaty.

[cubby]

Skroe has long been saying that everyone that matters is going to abandon the OST as soon as interplanetary colonization becomes feasible.

Given the potential wealth in the solar system, it's difficult to refute that view.

Agreed. Future mass wealth is going to come from space, specifically asteroid mining. Mars will be a big piece of that, because of location and ease of colonization.

- - - Updated - - -

The Outer Space Treaty.

Yeah, I know. The point was what you've already said. Won't last a lick past the point of asteroid mining.

[AsGryffynn]

If you actually read Scroe's posts you would understand. Simply put the workers building the Soyuz rockets now are not as experienced when it comes to the little tricks of building the rocket. You also have the quality checks not being as high, thus you have this moment. Now go actually read his posts because he sure as hell does a better job of explaining it than I do in two sentences.

He essentially politicized and then elaborated on something that is already well known: that old systems don't work forever. Also, that as long as Soyuz is running, there won't be new, more reliable rockets.

It's not a quality issue and less a personnel issue. It's a design issue. These things run on technology newer scientists wonder how rockets still fly on. They don't understand how they roll, and any of the warning signs that would've gotten these boosters refueled were dismissed.

I am also thinking of the deliberate leak in their ISS module recently and thinking there might be deliberate sabotage or neglect somewhere in the industry.

What about the unmanned Soyuz-esque failures? Are Progess' not essentially unmanned Soyuz? The growing Proton failures weren't warning signs?

And keep in mind, this isn't any criticism of the Soyuz system - that thing is fantastically robust. I mean, you said it yourself, 65 launches and this is the first abort/fail. The issue is in decreasing quality control, manufacturing expertise, and the general decline of a once-great space launch system.

That even Korolev believed Protonwas a death trap is no secret. However, the problems of the current program are a symptom of its age and not that of Russia.

The Soyuz system is simply not long for this world.

Even so, should I bring out the "list of Falcon and Boeing rocketry errors" in?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Maybe Space X can come to the rescue?

[AsGryffynn]

Agreed. Future mass wealth is going to come from space, specifically asteroid mining. Mars will be a big piece of that, because of location and ease of colonization.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, I know. The point was what you've already said. Won't last a lick past the point of asteroid mining.

Asteroid mining will probably be waived. There's enough for every friggin country out there, but if the UN remains, they will probably not waive colonial restrictions.

I hope the UN obtains a nuclear deterrent soon though...

[cubby]

Asteroid mining will probably be waived. There's enough for every friggin country out there, but if the UN remains, they will probably not waive colonial restrictions.

I hope the UN obtains a nuclear deterrent soon though...

OST will probably be waived away as the first corporation to get to Mars. You have to look at the big long-term picture. No one is going to abide by the OST as soon as we start colonizing the moon and asteroid mining introduces us to trillion dollar enterprises (one weird trick . . .).

I'm not saying that nations are going to legitimately claim Mar or another planet as their own, that's a little ridiculous. Annexation is another issue entirely, of course. I'm just saying that that the OST will cease to exist. It's outdated, irrelevant, and laughable as nations progress into LEO.

[AsGryffynn]

OST will probably be waived away as the first corporation to get to Mars. You have to look at the big long-term picture. No one is going to abide by the OST as soon as we start colonizing the moon and asteroid mining introduces us to trillion dollar enterprises (one weird trick . . .).

I'm not saying that nations are going to legitimately claim Mar or another planet as their own, that's a little ridiculous. Annexation is another issue entirely, of course. I'm just saying that that the OST will cease to exist. It's outdated, irrelevant, and laughable as nations progress into LEO.

A replacement is more likely to happen. If anything, companies will rule Mars...

[Deleted]

How did he end his essay? Stop grabbing for straws and check out the whole message what the guy is saying.

- - - Updated - - -



What happens when they continue to fly with Soyuz?

Im sure they will continue, until the next accident occurs. Probably after that too.

[Muzjhath]

What happens when they continue to fly with Soyuz?

More and more accidents/errors/failures during launch and other stages of use.
Sooner or later a death (as NASA and ESA people stop using them, probably of a Russian astronaut). Unless suddenly Russia fixes the issues mentioned in this thread about the industrial base.

[Gaidax]

I prefer this outcome to Space Shuttle Columbia, at least there is actual backup plan that actually works well.

[Deleted]

This type of rocket has had 65 launches, this is the first aborted/failed launch. It's been 43 years since the last high altitude booster failure of a manned rocket (Soyuz 18a in 1975, the escape mechanism again saved the crew).

These things are extremely rare but they do happen, and not just to Russia/USSR, IIRC the most notable example of it happening to NASA was the launch of Apollo 13, but due to that being a moon mission it had a higher abort criteria so they gambled to proceed on the remaining boosters.

There are reasons why it had such a fantastic safety record. There are reasons why it is much riskier now than 40 years ago.

- - - Updated - - -

More and more accidents/errors/failures during launch and other stages of use.
Sooner or later a death (as NASA and ESA people stop using them, probably of a Russian astronaut). Unless suddenly Russia fixes the issues mentioned in this thread about the industrial base.

Skroes main point (i think) is that fixing any production issues is rather tricky, as lots of production processes were 'unwritten' and passed on on-the-job.

[Deleted]

It's so odd that they still have to use Russian rockets to get up there.

But I read somewhere NASA is busy creating some military drone that can fly on it's own in orbit, so I guess they got other priorities right now.

[Muzjhath]

That's an assumption. Do you think they have like 5 rockets that they have been reusing in past 20 years? And yeah, people on internet know lots more about rocket issues because old saying goes "WarCraft is like science" than actuall scientists.

No, they absolutely not don't use 5 rockets. The issue is the people building the rockets today are not the same people who did it 30 years ago. Which is one of Skroe's (and other who follow the industry) main points on why the Soyuz needs to go. Industrial base failure that causes chain reactions down the line. On paper I'm fairly sure that if everything is built to standard it'd be a good enough rocket (which was the goal of it). However, the people building it don't reach that standard because of bad funding, brain drain, etc.

Skroes main point (i think) is that fixing any production issues is rather tricky, as lots of production processes were 'unwritten' and passed on on-the-job.

Yeah, which is why I feel the assumption I made is a fairly safe one. Unless Russia stop using them that is, which I kinda don't see happening as Putin doubtfully would want to take that prestige hit unless they can start using other rockets. Which I doubt they can afford at this point unless they want to run even further into the red.

[caervek]

Simply put the workers building the Soyuz rockets now are not as experienced when it comes to the little tricks of building the rocket.

And yet until a few days ago the current rocket had a spotless record (unlike many of the older rockets). Trying to claim the current designers/fabricators are not as good because of an increase in problems does have merit, but requires context. I.E there have been more failed launches recently than in the early 90's, but that's because the have been more launches.

- - - Updated - - -

What about the unmanned Soyuz-esque failures?

Different rockets.

Don't get me wrong, it's not good, but you will always have a greater failure rate of unmanned craft (ideall) as they aren't subject to the same standards. (AFAIK NASA/ESA have a greater unmanned failure rate vs manned too).

- - - Updated - - -

it is a proven vehicle. It's also older than my folks.

Soyuz is the name of the rocket family, they aren't using the same rockets they were in the 60's lol.

The Soyuz-FG series that failed the other day made its debut in 2001 and is scheduled to be retired in 2019 (replaced by the Soyuz-2 which has already replaced the Soyuz-U and Molniya-M).

To put it in perspective, bashing the current Soyuz rockets because Soyuz rockets have been around for ages is no contextually silly than bashing the F-35 because planes with the "F" designation have been around for ages :P

[Stormdash]

The Russian track record on human fatality in manned space flight is objectively better than the American one, there is some very interesting spin in that article to make it sound like the Soyuz program is some fly by night operation. Instead, a safe abort is pretty reassuring in a broad view. Space flight is dangerous, spoilers.