Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-11-2018, 06:43 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,526
Soyuz MS-10 failure, crew safe.

Today’s Soyuz MS-10, with one American and one Russian cosmonaut suffered a booster failure and the spacecraft returned to the ground on a ballistic trajectory.
If the spacecraft reached above the Karmen line then its the first American sub-orbital flight since the 60’s.
No idea if the escape tower was used.
  #2  
Old 10-11-2018, 08:17 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
No idea if the escape tower was used.
According to this, no (I think):

Quote:
Originally Posted by collectspace
The anomaly was reported shortly after the booster's first stage had separated and the rocket's escape tower had been jettisoned when the Soyuz was about 28 miles (45 kilometers) in altitude.
  #3  
Old 10-11-2018, 09:19 AM
Ionizer Ionizer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 825
I just watched a vid of the launch and the escape tower definitely, per person announcing and visually on video, ejected just prior to the failure sequence.

Saw somewhere that the astronauts probably experienced around 20G's off/on due to the altered/steep entry. Damn! It's why they train so hard :-)
  #4  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:49 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,644
When they landed, their first priority was to change their space pants...
  #5  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:05 PM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,526
Russian video of the recovery.
  #6  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:15 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,425
A close call! No astronaut has died since Columbia disintegrated in 2003. Let's keep the streak going!
  #7  
Old 10-11-2018, 01:16 PM
gregorio gregorio is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ionizer View Post
I just watched a vid of the launch and the escape tower definitely, per person announcing and visually on video, ejected just prior to the failure sequence.
Link?
  #8  
Old 10-11-2018, 01:19 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ionizer View Post
I just watched a vid of the launch and the escape tower definitely, per person announcing and visually on video, ejected just prior to the failure sequence.

Saw somewhere that the astronauts probably experienced around 20G's off/on due to the altered/steep entry. Damn! It's why they train so hard :-)
That's a lot of Gs. Is that more than astronauts normally experience? I wonder if they were injured.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885
  #9  
Old 10-11-2018, 01:29 PM
scr4 scr4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post
Link?
There are many copies of the same footage on Youtube. On this one the "escape tower separation" is at 3:49. Looks to me like there's more than just the escape tower falling off of the rocket, but I don't know how it normally looks.

Video switches to CGI shortly after, and it's disconcerting/amusing to see the CGI rocket continue normally even as the voices in the background announce "failure of the booster."
  #10  
Old 10-11-2018, 01:35 PM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,381
Nobody died, so time for a laugh.

This event makes me think of XKCD's "US Space Team's Up Goer Five" poster, specifically the note on the main engines:

Quote:
Originally Posted by XKCD
THIS END SHOULD POINT TOWARD THE GROUND IF YOU WANT TO GO TO SPACE. IF IT STARTS POINTING TOWARD SPACE YOU ARE HAVING A BAD PROBLEM AND WILL NOT GO TO SPACE TODAY.

Last edited by Machine Elf; 10-11-2018 at 01:35 PM.
  #11  
Old 10-11-2018, 02:04 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
That's a lot of Gs. Is that more than astronauts normally experience? I wonder if they were injured.


Yes quite a lot more. But not for very long durations. IIRC a Soyuz reentering from orbit under normal aerodynamic reentry profile peaks at 5g, if there’s a problem with that it will go ballistic and a “normal” ballistic entry peaks between 8 and 10 g.

Aborts involve extremely violent maneuvers and then you don’t get the luxury of a long arc trajectory. You want to get the hell away from the big explodey thing then you want to get down quickly.
  #12  
Old 10-11-2018, 02:20 PM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,526
9-10 g are something the latest modern high-performance fighter jets pull. Both crewmen came from fighters, so I suspect the g forces were unpleasent due to being unwelcome but nothing either have not endured before.
  #13  
Old 10-11-2018, 02:45 PM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 24,362
I bet those brown stains will be on the upholstery for a long time.

I know that would have scared the crap out of me.
  #14  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:26 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
I bet those brown stains will be on the upholstery for a long time.

I know that would have scared the crap out of me.
Soyuz capsules are discarded after one use anyways, right?
  #15  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:36 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 12,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Soyuz capsules are discarded after one use anyways, right?
I would guess that they cannabilise them for parts. Seats seem like something they might reuse.
__________________
Check out my t-shirt designs in Marketplace. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...php?p=21131885
  #16  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:40 PM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
9-10 g are something the latest modern high-performance fighter jets pull. Both crewmen came from fighters, so I suspect the g forces were unpleasent due to being unwelcome but nothing either have not endured before.
They are positioned pretty much on their backs in the capsule, so their G tolerance is likely much higher than in a conventional fighter aircraft in which they are seated pretty much upright (ISTR the F-16 seat leans the pilot back about 30 degrees to reduce their total vertical height).
  #17  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:43 PM
scr4 scr4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14,920
Popular Mechanics article says:

"For example, during the 2008 ballistic reentry of Soyuz TMA-1, astronauts endured an 8G gravity load as opposed to the 6Gs they experience during a controlled re-entry. The trip sent South Korean astronaut Yi So-yeon to the hospital with injuries to her neck muscles and a bruised spinal column.

"Today's descent doesn't seem to have been as violent as the 2008 incidents. According to a discussion between mission control and the space station, the astronauts experienced between 6 and 7Gs."
  #18  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:43 PM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I would guess that they cannabilise them for parts. Seats seem like something they might reuse.
The Soyuz T-10-1 capsule was used again on Soyuz T-15.
  #19  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:51 PM
BeenJammin BeenJammin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 473
Russian Space in Retrograde

A mysterious hole in a Russian ferry craft just recently and now the 1st ever Soyuz launch fail.

Hmmmm....
  #20  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:58 PM
scr4 scr4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeenJammin View Post
A mysterious hole in a Russian ferry craft just recently and now the 1st ever Soyuz launch fail.

Hmmmm....
Well, first failure of the Soyuz spacecraft since 1983. But the same series of Soyuz rockets are used to launch the Progress unmanned supply spacecraft (essentially an unmanned version of the Soyuz spacecraft), and there were Progress mission failures in 2011, 2015 and 2016.

Last edited by scr4; 10-11-2018 at 04:00 PM.
  #21  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:00 PM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 24,362
I hope this isn't related to the space station incident. Two damaged capsules is a big coincidence.

I should have typed faster. Scr4 got here 2 min earlier.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.or...ation-hole.amp
Quote:
The hole that appeared in a Russian Soyuz capsule docked to the ISS caused a brief loss of air pressure in August before being patched. The incident sparked wide speculation and consternation.

Last edited by aceplace57; 10-11-2018 at 04:04 PM.
  #22  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:04 PM
scr4 scr4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
I hope this isn't related to the space station incident. Two damaged capsules is a big coincidence.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.or...ation-hole.amp
In what way do you think they could be related?
  #23  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:16 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,303
Does NASA get their money back?
  #24  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:33 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is offline
Isaiah 1:15 Screw the NRA.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Does NASA get their money back?
Nope. Just a travel voucher for a future flight, I'm sure. They probably lost Hague's luggage, too.
  #25  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:57 PM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 24,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
In what way do you think they could be related?
Someone drilled a hole in the first capsule.

Seems possible this 2nd capsule or the rocket was tampered with too.

I don't know if they can find any evidence from the space debris.
  #26  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:14 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by silenus View Post
Nope. Just a travel voucher for a future flight, I'm sure. They probably lost Hague's luggage, too.
Let's hope he just had carry on.
  #27  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:15 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
Someone drilled a hole in the first capsule. ....
AFAIK, this hasn't been definitively determined yet. The hole could have been from a micro-meteorite or other causes.

ETA: also, I don't think we know for a fact that the Soyuz capsule was damaged / failed somehow during today's launch. Looks more like a rocket failure, given that all aboard the capsule survived, I think it's more likely that the Soyuz performed admirably than it being the source of the failure.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-11-2018 at 05:17 PM.
  #28  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:23 PM
BeenJammin BeenJammin is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 473
There's a Hole in the What?

The Russians were/are actually more concerned with the hole from a few weeks ago, with NASA downplaying it. It could have happened anywhere along the line from integration to checkout to pre-launch and anywhere else on up. There are so many possible explanations, this is what makes diagnosing things on orbit or that show up on orbit extremely difficult. But it's pretty obvious something went wrong yesterday long before reaching orbit.
  #29  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:42 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,845
Nine times out of ten, no problem.

What about the tenth time?

Problem
  #30  
Old 10-11-2018, 08:01 PM
DPRK DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Nine times out of ten, no problem.

What about the tenth time?

Problem
Surely it's not that bad; more like 1 failure out of 60 or so, so far, for that launcher...

I'm not qualified to break out a full systems reliability analysis of the Soyuz, but it is not some experimental rocket they just came up with; in fact, it is due to be replaced.
  #31  
Old 10-11-2018, 08:32 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,845
That looks about right. The first Soyuz mission resulted in a crash that left their failure/fatality rate at 100%, but it got better. There have been (according to some wiki thing) three launch failures, none of which seem to have resulted in any deaths. The only other fatal incident, early on, was the well-known one where someone left a valve open and the crew suffocated during re-entry. Overall, a bit worse than the shuttle for mishaps, but a bit better counting total lives lost.


I was quoting lines from a TV show, btw.
  #32  
Old 10-11-2018, 08:54 PM
Heracles's Avatar
Heracles Heracles is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Southern Québec, Canada
Posts: 1,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I would guess that they cannabilise them for parts. Seats seem like something they might reuse.
The seats themselves, maybe, but there is a custom-cut seat liner for each individual traveling on a Soyuz. If these two soiled their upholstery, nobody else will have to use it.
  #33  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:28 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
That looks about right. The first Soyuz mission resulted in a crash that left their failure/fatality rate at 100%, but it got better. There have been (according to some wiki thing) three launch failures, none of which seem to have resulted in any deaths. The only other fatal incident, early on, was the well-known one where someone left a valve open and the crew suffocated during re-entry. Overall, a bit worse than the shuttle for mishaps, but a bit better counting total lives lost.
For fatalities in the spacecraft of Soyuz contemporaries we have:

Apollo-class vehicles (Apollo program + Skylab + ASTP): 1967-75; of 21 crews, one (3 persons) lost at start of program (pre-launch tests); one near-catastrophic inflight mishap, nonfatal.
Soyuz-class vehicles: 1967 - present; of 139 crews, two (1 and 3 persons) lost in first 5 years of program (both reentry phase); three nonfatal launch/boost phase aborts, a handful of scary reentries.
STS-class vehicles: 1981 - 2011; of 135 crews two (7 persons each) lost, one in early part of program, one two thirds of the way through (one boost phase, one reentry phase)


This rocket science thing is dangerous.
  #34  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:36 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Apollo-class vehicles (Apollo program + Skylab + ASTP): 1967-75; of 21 crews, one (3 persons) lost at start of program (pre-launch tests); one near-catastrophic inflight mishap, nonfatal.
Correction: 15 crews flown. 21 was the total number of vehicles but not all were manned or even used.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 10-11-2018 at 10:37 PM.
  #35  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:52 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
When they landed, their first priority was to change their space pants...
That's one reason why they wear diapers during launch and re-entry.
  #36  
Old 10-12-2018, 04:57 AM
The Vorlon The Vorlon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sol III
Posts: 1,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heracles View Post
The seats themselves, maybe, but there is a custom-cut seat liner for each individual traveling on a Soyuz. If these two soiled their upholstery, nobody else will have to use it.

You do realize they were in launch/entry suits?

Now the poor comrade who had to hose THEM out had a thankless job.

I suspect that many words in Russian were learned on the way down...
  #37  
Old 10-12-2018, 07:25 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
For fatalities in the spacecraft of Soyuz contemporaries we have:

Apollo-class vehicles (Apollo program + Skylab + ASTP): 1967-75; of 21 crews, one (3 persons) lost at start of program (pre-launch tests); one near-catastrophic inflight mishap, nonfatal.
Soyuz-class vehicles: 1967 - present; of 139 crews, two (1 and 3 persons) lost in first 5 years of program (both reentry phase); three nonfatal launch/boost phase aborts, a handful of scary reentries.
STS-class vehicles: 1981 - 2011; of 135 crews two (7 persons each) lost, one in early part of program, one two thirds of the way through (one boost phase, one reentry phase)


This rocket science thing is dangerous.
Don't know much about the Soyuz program, but the thing with the space shuttle was that if you went up on one flight, you were probably going to go up on others (some NASA astronauts racked up as many as six or seven shuttle flights). So your probability of death on any given shuttle flight was 0.015 percent, but your job as an astronaut may have required you to roll the dice again and again. With seven shuttle flights under his belt, astronaut Jerry Ross survived a solid 10 percent chance of death.

There was a story of a shuttle crew waiting through a launch delay, all chatting casually with each other in an attempt to dispel the nervous atmosphere. All, that is, except for veteran astronaut Story Musgrave, who was sitting silently. One of the other astronauts asked him why he was so quiet, and he gave a deadpan response of "because I am scared to death."

waddya suppose the premiums are for astronaut life insurance???
  #38  
Old 10-12-2018, 08:20 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,526
Since the mid 1970’s, the Soviets and Russians have focused on long duration space missions.
A Soyuz craft might spend months in space. So I think a per hour failure is more appropriate.
  #39  
Old 10-12-2018, 01:05 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 14,845
Prior to Soyuz and Apollo, the Soviets flew 8 Vostok/Voskhod missions for a total of 293 orbits, with no notable mishaps. NASA flew 17 Mercury/Gemini missions for a total of 638 orbits, with a few notable problems. Liberty 7, Gus Grissom's sub-orbital flight, had a recovery issue that left him floating in the sea as the capsule sank; Gemini 6 had a launch start that shut down immediately, due to mechanical problems that were corrected for relaunch; Gemini 9 had a launch pre-abort due to a computer problem; and, most famously, Gemini 8 went into a dangerous tumble after undocking from Athena, which was recovered from by the quick thinking of some Armstrong dude.

So, the early missions brought everyone back safely, and some of them were quite lengthy.
  #40  
Old 10-12-2018, 01:53 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,465
Machine Elf There’s apparently a total of 9 people launched into space 6 times or more, two of them on Soyuzes, one on both Soyuzes and Shuttles, five on Shuttles, and then there’s John Young, twice on each type of spacecraft we flew during his career, plus Lunar lander.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Since the mid 1970’s, the Soviets and Russians have focused on long duration space missions.
A Soyuz craft might spend months in space. So I think a per hour failure is more appropriate.

Although for most of their service life now they have been used primarily as station ferries/lifeboats, passively sitting there most of those months.
  #41  
Old 10-12-2018, 02:39 PM
bump bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,019
FYI, yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 7 flight (first manned Apollo mission).

Last edited by bump; 10-12-2018 at 02:39 PM.
  #42  
Old 10-12-2018, 03:17 PM
scr4 scr4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Since the mid 1970’s, the Soviets and Russians have focused on long duration space missions.
A Soyuz craft might spend months in space. So I think a per hour failure is more appropriate.
The Soyuz only has life support for 30 person-days (i.e. 10 days with the normal crew of 3). It's a transport capsule to get to and from a space station.
  #43  
Old 10-12-2018, 03:24 PM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,526
Yes. But it is exposed to the conditions of space for months.
  #44  
Old 10-12-2018, 03:32 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
The Soyuz only has life support for 30 person-days (i.e. 10 days with the normal crew of 3). It's a transport capsule to get to and from a space station.
Just curious: the capsule currently attached to ISS had a leak. Was it leaking out some of the 30 person-days of life support, or is the hatch "open" while it's connected to the ISS and it was leaking out some of ISS's air?
  #45  
Old 10-12-2018, 07:13 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Just curious: the capsule currently attached to ISS had a leak. Was it leaking out some of the 30 person-days of life support, or is the hatch "open" while it's connected to the ISS and it was leaking out some of ISS's air?
As I recall, the space station instrumentation indicated a drop in pressure.
  #46  
Old 10-13-2018, 01:12 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,526
Per reports tuevSoyu
  #47  
Old 10-13-2018, 05:02 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Per reports tuevSoyu
Weird typo.
I meant that reports are that the Soyuz at the station is also nearing the end of its space rating, 200 days.
  #48  
Old 10-13-2018, 08:33 AM
The Vorlon The Vorlon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sol III
Posts: 1,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Weird typo.
I meant that reports are that the Soyuz at the station is also nearing the end of its space rating, 200 days.
The expiration date for the Soyuz comes from the fact that the hydrogen peroxide in the maneuvering system breaks down, which would be a bad thing.
  #49  
Old 10-13-2018, 09:26 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,526
Latest hypothesis is that the separating first stage collided with the second stage knocking it off course.
  #50  
Old 10-13-2018, 09:41 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Weird typo.
I meant that reports are that the Soyuz at the station is also nearing the end of its space rating, 200 days.
An article behind a pay wall says sometime in January.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017