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.org/news/2018-10-nasa-space-station-hole.amp
In what way do you think they could be related?
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.
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.
Let’s hope he just had carry on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Correction: 15 crews flown. 21 was the total number of vehicles but not all were manned or even used.
That’s one reason why they wear diapers during launch and re-entry.
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…
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???
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.
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.
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.
Although for most of their service life now they have been used primarily as station ferries/lifeboats, passively sitting there most of those months.