Launch Failure

knucklehead6

I just got an update on Sky news stating that the launch vehicle experienced significant engine difficulties after lift off which has caused the mission to be aborted, crew members are alive and stated to land in Kazakhstan

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIxkVAXPYPc

Don't mind the graphs and figures on the screen, they're from the flight plan not actual flight data.


@ 2:19 - not sure if that is normal vibration at stage separation

@ 2:55 - emergency declared

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7Rc17_6OVY

NASA confirm crew is safe.

Itssoeasy

The Soyuz rocket is the safest one around. This version of it has never had a failure since it was introduced. The Soyuz rocket family have not had one before this one for 43 years when it came to a manned flight. This failure despite an stupid ill informed comment on twitter about this being another issue with the Russian space programme is not another issue. This launch vehicle and capsule is very safe.

Edit: I should add that as safe as the Soyuz system is, manned space flight is not without risks. And it proves the safety aspects of the Soyuz as a means of getting people to the ISS. It's the only game in town as we speak.

tricky D

I don't think there is enough being said about how spectacularly successful this failure was. It is amazing to recover the 2 *onauts from so high, at such speed, at critical phases, post escape tower discard, from zero g to up to 6.7g in ballistic descent, and then to extract themselves and get to hug their families within hours (and a few beers no doubt), with no apparent ill effects. Had I been watching live, I would of assumed the worst at the time.

Itssoeasy

tricky D wrote: »

I don't think there is enough being said about how spectacularly successful this failure was. It is amazing to recover the 2 *onauts from so high, at such speed, at critical phases, post escape tower discard, from zero g to up to 6.7g in ballistic descent, and then to extract themselves and get to hug their families within hours (and a few beers no doubt), with no apparent ill effects. Had I been watching live, I would of assumed the worst at the time.

I might not have said it properly but the Soyuz proved it might be 1960's technology but it is still very good.

JupiterKid

Soyuz is a very safe launch system as far as manned space flight goes.

Despite being more impressive to look at and more glamourous, the Space Shuttle as we all know in hindsight was a pretty dangerous vehicle with a shocking lack of an escape system - a system that may well have saved the lives of the ill fated Challenger crew in the 1986 launch disaster.

mickmackey1

tricky D wrote: »

from zero g to up to 6.7g in ballistic descent

They would be subjected to 6g in a normal landing so not much difference.

Itssoeasy

JupiterKid wrote: »

Soyuz is a very safe launch system as far as manned space flight goes.

Despite being more impressive to look at and more glamourous, the Space Shuttle as we all know in hindsight was a pretty dangerous vehicle with a shocking lack of an escape system - a system that may well have saved the lives of the ill fated Challenger crew in the 1986 launch disaster.

The crew compartment survived the break up of challenger in 1986 and apparently hadn't been breached to decompress, it was the fact of hitting the water at such speed killed the crew.

The shuttle was a by committee mess of a space craft.

Itssoeasy

mickmackey1 wrote: »

They would be subjected to 6g in a normal landing so not much difference.

Not at the angle they had to come back at during the week.

Hotblack Desiato

JupiterKid wrote: »

Despite being more impressive to look at and more glamourous, the Space Shuttle as we all know in hindsight was a pretty dangerous vehicle with a shocking lack of an escape system - a system that may well have saved the lives of the ill fated Challenger crew in the 1986 launch disaster.

Exactly. Soyuz has killed four, both of those missions were quite early on and design changes were made to address the issues.

The Shuttle killed 14 from far fewer launches, and was never close to being inherently safe. A seriously flawed design, compromised by budget cuts and the demands of the Department of Defense (whose contribution to the budget NASA could not do without) who insisted it have large wings so it could launch into polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, launch a reconnaissance satellite or perhaps a fractional orbit nuclear weapon, do one orbit and land back at Vandenberg.

Vandenberg launch complex was built at great expense, but never used.

Itssoeasy

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Exactly. Soyuz has killed four, both of those missions were quite early on and design changes were made to address the issues.

The Shuttle killed 14 from far fewer launches, and was never close to being inherently safe. A seriously flawed design, compromised by budget cuts and the demands of the Department of Defense (whose contribution to the budget NASA could not do without) who insisted it have large wings so it could launch into polar orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, launch a reconnaissance satellite or perhaps a fractional orbit nuclear weapon, do one orbit and land back at Vandenberg.

Vandenberg launch complex was built at great expense, but never used.

Yeah Soyuz 1 which was a literal death trap. There were a shed load of issues with it but one was the parachutes failed which when it comes to landing back on earth are kind of important. That cosmonaut died a horrible death. And Soyuz 11 was a good flight from what I've read about it but a valve was left open or didn't close properly and the three cosmonauts died because the cabin depressurised.

I don't recall anyone killed on a launch from a non shuttle launch(although Gemini 6 came close) but the 14 American astronauts weren't killed directly by the orbiters themselves. All of them were killed by an outside issue damaging the shuttle. Challenger was the SRBs ans Columbia was foam from the external tank hitting the wing. But yes the shuttle wasn't a safe vehicle.