Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Unmanned Russian Soyuz Blows Up On Launch 34

Posted by timothy from the what's-russian-for-nader dept.
adagioforstrings writes "CNN reports that a 300-tonne unmanned Soyuz-U launch vehicle exploded 29 seconds after take-off from Russia's Arctic Plesetsk cosmodrome late on Tuesday, its blazing debris showering onto the launchpad and its blastwave killing one and injuring eight others. A modified version of this same kind of rocket will be used to carry cosmonauts to the ISS later this month."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unmanned Russian Soyuz Blows Up On Launch More

Unmanned Russian Soyuz Blows Up On Launch

Comments Filter:

  • Last thing they needed. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mikedaisey ( 413058 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2002 @10:04AM (#4461332) Homepage
    A terrible blow to the Russian program, which has been plagued by awful cost overruns and low operating capital.

    (Tempting to insert a joke about how it's unfortunate that this wasn't Lance Bass' ship, but I'll let that ride.)

    Without Soyuz craft the ISS can only be run at a maintenance level--i wonder how long before they'll be back in full operation, or if the Russians don't suspend their programs the way we do when we lose an orbiter b/c of an O-ring.

    • Re:Last thing they needed. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Klox ( 29985 )
      Without Soyuz craft the ISS can only be run at a maintenance level--i wonder how long before they'll be back in full operation, or if the Russians don't suspend their programs the way we do when we lose an orbiter b/c of an O-ring.

      From the article:

      "There are no plans as yet to postpone the [next] flight," Sergei Gorbunov, spokesman for Russia's top space authority Rosaviakosmos told Reuters.
    • Sounds like you did make the Lance Bass joke after all.

  • N'Boom (Score:5, Funny)

    by suss ( 158993 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2002 @10:06AM (#4461345)
    A modified version of this same kind of rocket will be used to carry cosmonauts to the ISS later this month

    Lance Bass still wants to go, right?

  • Unmanned? Shew! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Aardvark99 ( 261926 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2002 @10:06AM (#4461346)
    Well THANK GOD Lance Bass is safe!

  • Facts are EVERYTHING (Score:4, Informative)

    by stevew ( 4845 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2002 @10:14AM (#4461405) Journal
    Look folks - the simple fact is that space travel isn't for tourists yet! Remember the Challenger?!? Rockets blow up ALL THE TIME. We take great care to make sure it doesn't happen, but it does. I saw statistics back in the late 80's that stated a failure rate of something like 1 in 25 launches. Now - that is from a 12 year old memory, but it's in the ballpark.

    Consider also that the Soyuz hasn't had any accidents (admittedly - that we know of) for like a decade. They have a pretty good safety record for launches. Their launch success record is to e admired!
    • Wasn't the challenger like over 10 years ago? How many planes have crashed since then? How many cars? How many trains? (...)
      Rockets do NOT blow up all the time.
      Granted, they're not used as often as other vehicles today, but claiming that they blow up all the time isn't doing them justice.

      • Re:Facts are EVERYTHING (Score:4, Interesting)

        by WeaponOfChoice ( 615003 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2002 @11:08AM (#4461814) Homepage
        They may not blow up all the time but they carry a much higher risk of spontaneous redistribution than most other transports.

        I think the general public perception of space travel is far from the reality. People just seem to expect that a vehicle costing Billions in research and material should be just a bit safer than the average car and plane [and are considering the facts]. These devices are, by definition, the best we produce - made by the brightest people on the planet - and are expected to get there intact (The preceeding two statements could be completely wrong).

        personally I think there is a definite limit on how safe you can make a big tube of explosives for the little mostly-water creatures trying to ride it into orbit.... roll on space-elevators...
        • personally I think there is a definite limit on how safe you can make a big tube of explosives for the little mostly-water creatures trying to ride it into orbit....

          There's no law of physics that says that. Actually liquid fuelled rocket engines can be very reliable. The XCOR group have never had one spontaneously disassemble, and they've now got more time on their little engines than the whole space shuttle fleet ;-) They even ran a very small one indoors at a conference infront of quite a few people!

          roll on space-elevators...

          Yes, well. They fall down too though. The problem is that they can get severed by space junk or meteor strikes. And we're not quite sure what happens if they get hit by lightning either...

          • There's no law of physics that says that

            True, and NASA is far from a good example of how to build a safe and reliable space vehicle. However, to requalify my previous (admittedly unspecific) statement, I believe that a state of perfect safety is out of our reach at the moment in terms of the amount of time and money it would require to apply that to the industry in general. XCOR is a very good example of what can be achieved in a subset of the industry though I can't see the US public shelling out to get NASA to that standard.

            As for SE's, I guess they just come with different risks - not really greater or lesser unless you look at it within a long reference frame. [Still prefer the idea myself though - lightning will be interesting...]

      • Re:Facts are EVERYTHING (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mt._Honkey ( 514673 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2002 @01:13PM (#4462822)
        Ok, 1 shuttle explosion out of ~ 100 launches is about 1%. If 1% of plane flights crashed, we would have around 60 crashes in the U.S. EVERY DAY. If 1% of the time a car was used it crashed, we would have about 2 million car accidents per day (assuming 200 million drives per day). Rockets DO blow up all the time. Manned rockets have the best safety records because no expense is spared to ensure their quality. Unmanned is a different story though. There was a year or two in the US where nearly 1 out of 10 rockets blew up. We lost a lot of business to Europe and Asia in that time.
        • There was a year or two in the US where nearly 1 out of 10 rockets blew up. We lost a lot of business to Europe and Asia in that time.

          But it sounds like a boost for tourism (pun not intended). Many people would love to watch a space rocket explode (from a safe distance). Beats the WWF by a mile.
    • There's a big difference between manned and unmanned vehicles though.

      I think the accident rate for a manned vehicle is nearer to 1 percent. Space Shuttle has had one accident in about 100 launches for example- that's a 1% failure rate. The Russian record for manned launches in recent times is better if anything.

    • It is true. space travel isn't for tourists yet. Just like ocean travel wasn't a few centuries ago and sea traveling even before. So probably it will be only a matter of time before it becomes.

      Anyway, I don't see a valid reason why a "tourist" should be forbidden from trying space travel, expecially if he's taking some proper training before and he's paying enought to compensate for the absence of another "scientist" on the launch. They know the risk, it's up to them to take it or not.

  • next time... (Score:5, Funny)

    by stubear ( 130454 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2002 @10:25AM (#4461477)
    "A modified version of this same kind of rocket will be used to carry cosmonauts to the ISS later this month."

    Let's hope they modify it to not blow up next time. I'd bet those ACME rocket plans and mail order boxes wasn't the best approach for their space program after all. Perhaps we should cut off their access to the Cartoon Network until after the manned launch.
    • This shouldn't affect the manned mission. The money spent and the care taken on the manned missions makes that situation a whole different game. I'd feel very safe launching on a Soyuz rocket - better than riding the shuttle to orbit.

  • The R7 family still the most reliable booster (Score:5, Informative)

    by steve.m ( 80410 ) on Wednesday October 16, 2002 @12:06PM (#4462298) Journal
    As it says here [astronautix.com], the R7 family is "..the most often used and most reliable launch vehicle in history".

    The unmanned versions are built to a lower spec, as the cargo isn't as important as human life. Manned soyuz boosters continue to be the safest way into orbit.

    • The unmanned versions are built to a lower spec, as the cargo isn't as important as human life.


      The family of the person killed might disagree with you somewhat. Same goes with those who were injured. Of course, we Americans tend to make the same mistakes at times, too--we forget that those working around the site are just as vulnerable as the astronauts themselves. The launch staff just don't go home heros.

  • ah, here's why.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by skotte ( 262100 ) <iamthecheeze@nospam.gmail.com> on Wednesday October 16, 2002 @04:15PM (#4464131) Homepage
    http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ [russianspaceweb.com]:

    The lost Foton had been the 13th in a series launched since 1985

    ah! a logical solution: it was the unlucky 13th craft, of course.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close