Unmanned Russian Soyuz Blows Up On Launch

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."

Re:Sabotage?

[mikedaisey]

Or maybe you should lay off the conspiracy crack pipe, at least until some facts make an appearence.

i could be wrong, but NASA isn't generally known for their cutthroat international sabotage.

That doesn't make sense

[therealmoose]

That's just ridiculous, NASA practically funds the RSA, they could commit sabotage just by cutting the money out. I don't think it was sabotage, but it most certainly wasn't sabotage by NASA.

Re:Sabotage?

[0x69]

The rocket was essentially a giant controlled firecracker with a half-jillion complicated parts that all had to work just right. Just one little oversight, part failure, or unforeseen way for something to go wrong, and ka-BOOM! is the natural result. Look at rocketry's failure history. Rocket launch facilities spread things far out, shelter people in blockhouses, etc. in ways that would be considered crazy overkill at a munitions dump. They've learned the hard way.

Not to say that the investigation of a disaster this big shouldn't consider sabotage, but long history suggests a vastly more likely alternative.

Last thing they needed.

[mikedaisey]

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.

[Klox]

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.

Re:Last thing they needed.

[Alanoman]

Sounds like you did make the Lance Bass joke after all.

N'Boom

[suss]

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?

Re:N'Boom

[mike77]

Dunno, but I'll sure as hell contribute if he still wants to go!

Unmanned? Shew!

[Aardvark99]

Well THANK GOD Lance Bass is safe!

Facts are EVERYTHING

[stevew]

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!

Re:Facts are EVERYTHING

[eggstasy]

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

[WeaponOfChoice]

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...

Re:Facts are EVERYTHING

[WolfWithoutAClause]

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...

Re:Facts are EVERYTHING

[WeaponOfChoice]

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

[Mt._Honkey]

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.

Re:Facts are EVERYTHING

[Tablizer]

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.

Re:Facts are EVERYTHING

[WolfWithoutAClause]

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.

Re:Facts are EVERYTHING

[evalhalla]

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...

[stubear]

"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.

Re:next time...

[PD]

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

[steve.m]

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.

Re:The R7 family still the most reliable booster

[clark625]

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.

Re:Just one question..

[florescent_beige]

Rockets blow up because physics says they just barely work. Unless you trim every last gram of excess weight off the propulsion system and structure you just can't get into orbit. At take-off they are more or less 89% fuel, 10% structure, and 1% payload (typical numbers for the shuttle). So even if you gave up all your payload to strengthen the structure, you wouldn't be able to make it perceptibly stronger and safer.

The problem is that you need go up 200 miles and at the same time accelerate to 25000 mph.

I've always said if NASA would just stop spending money on shuttle ops and spend it instead on developing air-breathing alternatives it would make so much sense. A scram-jet based orbiter would get it's oxidizer from the atmosphere so would have to carry half as much fuel (roughly speaking). The weight savings can go to payload and more robust structure.

Re:Just one question..

[billcopc]

I'd rather see NASA stop spending money PERIOD. We're not going anywhere, the problem isn't in outer space, it's right here on the planet we're currently occupying. Get rid of all these kids who don't understand which way to wear a baseball cap, driving sticker-laden cheap import cars with noise-laden stereo systems that seem to play only one bass note (typically A#), no matter what kind of input you feed it. Once we turn them all into Alpo dog food, then we'll have plenty of room for kids and old folk.

That's the plan: Turn NASA into a human garbage disposal service! Your tax dollars at work!

ah, here's why..

[skotte]

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.