Soyuz Ballistic Re-entry 300 Miles Off Course 197
call-me-kenneth writes "Soyuz TMA-11, carrying a crew of three returning from the ISS, unexpectedly followed a high-G ballistic re-entry trajectory and ended up landing 300 miles off-course. The crew, including Commander Peggy Whitson and cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko, are reportedly in good health. Soyuz capsules have previously saved the lives of the crew even after severe malfunctions that might have led to the loss of a less robust vehicle."
Ballistic trajectory? (Score:2, Insightful)
"less robust" (Score:3, Insightful)
sort of off-topic (Score:5, Insightful)
A professional news reporter would know that there have been trouble with the US space program regarding conversions to and from metric units. Therefore it is professionally prudent to make sure you are not lumped in with the same idiots who made those mistakes.
It's not that hard, really. Such things are the stuff of journalism classes from the 50's or sooner. How not to look like an idiot when reporting the news!
I'm impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that they survived the experience is amazing. Say what you want about Soviet technology, this was a very, very neat trick.
Re:Full Manual Re-entry is Possible in Soyuz (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How far exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How far exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're trying to explain significant figures to
Re:Full Manual Re-entry is Possible in Soyuz (Score:3, Insightful)
In an aircraft, the pilot's head is necessarily somewhat higher than the rest of his body so that he can see outside, especially forward. That's why high G's result in a loss of blood flow to the brain.
An astronaut doesn't have that limitation. I wouldn't be surprised if their seating position makes them less vulnerable to GLOC than a pilot.
Re:Full Manual Re-entry is Possible in Soyuz (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm not impressed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oblig (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
Re:sort of off-topic (Score:2, Insightful)
Spoken like a true foreigner.
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really an euphemism. The definition of "ballistic" literally means to fall like a rock.
Re:I'm impressed (Score:4, Insightful)
He's right, there's nothing amazing about the Soyuz surviving a ballistic re-entry, since that's what it was designed to do. This isn't the shuttle we're talking about - you can't compare the two. It's like saying that it's amazing that a 747 can continue flying with one broken engine, while a Cesna can't. You'd be comparing two completely different things.
Re:Horse shoes and hand gernades (Score:3, Insightful)
"Any landing you walk away from is a good landing."
Ancient quotation from the early days of airplanes... and still appropriate.
Good to have the cosmonauts back in one piece.
Astronauts. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice Spin (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:China (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what is happening is goods from China are price correcting. If you think Wal-mart is getting expensive, maybe you should try shopping there on the pay scale of the people who make the clothes you are buying. For many years now the Yuan has been kept artificially low, giving China a strong advantage in international trading. They kept their currency values (read labor cost) low by buying up US debt, which kept the dollar high, Japan may have done the same thing. [treas.gov] In effect, Asia has been subsidizing US consumerism for decades. So the western world moved a huge amount of their manufacturing to China. In 2005 China stopped their policy of keeping the Yuan fixed at 8.28 yuan to the dollar, now it's up to 7 yuan to the dollar so everything made in China costs 18% more. China still maintains some trade advantage as they now have a much better manufacturing infrastructure and labor pool, but the now rising yuan is going to slingshot the standard of living in China up to that of the western world in short order. That means that "Made in China" is soon going to cost just as much as "Made in the USA". Which really just means that the people making it are getting paid a fair living wage, and the item actually costs what it is worth.
Re:I'm not impressed. (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to orbital re-entry... (Score:3, Insightful)
AK-47 (Score:2, Insightful)
Granted, I hear the latest versions of the M16 and its descendants are much better.
Re:sort of off-topic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm not impressed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm not impressed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, that is exactly what you are doing by claiming that a failure of a major system during reentry isn't a reentry failure.
In my book, when you have a major system fail routinely... you have a serious problem. After all, fifteen crews landed safely despite O-ring failure and dozens of crews landed safely despite tile damage.
Re:Ballistic trajectory? (Score:3, Insightful)