Soyuz 4/5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today 166
dj writes in with a reminder that forty years ago, on January 16, 1969, the two Russian spacecraft Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5 carried out the first docking between two manned spacecraft and transfer of crew between the craft. Wired's piece gives a gripping account of "one of the roughest re-entries in the history of space flight": "Soyuz 5's service module failed to detach at retrofire, causing the vehicle to assume an aerodynamic position that left the heat shield pointed the wrong way as it re-entered the atmosphere. The only thing standing between Volynov and a fiery death was the command module's thin hatch cover. The interior of Volynov's capsule filled with noxious fumes as the gaskets sealing the hatch started to burn, and it got very hot in there (which, a short time later was something he probably missed). ... But wait. There's more."
Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:5, Funny)
nothing worked right, but that was no big deal since the machines were so tough, they could just brute force their way to the end.
Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
nothing worked right
I'd say that the vast majority of systems MUST have worked right for the ships to have entered space in the first place, let alone docked and re-entered. Wuthell!
Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right..as opposed to oh so superior American Engineering that results in lots of good TV coverage of shuttles blowing up and burning up every few years.
If I were going into space I'd pick the Soyuz every time, at least you get up there and back without being spread over most of Texas.
Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
Amen! The Russians improved on an existing design to make it increasingly more reliable. We instead keep jumping from the alleged latest and greatest to the next alleged latest and greatest.
Programming languages and tools are like this also: outside of the US, older languages are still happily used in many parts. This is one reason why Microsoft kept upgrading FoxPro until recently--it's sales numbers were fairly high outside the US. (There's still some features about FoxPro that I like far more than MS-Access.)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Foxpro had one great feature.. It functioned as a database aware scripting language which made complex tasks simpler than any other database packages around. You could work in a proceedural way, accessing record by record, you could work with sets, cursers and sql, it even had a limited object like support. I still see complex database tasks now that I wish I had foxpro or an equivalent around for. For processing or rearranging databases, nothing beat foxpro.
However, It was horribly buggy - graphics and gui
Re: (Score:2)
Shuttle has flown more than Soyuz, pretty much evening the risks of both individual death, and vehicle loss, at about 1-2%
Both are good systems, with their plus points and their minus points. Soyuz is perhaps more impressive because of the conditions under which it was developed.
If I went into space, I wouldn't choose either. Shuttle would, in fact, choose me - because like a considerable number of males I am too tall to ride the Soyuz
Re: (Score:2)
That's right..as opposed to oh so superior American Engineering that results in lots of good TV coverage of shuttles blowing up and burning up every few years.
If I were going into space I'd pick the Soyuz every time, at least you get up there and back without being spread over most of Texas.
Well, considering the USSR lost at least 4 cosmonauts on reentry; and killed 140 people in two separate rocket explosions; I'd say the safety record was at best a wash.
Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:5, Informative)
yea, that was 1960. and the Nedelin disaster was an ICBM test; it was not space-related.
so far NASA astronauts have a mortality rate of 4.1% (17 deaths), whereas only 4 Russian cosmonauts have died, which is 0.9% of all the cosmonauts launched.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Only 4 cosmonauts have died, that we KNOW of. The Russian government isn't the greatest at telling the truth, and is really good at PR bending.
Re: (Score:2)
s/Russian/American
your point ?
I'd ask YOU the same question. How many manned space launches did the US have where the plans, configuration, and timetable weren't trumpeted loudly before hand? See, that's the difference between the old Soviet way and the NASA way that is being referenced. The Soviets would launch and then announce after it had succeeded that it was manned... just in case. Your smug search/replace command is completely fucking stupid and irrelevant.... but you knew that, clearly, because you posted AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Apollo 1 killed 3 people in a stupid pad accident, that has to be counted; and the survival of Apollo 13 has nothing to do with Apollo itself as they used the LEM to survive.
Three modules is also superior to 2; Soyuz is lighter than Apollo but with more interior space for the cosmonauts.
Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Soyuz; It's the AK-47 of spacecraft
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
does that mean any 12-year-old can fly one?
joking aside, that's probably an apt comparison. i wonder how much it cost to develop/build/operate the Soyuz compared the Shuttle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Soyuz was (and is) a very simple, basic rocket. As the Russians and Americans had scooped up V2 rocket scientists, my guess is that the Soyuz is basically what the V3 would have been had the war continued. Given that the V2 was designed to be mass-produced as an effective weapon, it would logically follow that Soyuz must be cheap enough that it could have been produced in the tens or hundreds of thousands by a Europe-wide industry in war footing.
One should not assume that Soyuz is perfect, merely becaus
Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Indian software companies use captured Germans? That explains their call centre software!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
The durability of Soviet (now Russian) space technology is the result of a very different design philosophy.
The U.S. program tends to use extreme engineering to make the failure of critical componants extremely unlikely. The Soviet philosophy is to make system failures less critical. That's why Mir was basically OK with it's main power failed after the docking accident.
Another aspect of Soviet design is to brute force the problem using existing materials rather than develop new exotic materials to finesse the problem. That's why a Soyuz capsule can survive reentering at the wrong attitude.
The resulting designs do have their merits. I suspect there's a happy medium between the two approaches that would work even better.
Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:4, Informative)
Quite likely. If you look at "traditional" engineering techniques, you start with a specification which you then implement. A fault-tolerant specification implemented such that those faults are themselves unlikely would logically be superior to one that is fault-tolerant but liable to suffer faults or a system in which faults are unlikely but catastrophic.
Alternatively, go in the opposite direction. Design something in such a way that components have few opportunities to fail, but then implement them to be fault-tolerant should that happen.
On a more trivial level, look at materials. Iron is ok as a building material but it's heavy and has a much lower critical temperature at which it will fail than, say, some of NASA's high-temperature ceramics. Logically, a Soyuz capsule that replaced some of the ablative heat-shield with the Shuttle's thermal skin would be lighter (making it less costly to launch) and more heat-resistant (making it safer in the event of too steep a re-entry).
I suspect that the fuel used by the Russian rockets is also less stable than some of the liquid and hybrid fuels used in the US. The US has the means to develop fuels that behave in a highly predictable and controlled manner, whereas the Russians are likely using fuels that might do anything short of tap-dance. It's entirely possible that a Russian launcher converted to use US fuels would be more reliable than either country has produced independently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:4, Interesting)
This is wrong. The early American rockets were far more based on German designs than Russian rockets were, because Americans got a lot more German rocket scientists.
The clustering and boosters of the R-7 design are radically different from anything von Braun envisioned. Korolev was a genius in his own right and I think its disrespectful to consider him merely a copier of German designs.
The reason Sputnik was such a shocker (along with other Soviet space firsts, all largely enabled by the immense power - for the time - of the R-7 derivatives) is because it was so far off the curve of rocket development at the time. With more and better German expertise, the US was baffled at how the Soviets had ended up with such a clear lead in the rocket race.
Yes, the US followed Soviet space firsts in short spaces of time - but in each case the satellite or capsule was a lot lighter. It was only a combination of superior computer technology in the west, and the inability of the Soviets to get the N-1 working, that kept them from claiming the moon. Both of these factors were simply policy mistakes by the Soviets; the leadership unlike their engineers lacked the insight to put good money into them early on.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it. Do you know what it costs the revolutionarily cheap SpaceX to build and launch a Falcon-1? Your guess is out by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Russian technology was not as sophisticated as "western" technology. But it was damn durable. And easy to repair.
Don't get me wrong, but I think if the MIR was a western design, it would not have outlived its expected lifetime by many years. Yes, it would have worked flawlessly 'til its end, but in the end it would have come down because some special part was not available and without you couldn't keep it afloat.
Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Spirit and Opportunity would like to have a word with you.
Re: (Score:2)
While I can't reveal my sources, I do have on very good authority that the "expected lifetimes" given for Spirit and Opportunity were arbitrary, and most people involved knew that they were quite able to last for far longer. Those sorts of numbers are given to keep missions from seeming like failures.
Re:Nothing like Soviet Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, comparing to a real third world country with nukes (Pakistan), the soviet industry was way more advanced back then - 40 years ago - than pakistani industry is now.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia was not a 3rd world country [wikipedia.org] during the cold war.
True meaning of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries (Score:2, Informative)
"Soyuz 4/5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today" (Score:4, Insightful)
What a retarded headline. Would it have killed someone to write it as "Soyuz 4 and 5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today"?
Re:"Soyuz 4/5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today" (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed. I lost about 5 minutes searching for "Soyuz 0.8" on Wikipedia.
Re:"Soyuz 4/5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today" (Score:5, Funny)
That version was an internal-only release.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd hate to see what happened to the astronaut who ingested a Soyuz. Oh, not that sort of internal. Phew.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What a retarded headline. Would it have killed someone to write it as "Soyuz 4 and 5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today"?
"Soyuz 4 and 5 Made History 40 Years Ago Yesterday"
Re: (Score:2)
Would it have killed someone to write it as "Soyuz 4 and 5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today"?
...Soyuz 4 and/or 5...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Dude, this *is* slashdot. Plus, the capsule got stuck to the docking station, making the it re-enter the wrong way, so they showed it closer together than "and" would have provided. See, it's all logical.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Given that about 4/5 of the mission worked, it's reasonably accurate.
Re:"Soyuz 4/5 Made History 40 Years Ago Today" (Score:4, Informative)
Moral of the story (Score:5, Interesting)
The Soyuz space capsule was an incredible engineering accomplishment. Sometimes, a simpler, robust design is vastly superior to a complex, brilliant piece of engineering. It isn't always about min-maxing performance characteristics : engineering is about solving a problem with the least amount of resources used.
I've read that the clever Russian solution to updating the computers in Soyuz. Rather than a start from scratch rewrite of the controls and instruments, they choose to emulate all their old computers in modern circuitry, and to display the same gauges and instruments on modern LCDs.
For various reasons, somehow NASA has never done this. Their solutions to problems have tended to be stupendously expensive, complex boondoggles. Any average joe can see that building a space station when your launch costs are $10,000 a kilogram is a horrifically bad decision : the money spent should go into working out a cheaper way to launch things into orbit, first.
Part of this is politics, of course. The only reason Mission Control was in Houston rather than in the same facility where the rockets are worked on is due to a certain powerful Texas politician, LBJ...
Re:Moral of the story (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess but Remember that the Apollo 9 mission flew one month before this one. That mission was the first manned mission to orbit the moon. I would take the Apollo over Soyuz at that time. The Shuttle... Was an underfunded mess. It looks nothing like what NASA wanted to build. It was also oversold. It should have been an X-Plane like system and not sold as a Space 747. We where not even up the the space DC-3 level yet and politicians wanted to jump to airline service!
We should have kept flying Apollo/Saturn and updating it while getting the shuttle in service and testing it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember that the Apollo 9 mission flew one month before this one. That mission was the first manned mission to orbit the moon.
That was Apollo 8-- Apollo 9 tested the LEM out in earth orbit, which was a pretty exciting mission itself even though it didn't happen at the moon.
Also, imagine what would happen if... (Score:2)
...the Shuttle entered the armosphere wrong end in (though one doesn't really have to imagine; ultimatelly the aerodynamic forces were what shred Columbia to pieces)
As for Apollo...yeah, it might have been good (though Soyuz has much larger volume to mass ratio; and it was also designed to be moon capable), but...ultimatelly it was scrapped, as you say; and that's it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The shuttle HAS NO right end to enter the atmosphere. It is not stable without active controls. Soyuz can enter in brick mode and still survive the reentry.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course - but you know perfectly well that by "wrong end" I've meant ~"opposite to the way it's suppose to do it" ;p.
Definatelly much more rough than ballistic reentry in Soyuz...
Re: (Score:2)
Space stations are a good idea IMO, far better to leave your LAB and living facilities up there all the time then to cart them up and down all the time.
The crazy thing was building and servicing the space station using the space shuttle and hence carting a shitload of unessacery shuttle orbiter mass in and out of space continuously. Unfortunately NASA had scrapped everything else that was man rated.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Part of this is politics, of course. The only reason Mission Control was in Houston rather than in the same facility where the rockets are worked on is due to a certain powerful Texas politician, LBJ...
Wow, LBJ had enough clout to move his state to be one of the southern most locations in US... amazing.... I wonder if he pushed the frozen donkey wheel alone or had some help... (Also, does that mean he could never find his way back to Texas and had to live out his life in outside world?)
-Em
Re:Moral of the story (Score:5, Informative)
actually, Florida extends further south than Texas.
-Houston, Texas is located at 294546N
-Merritt Island, Florida is located at 282128N
also, the Saturn V rockets were designed & built at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, which is a heck of a lot closer to Florida than to Texas. and it should also be noted that just because Johnson Space Center is the Mission Control of all manned space flights in the U.S. does not mean all manned space missions take off from Houston. the Apollo 11 mission was actually launched from Kennedy Space Center.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, Florida extends further south than Texas.
Yeah, isn't funny that the OTHER space center is in Florida... almost like they planned it or something...
-Em
Re: (Score:2)
NASA's oldest facility is in Hampton, Virginia. Given that it's parked right next to the largest Naval and Air Force bases, not to mention the CIA, it would have been ideal for providing security, clandestine training of astronauts, etc. It's also far enough from any land borders to make a quick escape by Axis scientists to Argentina unlikely.
Building in the south was riskier (the natives aren't the brightest and aren't as sympathetic to Federal goals) and it's extremely unclear that the geographical locati
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ahh. another idealist who is completely unaware why the ISS project was approved. MIR had fell out the sky and the Russians were about to let go a whole bunch of their space engineers. What do you think those engineers would go on to do if something else was not found to occupy their time? The US feared it would be making weapons.. most likely for countries like Iran. So the Space Station Freedom plans were dusted off and modified for "international cooperation" and, there ya go, the Russian space progr
Re: (Score:2)
When you make attacks on people's ignorance you really should get your facts right :)
One of the reasons the ISS is in the paticularly orbit it has was apparently to stop the Russians bolting bits of Mir to it. With the ISS coming up there was no reason for expensive projects to keep Mir running (and expensive fuel runs to keep it up there) so they deorbited it. It was in the planning and first section
Re:Moral of the story (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh. The Russians were planning MIR-2.. it was canceled, what with the fall of the Soviet Union and all. Bush (Sr)'s justification for the "Agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes" was well documented at the time. With his departure and the arrival of Gore and Clinton, the reasoning was spelled out again.
I'm repeating the fact that water is wet, you're saying I'm "making attacks on people's ignorance".
Re: (Score:2)
The great shame is that they didn't save Buran/Energia in the same way. Want a Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle? Just remove the shuttle. Best of all, that configuration was already tested in 1987.
With a little foresight, there could've been an international Moon mission by 2000, and perhaps a Mars mission by now.
Re:Moral of the story (Score:5, Funny)
patriot? What the fuck dude? For one, I'm Australian. For two, parts of MIR had fallen out of the sky by the time the ISS started construction in 1998. Here's another idea, how about you just fuck right off? Nit picking tool.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest an apology to the poster above that you accused of being "another idealist who is completely unaware why the ISS project was approved".
Re: (Score:2)
You're a perfect example of a Slashtard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People like to think that NASA is borderline retarded and would be better off simply using their funding dollars and fuel. Most of the time they are right. However, when it comes to safety, NASA is the top, through frequently to their own detriment.
For the case you pointed out:
> I've read that the clever Russian solution to updating the computers in Soyuz. Rather than
> a start from scratch rewrite of the controls and instruments, they choose to emulate all
> their old computers in modern circuitry
Re: (Score:2)
The story is a load of balls. BOTH used ordinary ballpoint pens due to the graphite issue. Not to mention the space pen not being developed by NASA, not costing millions, etc.
Re:Moral of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
eh, so when the "old hardware" was first used, how did NASA know it would work in space? did they look at the test data from the ancient Mayan space flights?
the whole "we use old hardware because we know it works" excuse is a ton of baloney. every space technology has to be tested and tried for the first time initially. sticking to the tried and true is not a blanket excuse to oppose change or to stubbornly hold onto archaic & outdated technology; otherwise, we'd never make any kind of technological progress.
we know enough about space that vital equipment can be tested on earth by simulating space environments before they're employed on an actual space mission. it's the same principle as building equipment for use in the arctic or the deep ocean. if you don't try new things you won't be able to improve on existing systems.
part of what NASA has been doing over the past 4 decades is learning more and more about environmental conditions in space and how this affects human-beings and equipment. that lets us theorize/predict how new equipment will behave in space, and allows us to design better space technology. space isn't this unknowable mystery or some supernatural realm that magically breaks new equipment for no reason. the best way to know if LCD screens will work in space is to send one up for non-mission-critical use. and if it does break unexpectedly from an unknown interaction, then that's something that we need to investigate as it could shed light on aspects of space that we are not currently privy to.
if something doesn't work in space, we should learn why it doesn't work. likewise, if something does work in space, we should learn why it works. by taking a rational scientific approach to space exploration, we can improve on existing systems and employ new technologies in space without rolling dice. sticking to outmoded technologies due to a fear of change is a very reactionary attitude that does not belong in space exploration.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole story is pure bollocks anyway. Both US and Soviet agencies used pencils in space. The space pen was developed independently by Paul C. Fisher without being requested to do so by NASA. In the end, I've been told that both agencies ended up ordering them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People keep claiming that - I'm still waiting for an example. Soyuz has flown fewer times (90 odd vice 120 odd times) than the Shuttle, yet has killed the same number of crews, had multiple reentry problems (failing to detach a module once, detaching a module too early another time, plus numerous ballistic entries and off target landings d
Re: (Score:2)
Very selective use of facts. Four people have died in flight in Soyuz spacecraft, while fourteen have died in flight on US shuttles.
14>4
In addition, one of the Soyuz deaths was Komarov's Soyuz One which was the very first flying craft. A failure like that 'demon machine' (which is what he called it while he fell to his death) in the very first is understandable, but the 14 who died on the shuttle did so at roughly the 25 & 100 flight milestone.
Which is more damning, a data corrupting bug that you e
Re: (Score:2)
The number of people killed is irrelevant except as an emotional argument. If you do insist on comparing numbers - also compare the number of people carried to and from orbit. Shuttle has killed three times as many, but carried five times as many.
The fact the Komarov died on the first flight is irrelevant because it wasn't an Alpha test. Even if you insist on counting it as such, you still face the problem of explaining away the ongoing failures - failures coming pretty steadily across the entire program
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Very selective use of facts. Four people have died in flight in Soyuz spacecraft, while fourteen have died in flight on US shuttles.
14>4
Utter nonsense. You somehow equate a larger seating capacity to "more failures".
Re: (Score:2)
Soyuz has flown fewer times (90 odd vice 120 odd times) than the Shuttle, yet has killed the same number of crews,
However, those both happened back in the days of corner-cutting space race mode, the same era when we put highly flammable upholstery in 100% oxygen capsules. IIRC, they were due to small details (stuck air valve, parachute packing) that could be corrected in later flights.
The shuttle accidents, however, were the results of fundamental design blunders which cannot be fixed (strapping a manned vehicle with no escape system below a cryogenic ice-spewing tank and next to uncontrollable multi-ton firework stick
Re: (Score:2)
Which neatly dodges the issue of discussing the ongoing problems Soyuz has. The same problem described in TFA happened *again* just last year.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what it shows is the great grandparents thesis is false as it is unsupported by the facts. Yours is equally false, because it is unsupported by facts, requires ignoring relevant facts, and requires special pleadings to explain why design flaws in Shuttle are bad but design flaws in Soyuz aren't germane to the discussion.
Blah blah blah.
Did I mention that the Shuttle costs orders of magnitude more money for each passenger killed than Soyuz, even after considering higher body count?
Re: (Score:2)
The shuttle accidents, however, were the results of fundamental design blunders which cannot be fixed (strapping a manned vehicle with no escape system below a cryogenic ice-spewing tank and next to uncontrollable multi-ton firework sticks with seams).
I think many Shuttle engineers would disagree that the Shuttle's _design_ was fundamentally flawed - the Shuttle was built to fit the design requirements that were handed down to NASA from FedGov and particularly the DOD; that is to build a reusable manned launch vehicle that has a 1000 nautical mile landing crossrange and can take a 15'x80' 60,000 pound payload to LEO. When you have those design requirements and start looking at the problem with the late 1960s early 1970s tech you have available, whatever
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The requirements are part of the design. You can't just excuse this epic failure on that and accept the outcome.
The requirements went away as soon as the Air Force saw that the resulting design was a dog, and canned it in favor of expendable rockets. Even the Soviets realized the same thing and dumped their shuttle after one flight. NASA should have followed suit decades ago.
There is nothing in those original requirements that NASA actually needs or needed, so keeping this money pit around has been nothing
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, a simpler, robust design is vastly superior to a complex, brilliant piece of engineering.
Sometimes?
Re:Moral of the story (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When you decide to have different problems to solve, you end up with different solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bonus Parts? (Score:5, Informative)
Let me see if I got this strait: the return capsule accidentally got stuck to part of the ship it was docked to, and took the part with it on the way down, but this extra part cause the capsule to face the wrong way, using the wrong side as the "heat shield", which meant the astronaut was about to be cooked to death.
But the vibration and heat of a rough re-entry jiggled or melted the extra part away, setting the capsule free and allowing it to face the proper direction. (Although the rough ride caused other landing problems as a result.)
Re:Bonus Parts? (Score:5, Informative)
Good enough. Soyuz, Gemini and Mercury capsules were designed so that they are stable in aerodynamic flight when the heat shield is pointing in the direction of travel. So even if you can't see what orientation you are in, once the capsule 'feels' the atmosphere, it will turn around on its own to face the correct direction.
The same thing happened recently on the TMA-11 return, where the SM got hung up and didn't detach for some time.
http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/4170
Re: (Score:2)
This does seem to be a recurring theme. Normally the Russians are very good and engineering equipment that is tolerant of quality variances, but they either need to figure out this separation issue or beef up them hatches.
Re:Bonus Parts? (Score:5, Funny)
> Let me see if I got this strait...
You don't. You don't have it straight, either.
Re:Bonus Parts? (Score:5, Funny)
Let me see if I got this strait:
Not quite, but you're on the right Bering.
Re:Bonus Parts? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, that was just dire.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but the angel is way off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Note that this is hardly the only time this happened, in fact it happened on Soyuz TMA-11 last year, and to a fair number of the Vostok/Voskhod flights before it. It's a source of concern for the ISS return spacecraft.
Brett
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from the spelling error, you have not got it exactly straight. The Soyuz spacecraft consists of three parts: The orbital module, the reentry module and the service module. It is launched
Re: (Score:2)
He came from outer space (Score:5, Funny)
Best part of the story for me was this:
Given that the entire re-entry-and-landing process was pretty well botched, it's perhaps unsurprising that Volynov came down well short of the intended landing area. In fact, he landed in the Ural Mountains, where he was greeted by a local temperature measuring a brisk minus 36 degrees Fahrenheit With rescue several hours away at best, our intrepid cosmonaut decided to hoof it for safety. He plodded a few kilometers before finding a cheery fire and a brimming samovar in the cottage of a welcoming peasant.
That must have been one surprised peasant.
Re:He came from outer space (Score:5, Informative)
That's much better than Voskhod 2, which also landed off-course in the Urals in similar circumstances, and was surrounded by hungry wolves.
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/voskhod2.htm [astronautix.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The crew had to wait 24 hours for rescue because nobody could get to them through the chest-deep snow and they had problems flying helicopters at that altitude.
Re: (Score:2)
A peasant shooting a guy in a military uniform for trespassing in the Soviet Union. Right.
Re:He came from outer space (Score:5, Funny)
no kidding. given what had just happened to him, i half expected for the peasant to have shot Volynov for trespassing.
Not in Russia. But this is why US astronauts landed at sea, rather than risk landing in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
in the soviet union there was freedom to roam, similar to the laws in nordic countries.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
actually very far - ussr was the largest country in the world. you could get a flight over 8 time zones (and this without any passport or hassle at the check in).
internal ids are pretty common in europe (the system is not much different) and european police asks for them way more often than soviet militia did it back then.
you have to get some perspective. while the ussr looked quite totalitarian some decades ago, comparing it to modern europe and usa creates a very different picture. in some ways soviet peo
Pronouncing Russian space names (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's pronounced as a sound closer to 'a' than to 'o'. Also, Americans usually stress the wrong syllable (it's "soYUz").
Re: (Score:2)
space fire kills you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
... spacecraft REENTERS you
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No wonder that cosmonauts had a reputation of being really hard-assed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It can't be helped. The actual article uses this statement three times...