A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 17th 18, 12:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,748
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article ,
says...

On 2018-10-16 21:44, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Fair speculation: one booster didn't separate normally.


No, that's a fact.



Point me to an official report, or high resolution video that confirms
which booster didn't separate properly and somehow hit one of the core
engines.

Media quoting some unnamed NASA official who heard from grapevine that
this is what the russian are looking is is not official conformation.

What the media are saying MAY come from sources that turn out to be
accurate. But that doesn't mean that what they are saying is, at this
point, confirmed facts.

You are also ignoring the possibility that the booster improperly
separating may be the result of a problem instead of being a cause.


Why should Fred, or anyone else, do your research for you? Again, the
space press online is covering this incident like a fracking pack of
leaches. This information really isn't hard to find. You seem to be
the one lacking the initiative to actually look it up and read.

Over the years on many occasions I've posted which space news websites I
follow. There are a lot of them. This is 2018 and information is quite
easy to find if you just take the time to look for it. Jebus!

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
Ads
  #42  
Old October 17th 18, 12:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,800
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 17 Oct 2018
01:12:24 -0400:

On 2018-10-16 21:44, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Fair speculation: one booster didn't separate normally.


No, that's a fact.


Point me to an official report, or high resolution video that confirms
which booster didn't separate properly and somehow hit one of the core
engines.


Roscosmos has issued a statement to that effect. Pointing you to
video isn't going to help because you haven't the slightest clue what
you're looking at or should be looking for.


Media quoting some unnamed NASA official who heard from grapevine that
this is what the russian are looking is is not official conformation.


And is a press statement to TASS by Sergei Krikalyov, Roscosmos
Executive Director for Manned Flights, 'official' enough for you?


What the media are saying MAY come from sources that turn out to be
accurate. But that doesn't mean that what they are saying is, at this
point, confirmed facts.


Mayfly, why don't you ever bother to find out the facts before you
start running your mouth?


You are also ignoring the possibility that the booster improperly
separating may be the result of a problem instead of being a cause.


You're ignoring the facts in order to run your mouth.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #43  
Old October 17th 18, 04:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Niklas Holsti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

On 18-10-17 13:54 , Jeff Findley wrote:

IMHO, the rest of the world should just stop flying
payloads and people on Russian launch vehicles. If Russia complains,
tell them they just need a better trampoline. They'll get the reference


They may, but I don't... please give me a hint or two.

--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .
  #44  
Old October 18th 18, 05:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,800
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 17 Oct 2018
16:00:23 -0400:

On 2018-10-17 06:49, Jeff Findley wrote:

So, as always, Wikipedia is pretty much the best starting point for
anything.


I looked at the wikipedia entry for Dragon 2 whcih simply stated crew
capacity of 7 and no information on how NASA planned to use it. Hence my
question which to you seemed stupid


It didn't just seem stupid...


And asking Mr Google for Dragon 2 crew capacity yielded "7" in responses.


Well of course it did. Because that is the Crew Dragon capacity.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commer...ew_Development


This very long entry mentions the early RFPs requesting ships with
capacity of 4.


Which says that NASA will never fly more than 4.


But much lower on that page, the initial crew manifests for the first 2
manned Dragon flights have only 2 crewmembers.


Because that's what the current crew exchange requires. I'd expect
they'll almost always fly 2-3, keeping with the current crew rotation.



So, it looks like crews of 4 for most operational missions.


No, it looks like 4 is the mandated max capacity, not what NASA actually
intends to use.


I don't think NASA plans to ever use more than 3 seats. That's why
Boeing applied for (and got) permission to sell 'spare' seats to
tourists.



The maximum crew capacity of 7 could be used in a contingency.


Will Dragon 2 always launch with 7 couches and 7 SpaceX suits that are
compatible with any/all astronaut sizes? Are the couches on-orbit
adjustable to fit astronauts of different sizes or are they more like
Soyuz, requiring either the couch is adjusted on ground, or a custom
liner made on ground ?


Judging by the way the simulator is laid out, they'll fly with four
seats and the option to put three cargo pallets where the other three
seats would bolt in. Crew Dragon has a pretty 'gentle' reentry
profile, so I don't think it requires a lot of 'special fitting'. The
max g load on Dragon is something under 3.5g. Soyuz hits 6g and has a
big 'jolt' at the end due to recovering on land the way it does. I
would expect that, for escape purposes, the assumption would be that
people will fly down on the vehicle they flew up on, so everyone who
would ride Crew Dragon will already have a suit.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #45  
Old October 18th 18, 05:33 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,800
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 17 Oct 2018
16:09:13 -0400:

On 2018-10-17 07:00, Jeff Findley wrote:

Bull****. Not the same at all. With Soyuz, you could likely take a
Soyuz 2 back in time to the 1960s, sit it on the pad, hook it up (with a
little Russian ingenuity), and get it to fly.


Someone had argued Soyuz-2 was the first new rocket Russia built. I
argued that Syouz 2 was an upgrade of Soyuz. I realize it is hard for
you to agree with me, but there is no need for "bull****" insults.


If you don't like your output being called 'bull****', perhaps you
should stop putting out so much bull**** (which I notice you
'cleverly' elided).



Really, Soyuz 2 has way more in common with the original R-7 than your
**** poor Cadillac analogy.


New engines, new control systems. Keeps the same overall style. And
continues to be a "Soyuz". Note that one major change at the pad is that
they will no longer need to rotate pad because the new Soyuz will have a
"roll program" after launch to orient to right orbital inclination
before accelerating.


Do you have a point in there? By your 'logic' one could claim that a
modern Cadillac car is just an 'evolution' of the original Cadillac
horse drawn carriages.



A modern Cadillac has absolutely nothing to
do with a 1960s Cadillac except for the name.


Core design remains unchange with 4 wheels, front mounted engine,
transmission and real wheel drive. And a certain style that is well
known even if they changed it.


Bull****. Find a single part on a modern Cadillac that can be traced
back to a 1967 model.


Your argument about modern Cadillac could equally apply to Soyuz since
today's Soyuz is an evolution from the original, while keeping many core
designs the same.


Bull****. Many of the parts on even a Soyuz 2 are IDENTICAL to the
parts on an R7. NOTHING is interchangeable between a 1967 Cadillac
and a current Cadillac model.


So it is wring to stated the Syuz is 1960s technooogy
today. The same way it is wriong to state the 737 is 1960s technooogy
today, even if Boeing has had to keep many 1960s concepts to reduce
regulatory costs (such as mechanical linkages between cockpit and
control surfaces instead of fly by wire)


Bull****.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #46  
Old October 18th 18, 05:35 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,800
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 17 Oct 2018
16:10:57 -0400:

On 2018-10-17 07:03, Jeff Findley wrote:

I'm sorry JF, but you're full of ****. Go read all of the news articles
coming out about this incident. The space media is covering this
incident like white on rice on a paper plate in a snowstorm.


I had looked up space.com and all I could find was the specilation about
the booster separation. Just because all the media repeat the same story
obtained from unknown NASA source who heard it through the grapevine
that the Russians were considering that possibility. That does not mean
that the Russians have released an offciial statement on the matter.


Except, as I explained to you, they have. It was not difficult to
find reporting of this.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #47  
Old October 18th 18, 05:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,800
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 17 Oct 2018
16:37:50 -0400:

On 2018-10-17 07:43, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Roscosmos has issued a statement to that effect.


Roscosmos, at time of checking, has no such statement on their website.
Googling "Roscosmos statement" or "Roscosmosn press release" points to
the September even of a Soyuz having a leak at space station.

NASA's press release about MS-10
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...0-launch-abort

Mentions nothing about cause.


Your defective research skills are not my problem and they certainly
don't constitute a 'defense' of your ignorance.



Pointing you to
video isn't going to help because you haven't the slightest clue what
you're looking at or should be looking for.


Good deflection ...


It's not a 'deflection'. It's a statement of fact.


... because I am stupid.


Which I can't fix, particularly when you resist.


But the lack of high resolution
video SHOULD also prevent anyone outside investigators from speculating
that the booster separation was the cause of the accident (instead of
possibly the result). You, the mighty expert who is without any fault
can't possibly reach your conclusions that the cause is now an
established fact if you haven't even seen such a high resolution video.


The video I looked at on YouTube is of adequate resolution to see it
if you know what you're looking for.



And is a press statement to TASS by Sergei Krikalyov, Roscosmos
Executive Director for Manned Flights, 'official' enough for you?


Officoal statement from Tass, October 15.

http://tass.com/science/1026015
Russiaís space agency declines to name causes of Soyuz rocket failure
until probe is over

Krikalev did make a press conference today (Wednesday). So 1: not fair
to tell me I should have know of its contents when I posted yesterday,
and 2, that TASS article, while reporting on the Kirkalev press
conferences does not mention causes and rtepeats the above that the
won't talk about it until investigation is over.

It mentions that they will have 3 unmanned Syuz launches before
December's manned flight.
http://tass.com/science/1026349

So, if you reference some mythical statement that can't be found after
spending over half an hour reason countless TASS statements on Soyuz
(that basically repeat the same things), then at least don't accuse me
of not trying.

And certaintly don't accuse me of not having access to some statement
that was made after I made post.


Well, **** you then. Since you are so adamant about defending your
ignorance, remain ignorant and be damned to you.



Mayfly, why don't you ever bother to find out the facts before you
start running your mouth?


And whoever you are who insists on being unprofessional, perhaps you
need to learn how to read media reports because wordings such as
"sources say" etc have sigtnificant meanings on how to ionterpret what
is written.

Just because a reportr reports that Roscosmos is looking at booster
separation failure does not make this an official cause of the accident,
especially when Roscomos goes out of its way to state that it will not
speculate on cause until it has completed the investigation.


You can make up all the obfuscatory bull**** you like.



You're ignoring the facts in order to run your mouth.


I am waiting for facts, not media speculation. If you can't participate
constructively to provide facts, whty do you participate?


If you can't or won't read and understand even simple explanations,
why do you ask questions?


If for instance, instead of insulting me, you actually provide the link
to the official TAS Sreport that Krikalev actually confirmed the cause
of the accident, it would have helped more than me (and saved me half an
hyour of seraching only to find an article that Roscosmos refused to
confirmed the cause)


This took a single google search to find and is dated October 12:

"The collision of elements during the separation of the carrier
rocketís first and second stages is the primary cause of the Soyuz-FG
boosterís abortive launch, Roscosmos Executive Director for Manned
Flights Sergei Krikalyov said on Friday."

Mo
http://tass.com/science/1025675

It is not my fault you are too adamantly pig-ignorant to find it and
expend all your effort arguing with people when they give you FACTS. I
spent 3 seconds to find this using a search based on what I had
already told you ("krikalyov tass statement soyuz launch failure").
You spent 30 minutes flailing around to fail to find anything useful
other than to try to justify your ignorance.

You have no excuse and the information was available almost a week
ago. Learn to admit when you're wrong.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #48  
Old October 18th 18, 11:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,748
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article ,
lid says...

On 18-10-17 13:54 , Jeff Findley wrote:

IMHO, the rest of the world should just stop flying
payloads and people on Russian launch vehicles. If Russia complains,
tell them they just need a better trampoline. They'll get the reference


They may, but I don't... please give me a hint or two.


Trampoline to Space? Russian Official Tells NASA to Take a Flying Leap
April 29, 2014 / 12:32 PM EDT
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/uk...mpoline-space-
russian-official-tells-nasa-take-flying-leap-n92616

From above:

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, a target of U.S.
sanctions sparked by the Ukraine crisis, said Tuesday that
those sanctions would boomerang against America's space effort
and essentially told NASA to take a flying leap ... on a
trampoline.

"After analyzing the sanctions against our space industry,
I suggest to the USA to bring their astronauts to the
International Space Station using a trampoline," Rogozin said
via his Russian-language Twitter account.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #50  
Old October 18th 18, 11:46 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,748
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

In article ,
says...
No, it looks like 4 is the mandated max capacity, not what NASA actually
intends to use.


I don't think NASA plans to ever use more than 3 seats. That's why
Boeing applied for (and got) permission to sell 'spare' seats to
tourists.


Actually, NASA specified four seats on the crewed vehicles from the
beginning so that some time in the future they can increase the ISS crew
size from six to seven. One additional crew member would allow more
science experiments to be performed.

NASA ANNOUNCES NINE COMMERCIAL CREW FLIGHT ASSIGNMENTS, MORE TO COME
FROM INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS
By Marcia Smith | Posted: August 3, 2018 2:39 pm ET | Last Updated:
August 3, 2018 2:39 pm ET
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/n...mmercial-crew-
flight-assignments-more-to-come-from-international-partners/

From above:

Once the commercial crew systems are operational, it will be
possible to increase the size of the crews who remain aboard
ISS for long-duration (4-6 month) missions from six to seven.
That was the original plan: three from Russia and four from
NASA and its European, Canadian and Japanese counterparts.

It's a bit odd though that both SpaceX and Boeing went beyond the
minimum requirement and both picked seven as the maximum number of crew
in each capsule design. Makes me wonder if that was coincidence or if
this was always some sort of unwritten requirement that was communicated
verbally.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soyuz rocket launch aborted [email protected] Space Shuttle 0 October 11th 18 12:23 PM
Behind the beautiful Soyuz launch: overcoming a communications emergency Jim Oberg Space Station 2 April 11th 06 03:50 AM
Behind the beautiful Soyuz launch: overcoming a communications emergency Jim Oberg History 2 April 11th 06 03:50 AM
Soyuz emergency landing in U.S. instructions. Pat Flannery History 7 June 21st 04 02:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.