Soviet era rockets no longer fit for purpose?

#21
The Soyuz launch system may be an old design, but it has over 1700 successful flights under its' belt. They are not re-usable, so I imagine that today's vehicle was brand new. Bad news happens, but I am so glad that the astronaut / cosmonaut crew are safe.
Exactly. It probably wasn't something old that failed on that launch but something new, a change or modification that caused this failure. Good to see the crew escape system functioned correctly.
 
#22
I take it you don't know much about the Soyuz project history then - clue, their under-developed captured German tec had a high failure rate and has killed many more people than NASA ever has......

Except the Russians quickly filed their captured Germans under 'wastes of space' and let Sergei Korylev do the design work… and the rest, including a series of Russians firsts, is history.
 
#23
A lack of pad safety seems to have killed most of them. Only 4 in space.

How many has NASA lost in space? 14? (7 still in earths atmosphere but after launch.)
 
#24
Except the Russians quickly filed their captured Germans under 'wastes of space' and let Sergei Korylev do the design work… and the rest, including a series of Russians firsts, is history.
That might be the official version, but it's not actually the truth is it? How many people have been killed by the Soviet Space program, more specifically Vostok failures? Clue - your starter or Item 2
 
#27
Every launch is a new launch regardless of the vehicles used - excepting SpaceX - the engines are ground tested at launch duration, progressively over a period of time and that (with a lot of assurance activities) is how the get their flight status. When you're lofting people or $200-800m of capability into orbit there is a lot of pressure to achieve that launch assurance and despite what is often said about Russian technology in this area their engines are well respected hence ULA using them for so long.

When it comes to reusable engines (and other components) the re-use criteria will be incredible (I believe) which is why SpaceX mostly likely will send people up, initially, on brand new vehicles until they have a certified and verified assurance process to satisfy NASA, and the astronauts. For cargo they may take a more risk accepting stance in line with their lower costs.
 
#30
Not changed since Yuri Gagarin RiP.
I believe they've changed enormously. The concept of the capsule may not have but the underpinning systems have and the rockets/parachutes needed to slow the descent have been vastly improved. These are 4th generation Soyuz and inside this current generation there have been a number of updates. Glass panel, GNSS/GPS technology, laser ranging, better thrusters, better rockets/parachutes. The Russians are no slouches in space!
 
#31
Except the Russians quickly filed their captured Germans under 'wastes of space' and let Sergei Korylev do the design work… and the rest, including a series of Russians firsts, is history.
The majority of German rocket scientist's moved west rather rapidly as the Russian'sapproached so they got the cream of Russian rocket knowledge and surrenderd to the US forces. The US 'winked' at some of the activites people like von Braun about what he knew about regarding the SS and slave labour from concentration camps. Von Braun held hononary SS rank, confered on him by Himmler as the SS tried to get controlof the missile programme.
 
#32
I believe they've changed enormously. The concept of the capsule may not have but the underpinning systems have and the rockets/parachutes needed to slow the descent have been vastly improved. These are 4th generation Soyuz and inside this current generation there have been a number of updates. Glass panel, GNSS/GPS technology, laser ranging, better thrusters, better rockets/parachutes. The Russians are no slouches in space!
It did show today the crew using tablets on the ascent phase.
 
#34
Not changed since Yuri Gagarin RiP.
Gagarin's capsule in on exhibit in the Cosmonautics Museum in Moscow. It is totally different from that. It is spherical for one instance, and much much smaller.
 
#35
A lack of pad safety seems to have killed most of them. Only 4 in space.

How many has NASA lost in space? 14? (7 still in earths atmosphere but after launch.)

The problem the Russians had in the 60’s particularly was they had the Army driving parallel rocket programmes to the civilians - see the Nedelin disaster.
NASA has never had the USAF, US Army and USN rocketry blow ups included on its patch.

And by an margin, Apollo was cutting so many corners to get ahead of the Russians, it was simply criminal. The capsule as designed was a badly designedly badly built death trap.
 
#36
And by an margin, Apollo was cutting so many corners to get ahead of the Russians, it was simply criminal. The capsule as designed was a badly designedly badly built death trap.
And yet I've heard a couple of times that the Soyuz design was based upon/amazingly resembled an American
design.

Anyway, was it cutting corners or being too close to the cutting edge? Added to a massively inflated National patriotic drive to beat the Russians to key milestones? Maybe the same thing but at the time was that seen as acceptable risk that with hindsight wouldn't be?
 
Last edited:

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#38
Apparently Vlad the War Criminal has ordered a criminal investigation into this latest episode of Soviet Russian Federation bungling.

The paranoid secret police mentality that says: << This cannot be a technical failure- the West must be behind this !>>

Qv Concordski,Kursk,K-19,etc etc
 
#40
Apparently Vlad the War Criminal has ordered a criminal investigation into this latest episode of Soviet Russian Federation bungling.

The paranoid secret police mentality that says: << This cannot be a technical failure- the West must be behind this !>>

Qv Concordski,Kursk,K-19,etc etc
Has he? It appears that everything worked as it should once the failure of the booster occurred. That is why the safety equipment is there.
 

Latest Threads

Top