[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




It’s happening, bye bye ULA and Rosmocosmos!
>>
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45822845
>>
>>10063117
:o
>>
File: 7a5.gif (29 KB, 482x800)
29 KB
29 KB GIF
>american rocket malfunctions
>everyone on board dies

>russian rocket malfunctions
>astronauts return safely to earth in an escape pod
>>
>>10063125
you maybe have a point but, this was not a 5/5 launch
>>
File: 1517070463237.png (351 KB, 420x486)
351 KB
351 KB PNG
>>10063122
>world-europe
>>
>>10063117
So is this the first time a launch escape system has been used?
>>
>>10063117
Is it the same escape system they used 40 years ago?
>>
>>10063150
>>10063140
No escape system was used, the booster failed in upper atmosphere after escape tower jettison.

Seems like they just ditched everything and fell back down.

https://youtu.be/B1RbRTZ6j7s
>>
>>10063125
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSbMs_OnE4c

Americans have had successful aborts.
>>
>>10063140
I don't think the launch escape system was even used this time because it was a few minutes in and I think it already separated. There was some issue with the booster around the time it would've separated so that might've been the issue. I think I remember reading that the Soyuz used the launch escape system in like the 80s when the rocket failed, but the crew survived.
>>
>>10063156
But this is pad abort, not inflight one
>>
>>10063156
>still conducts mission
>stays in orbit for 8 days
That's less of an abort than it is a slight change in the mission parameters. A proper abort would be the challenger surviving some faulty o-rings.
>>
Reminder that if this was BFR all crew and passengers would be dead with no chance of recovery.
>>
>>10063157
Yes I am >>10063152

>>10063158
How the fuck do you abort to orbit from the launch pad, retard?
>>
>>10063162
>How the fuck do you abort to orbit from the launch pad, retard?
Sorry I am dumb shithead
>>
>>10063117
https://youtu.be/sE4BSAcQCfo
>>
>>10063152
They got a large off axis bump and the video from the capsule cut off. Could have been a catastrophic failure?
>>
>>10063172
Soyuz booster is basically ICBM, so this is unlikely.
>>
da asstronawts ded?
>>
>>10063176
na homie, they living
>>
>>10063172
They still talked about everything being nominal so I doubt it. Probably slightly asymetric booster separation
>>
OHNONONONONONONO
>>
File: tucker ufos.jpg (15 KB, 300x168)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>>10063117
Daily reminder we are not alone on this planet.
Daily reminder (((they))) don't want us to colonize mars.
>>
Failure point of Manned Soyuz MS-10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raH9XX86iVc
>>
Rescue team have reached the landed capsule, it sounds like everyone's okay.
>>
>>10063160
Reminder that Russia will never be relevant in space again.
>>
>>10063156
too bad yours wasnt lmao
>>
>>10063235
Russia will never be relevant [...] again.
>>
File: 15392584365562.jpg (197 KB, 720x960)
197 KB
197 KB JPG
> tfw you spent 10 years preparing for a 2 minute flight
>>
>>10063291
true
>>
Daily reminder that if this was the Shuttle chances are the crew would have died.
>>
Does this mean the Soyuz is going to get grounded until the investigation is wrapped up?
>>
>>10063348
Please don’t use swear words on this board. The appropriate writing is sh*ttle.
>>
>>10063304
>tfw you risk your life for oldspace
>>
>>10063304
They can just stick him on one of the AMERICAN vehicles next year.
>>
I was under the impression that the second stage failed to ignite after the 4 1st stage boosters were jettisoned, so the mission was aborted shortly thereafter.
>>
Eat shit america still has to buy russian engines and rockets.
>>
>>10063235
more relevant than muttland
>>
>>10063415
Not really, no. As much as I hate Musk he's doing a good job of making loe launches more accessible and "routine". Roscosmos already accused him of trying to drive them out of the market via dumping, and consider SpaceX isn't even the only commercial launch service. Russia's space sector is done for, it's just a slow motion death.
>>
>>10063411
>america

One American company buys them retard, and it's gonna switch to American engines in a few years.
>>
File: NOAA-N'_accident.jpg (603 KB, 3008x1960)
603 KB
603 KB JPG
>>10063304

nice snack tray
>almonds
>cashews
>turds

>CRT hogging table
wtf
>>
File: sacex1.jpg (68 KB, 878x591)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>10063427
Yup, it's dead and years (if not a decade) behind SpaceX.
>>
>>10063427
Why do you hate Musk?
>>
Video of failure at staging

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE4BSAcQCfo
>>
>>10063361
yes, has already happened. Soyuz-FG is grounded, which is only used for crewed flights. But it means the current ISS skeleton crew may have to leave before the next attempt, leaving the ISS empty!
>>
>>10063435
probably some Kazakhstan delicacy, like fried gopher livers
>>
>>10063431
In fact, the USAF just released their EELV-2 developmental contracts, with three big winners:
1. $1B to ULA to finish Vulcan, an all-American replacement for Atlas V.
2. $800M to Orbital/Northrop Grumman to develop Omega, a new EELV (solid fuel 1st/2nd stages! Madness!)
3. $500M to Blue Origin to develop New Glenn.

SpaceX didn't get anything this round, because Falcon Heavy is already certified, and BFG doesn't meet all the EELV qualifications.
>>
>>10063467
ok here's the quick rundown for anons:
-the current on station Soyuz has a lifetime of 200 days. This ends in December.
-the current Soyuz being processed will be delayed, as manned launches are suspended in Russia pending an investigation

so, we have the following options.

>Extend the on-station soyuz's life (note: this is the one with the DIY repaired hole, remember?)
>Jettison the Soyuz as planned, and keep the crew on station; use CRS-16 as a lifeboat (possible, since it's pressurized) which will have launched by then
>Expedite the launch of the next Soyuz, but launch it unmanned


>>10063495
I don't think they bid at all. Remember, Hans has said that going forward they want to avoid taking guberment bucks. It stiffens the freedom their design teams have.
>>
>>10063500
The CRS capsule is pressurized but lacks proper furnishing for crew. It'd be dangerous to ride it down to earth without a seat belt or a seat.
>>
File: 1480680691935.jpg (61 KB, 600x600)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>10063117
NASA - Crew Safe After Soyuz Launch Abort
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUwnLFKfuBE

>>10063370
Just in time, too
>multiple Proton rockets failing the past few years
>new launch site opens but they keep the flight profile for the old site and the rocket fucks off
>fucking DRILL HOLE in Soyuz plugged with epoxy that pops out a few weeks later
>manned launch has to abort from second stage failure
>SpaceX has more than half the commercial launches IN THE WORLD now >>10063440 and going to launch first crew next year
Russia is done

Oldspace is done too >>10062802
Looks like the Commercial Crew program will be on its second round before SLS sends up a human on even a test flight.
>but muh district's jerbs
>>
>>10063509
well, it would only be used in an emergency anyways, if something on ISS failed
>>
>>10063509
Each crew member has a custom-fitted seat that can be swapped between capsules, but there is nothing to attach it to in a Cargo Dragon. They could bounce around like crazy if there's no way to even rig up some sort of restraints.

More importantly, it's not designed to undock itself. It needs to be maneuvered around with the arm, so how does the guy operating the arm get down?
>>
>>10063524
canadarm2 can be operated remotely, but unbolting cannot be done manually.
so:
>suit up
>depressurize the station
>grab Dragon with canadarm2
>unbolt CBM
>enter Dragon, close hatch
>control canadarm2 from the ground; release Dragon
>>
File: 44335552035_29482c92eb_k.jpg (451 KB, 2048x1195)
451 KB
451 KB JPG
Alexander Gerst photographed the launch from the ISS.
>>
Here's What Today's Soyuz Launch Failure Means for Space Station Astronauts
https://www.space.com/42100-russian-soyuz-rocket-failure-space-station-implications.html

NASA Administrator Promises Investigation into Astronauts' Emergency Landing After Soyuz Failure
https://www.space.com/42098-soyuz-rocket-launch-abort-nasa-chief-statement.html
>>
stage sep fucked up
normal vs today
>>
File: 9189248_original.jpg (183 KB, 900x934)
183 KB
183 KB JPG
>>
>>10063575
korolev cross fail

>>10063578
how much vodka would it take to send st basils cathedral up
>>
lol, DM-1 was going to be delayed due to not enough room on station, right? well this solves that problem.
>>
>random priest in the background
>>
>>10063624
Dr von Braun, I'm Priest.
>>
>>10063624
Doesn't the russians have a priest bless rockets with holy water before every launch?
>>
File: 44495795714_9bcb42d1cf_k.jpg (1.01 MB, 2048x1288)
1.01 MB
1.01 MB JPG
>>10063634
correct
>>
>>10063624
>>random priest in the background
he's probably FSB
>>
>>10063624
Is that Rasputin?
>>
>>10063500
They submitted a bid:

>Asked why SpaceX did not make the cut, Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisitions, said the company is an “important member of our launch team” and can choose to bid again in phase 2.

>again
>>
>>10063208
I can't tell if you're saying that jews don't want us to go to mars or not
Cause the jewish community has been pretty adamantly pro-space
>>
>>10063125
Except when they don't like Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11
>>
>>10063702
The SpaceIL lunar rover mission on a F9 early 2019 should be pretty cool.
>>
>>10063511
this, anti-spacex people ITT are shameless ludites
>>
>>10063693
oof, wonder why they were passed over by the AF? too much risk in a radical design like BFR? I don't think it will make that much difference in the long run. Elon said that BFR dev costs would be like 5-10b
>>
>>10063385
the second stage is the core and ignited at launch
>>
>>10063435
>>10063471
pretty sure that't just walnuts...
>>
>>10063500
>Extend the on-station soyuz's life (note: this is the one with the DIY repaired hole, remember?)
the hole was sealed though, and is "only" in the orbital, not the descend module. So the part of the spacecraft whose reliability could be questioned by the presence of the hole will be ditched before reentry anyways.
>>
>>10063747
ah yes, forgot about that
>>
>>10063721
The EELV competition has a stupid requirement, all launch vehicles have to be able to launch directly to GEO; Falcon Heavy can do this but it's already airforce certified, however BFR can't without refuelling. It's a stupid requirement because it creates massive space junk due to the second-stages and no commercial launches require this. It's impossible for BFR because getting to GEO and back requires more energy than to land on Titan...
>>
>>10063756
still, it doesn't change much. Hole or not, extending the on-station lifespan of the soyuz seems unlikely if you consider what a bureocratic nightmare NASA and roscosmos are. Doubt you could just push something like that through on short notice. Launching one unmanned seems the most likely. I wonder how long it'll take for it to fly manned again. No matter what happens, the current crew can't stay up there forever. They launched on june 6th and were/are supposed to come back in mid december. They could probably realisticaly extend that by half a year
>>
>>10063762
so just artificial requirements to keep ULA alive?
>>
details from current press conference:
>MS-09 crew still going to return in December
>200 day expiry date for MS-09 is not particularly flexible
>If the station is unmanned, both CommCrew capsules will not be able to berth; will have to wait for another Soyuz to arrive
>>
>>10063787
>MS-09 crew still going to return in December
lame. Maybe they can start a mutiny or something, not like anyone's gonna kick them out
>>
>>10063787
>both CommCrew capsules will not be able to berth
I thought Dragon 2 is capable of docking?
>>
>>10063797
we don't exactly want a repeat of Skylab-4 here.

>>10063803
NASA wants crew onboard to monitor everything for the berthing of a new spaceship to the station, according to the press conf
>>
>>10063776
No. It was a requirement in EELV 1 as well.
>>
>>10063776
It's just the DoD's outdated satellite designs which require it, it's similar to the spy satellites which require vertical integration because their lenses are so fragile. More modern military satellites like the GPS-3 series require none of this.
>>
>>10063807
*docking

forgot that D2 will dock
>>
>>10063807
>we don't exactly want a repeat of Skylab-4 here.
why would we? That mission only lasted three months, there have been ISS crew members staying up there for a year without any issues. Just don't overwork them
>>
>>10063872
Skylab-4 was the one with a mutiny. The crew never got to fly again
>>
>>10063881
was it actually a mutiny? I thought that was just them not getting along with each other and especially mission control at all.

I just mean mutiny in terms of the current crew staying up there and continuing like nothing happened. Obviously they're not gonna do it but to me it seems preferable to leaving the station empty
>>
File: skylab_tele.jpg (893 KB, 2901x1926)
893 KB
893 KB JPG
>>10063881
But at least people know who they are. I have an old book from the early '80s about space rockets (a BIG hardbound book with lots of pictures), and Skylab 3 got a big picture of the rocket taking off, and literally two paragraphs. "They got motion sickness, the capsule started leaking tetroxide, but they made it home."
Skylab 2 - crew fixed the damn thing
Skylab 4 - crew stayed 3 months
Skylab 3 - yeah they were up there
>>
>>10063904
I think I remember reading about it, and it was a mutiny due to their workload. They had a startup-tier workload of experiments and shit, and they sure weren't getting stock options.
>>
>>10063188
The reporter on the NASA feed obviously wasn't paying attention to the launch. The rocket was already breaking apart and she said it was still nominal.
>>
File: muk.jpg (74 KB, 1187x794)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
How would Boeing or SpaceX handle a failure like this? Could SpaceX survive a loss of crew?
>>
>>10063938
>muh loss of crew

I see kremlinbots are in full force today with the damage control
>>
>>10063944
it's legitimate question

>>10063938
they would both be fine. Crew Dragon has integrated abort motors (no LES to eject) so it actually has a wider range of abort modes than Soyuz. Recovery at sea would be a bit trickier, but nothing impossible. They'll be testing a sort of similar abort for the max-q in-flight abort test which is happening soon
>>
>>10063938
the dragon V2 won't get crew certified but loosing crew with it would be unlikely since it comes with full abort capabilities.

Also just like the soyuz, i guess. Initial shitstorm followed by an investigation and then going back to daily business.
>>
>>10063957
it's literally whataboutism

what if Soyuz had a malfunction in space?
>>
>>10063957
didn't they stop the human certification process for dragon?
>>
>>10063958
>won't get certified
do you mean cargo dragon (v1)? Crew Dragon is at the tail-end of the cert process. The in flight abort and DM-1 is pretty much all that's left for the sign-off
>>
>>10063960
no; there have been delays on NASA's end though. Mostly paperwork related - the hardware is all ready.
>>
>>10063961
>>10063963
oh, neat. I don't know where i got the misinformation that it was entirely cancelled from then
>>
>>10063984
what *was* cancelled was red dragon/grey dragon (flying a dragon around the moon / landing a unmanned dragon on mars).
but that was like a year ago
>>
>>10063987
oddly enough i knew that
>>
>>10063208
>colonize mars
>>
>>10063208
>>10064112
>colonize mars
>>
>>10063529
May I remind you that what you are proposing would be an emergency procedure meant for when the station itself is about to become a deathtrap for the crew and they need to get the fuck out as soon as possible?
>>
Who drew the short stick, the next american to fly on soyuz?
>>
>>10064132
no one i guess, i think they're just bumping everyones mission up
>>
>fuel left untill 25 december
>they decide to evac the crew
>the crew leaves the ISS
>it's empty for some months
>one day receive a signal from the station
>someone's there
>>
File: 1499036647105.gif (26 KB, 405x366)
26 KB
26 KB GIF
>>10063958
The only thing about V2 that won't get crew certified is powered landing. NASA doesn't want it, and Elon doesn't want it bad enough to pay for certifying it on his own. But it keeps the capsule out of seawater (better re-use for the capsule), and SX already got NASA on-board for re-use of V1, so who knows.
But Elon really wants to put everything he can on BFR.
>>
>>10064139
>>
>>10063511
You forgot;
>low quality concrete used in new pad requiring repairs
Kleptocracy that should have been dismantled and guided properly after the cold war. Everyone including the russians would have been better off.
>>
>>10064139
>some russian welder hid in the insulation of zvezda and is living on board unnoticed
>looks like gollum now because of severe muscle atropy and is subsisting on some unnoticed mold that grows behind the wall panelling
>sometimes drills holes into unoccupied soyuz capsules
>>
Kinda weird that astronauts looking so good after ballistic re entry.
6 g is no joke
>>
>>10063533
Pretty pretty
>>
>>10064118
Eh, natural selection will fix it.
>>
>>10064169
I think some russian guy survived 21 g during re entry.
>>
>>10064169
6g is no problem whatsoever after the substantial fitness and high G training astronauts go through. Top fuel dragsters go above 4g, high g rollercoasters above 6. High g training for fighter pilots subjects them to sustained 9g in centrifuges.
>>
>>10064178
The Soyuz rescue system also does 21 G for a few milliseconds.
>>
>>10064172
Humans don't do that now thanks to technology. It is all about sexual-social selection now. Like being a part of a clique and watching normie tv shows. On a Mars colony people would be using drugs, gene therapy, and machines to keep them from dying due to whatever ravages their bodies are experiencing.
>>
File: tired black man.jpg (502 KB, 1213x1617)
502 KB
502 KB JPG
>>10064139
>>
>>10063129
It also ended a multi-decade streak of successful manned launches

>>10063175
all big rockets are basically ICBMs

>>10064161
>Kleptocracy that should have been dismantled and guided properly after the cold war
And who was going to do that? The Clinton administration that backed Yeltsin and helped prop up the oligarchs?

>>10063634
Orthodox Priests bless everything; Spaceships, Weapons, Research Centers, literally anything and everything

>>10063938
They would probably survive in most circumstances, unless a loss of the crew became part of a perfect storm I doubt it would sink them.
>>
>>10064287
>They would probably survive in most circumstances, unless a loss of the crew became part of a perfect storm I doubt it would sink them.
Even the CRS-7 incident would have been survivable. They didn't expect something like that to happen, so they never programmed the capsule to open chutes. Supposedly they have since added that, just in case.
>>
>>10064302
Even if it wasn't the only thing that could really sink a space program (public or private) is if it had a string of massive, consecutive, failures. Only then would you be at the point where a government might freeze a program for an indeterminate amount of time or investors would lose faith in a company.
>>
>>10064112
>>10064118
Exactly

Don't colonize mars

Build O'NEIL CYLINDERS
>>
>>10063208
The Virgin Planet Dweller

>>10064319
The Chad Cylinder Constructor
>>
>>10064331
>The Virgin Planet Dweller

kek.
>>
I am glad that the crew is allright.

It is sad to see that an impressive succesfull streak of launches has been broken by this incident.
>>
>>10064139
the worry is more for the health of the crew but there are literally already like three more crew launches that were already scheduled to launch within the world record for consecutive time spent in space. There will be resupplies of all kinds going to the iss anyways, there is another crew that was already scheduled to be launching in December so the current crew will maybe be up there for an extra week or so, just more time to do science
>>
>>10064465
>so the current crew will maybe be up there for an extra week or so
if they get the soyuz flying again until then that is
>>
>>10064465
> there is another crew that was already scheduled to be launching in December

Roskosmos cancelled all soyuz launches until they find the reason of the failure and it will take some months. There's a chance they launch an empty soyuz.
>>
>>10064480
the soyuz is an expendable rocket that might have some parts reused im not sure if they do reuse soyuz parts(that would be great if they did but I'v heard nothing of it). That means that the Russian Space Agency, who have been a longtime launch, science, and engineering partners with NASA, CSA and ESA, literally produce new rockets for every launch. The Soyuz is arguably the most flown and most reliable crewed rocket of the last decade. They will likely be launching either this crew or the next crew on a Soyuz in December, but this is just another reason that the commercial crew program is great because we will have more diverse options for launching Astronauts to space. I guess the goal is to see this for a learning experience and get 3 more people to the Space Station ASAP.
>>
>>10063125
Dood, russians have a reputation for not Reporting casualities. Human life in russia is Worth less than western pets
>>
>>10064497
>Russians are evil bastards that lie and kill babies. The cia and the fbi are paladins of liberty and freedom that never lie. I know because i never read history books, specially not ones from outside the us.
>>
>>10064493
it has absolutely nothing to do with being an expendable rocket but with not using a launcher until it is known why the last one had a severe malfunction. And then putting measures in place to prevent that from ever happening again. How is this even questionable? It's standard procedure even for things not as expensive and dangerous as fucking rockets.
>>
>>10064519
Obviously we're gonna figure out what the issue was, but this was literally an extremely rare occurrence for a Soyuz, so for the sake of the Station, it could be worth it to just send the next crew up on another rocket. The Station could likely last until the first commercial missions anyways.
>>
>>10064532
this, even if the same issue repeats itself (ultra rare, less than one in ten billion chance) it STILL wouldnt cause loss of life. God dammit, is like im the only one gifted with rational thought on how to discover the objective thing to do.
>>
Why did a crew of only two ride the Baseduz without taking someone from the backup crew along?
>>
>>10064629
money and stop posting from the toilet !
>>
>>10063533
the iss looks like it's barely 50 miles above the surface of the earth. what gives?
>>
>>10064629
Roscosmos has had budget cuts for the past 2 years
>>
>>10064515
Vatnik go home
>>
File: ISS_transits_math2.gif (4 KB, 334x202)
4 KB
4 KB GIF
>>10064700
the earth is big
>>
>>10064139
>return to ISS
>it's been vandalized and graffiti'ed
>>
>>10064746
History is always written by the winners
>>
>>10064497
CNN pls go
>>
>>10064139
>someone's there
>>
>>10064813
It would just just have adidas stripes painted on it, that's all
>>
I heard that this is the first ever deployment of a launch escape system -during flight- in history, is this correct?
>>
>>10064883
See
>>10063152
>>10063157
>>
>>10064907
Scott Manley says the launch tower had not seperated before the failure, the English broadcast was just reading the scripted events.
>>
>>10063500
>>Expedite the launch of the next Soyuz, but launch it unmanned

Seems most likely, I guess.
>>
File: dr-doom1.jpg (160 KB, 1024x768)
160 KB
160 KB JPG
>>10063605
>how much vodka would it take to send st basils cathedral up

Should be roughly comparable to launching the Baxter Building, so leave this to me...
>>
>>10063624
I'm sure he was with the Russian's family. Sorry if that harelips you.
>>
>>10063706
To be completely fair, it was not the ROCKET that failed on those flights.
>>
File: 6Sj8uoj.gif (1.26 MB, 294x207)
1.26 MB
1.26 MB GIF
>>10063702
Unable to NOT post this...
>>
File: moose.jpg (7 KB, 250x185)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
>>10063736
THE MADNESS!!!!
>>
>>10063747
>>10063756
Have they determined if that was sabotage or not? If it was, I'd be awfully cautious about assuming nothing else was done -- not another hole obviously, but something.

Especially if this booster failure, upon investigation, starts to look like shenanigans were in play.
>>
>>10063872
To what purpose? Just to avoid saying we had nobody in space for awhile?

If they have to come back before anybody is ready to launch another crew, it will not be the first time a station waited a bit between crews.
>>
File: Alexander-Lazutkin_sm.jpg (166 KB, 596x660)
166 KB
166 KB JPG
>>10063913
Damn, that guy looks like my boy Sasha Lazutkin.
>>
>>10063916
This. And technically not a mutiny, just a cranky crew telling MC exactly how they felt about things. Similar, if a bit worse, than what happened on Apollo 7.

There were lesser incidents on Mir, with TsUP pushing the Cosmonauts to work harder and the guys on the stations having to tell them to back off -- as far as I know, that never escalated as badly as the situations in the Apollo and Skylab cases.
>>
>>10063938
Our only analagous cases indciate a period where the fleet is grounded, followed by a return to operations.

See:

Apollo, Soyuz, STS.
>>
>>10064139
>Transmission begins: ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE. ALL THESE WORLDS AE YOURS. EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.
>>
>>10064139
>>
>>10065015
He's saying now that he was mislead by an inaccurate timeline on the NASA site. Apparently they have a set of separation rockets in the shroud itself for after the tower is jettisoned.
>>
File: spaceships 2.jpg (32 KB, 480x360)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>10064438
>It is sad to see that an impressive succesfull streak of launches has been broken by this incident.

Indeed. I was sad to see a coulple of fanbois in here gloating about it, but that's the world we live in. Me, everybody that wants to fly spacecraft, I'm rooting for you. More options is better.
>>
>>10064497
>Dood, russians have a reputation for not Reporting casualities.

Impossible to do, during launch operations. They did hide what happened in the big pad explosion way back in Soviet days, but the information is now out -- and note they announced the losses of Soyuz 1 and 11.

"Muh flying Dutchman Russian dead spaceship" is just a meme.
>>
>>10064754
Ah, I hadn't considered that.
>>
>>10065101
That is the single best thing I have ever seen.
>>
>>10063117
I just finished self-educating on the basic history of the Soyuz programme, so having something relatively interesting like this happen is kind of a treat right now.

I'm still awaiting/searching to see what their apogee was. Anyone know yet?
>>
>>10065157
Abort happened at 50km, so probably like 60km or something?
>>
>be american astronaut on ISS
>dumb, overly precious american wet hole on space station gets offended that space toilet isn't 100% ergonomically made for wet holes
>fucks with it until it breaks, blyats wont let americans use theirs, now need to shit in diapers
>american side of the ISS start to stink like hell with the accumulating diapers, all because of the dumb wet hole
>burger tries to force early return to earth, make hole in russian side
>oh shit oh shit oh shit
>story quickly burried
>still want to fucking leave, can't stand the smell, the use of diapers, or the self-important wet hole.
>eagerly wait for the next launch so you can return home
>sigh of relief as the rocket takes off
>the fucking thing malfunction and the astronauts need to use the LES.
>stuck in this smelly tin can with the dumb wet hole for several months
Imagine the absolute SEETHING anger.
>>
>>10065161

I heard figures close to that earlier as well, but not knowledge. Close to the Karman line (in terms of time, had things proceeded normally) but not quite. The point being that if that range is right, this is not a spaceflight, but a historically very interesting abort.
>>
>>10065177
he's a mesonaut, at least
https://planet4589.org/latest.html
>>
>>10065229
(Nick Hague that is)
>>
>>10063348
Daily reminder But an only flew once, unmanned. If the Russians flew Buran-Energia 138 times with crews of seven cosmonauts each time...they wouldn't be bragging about their safety record.
>>
>>10063411
ULA actually just bought their last batch of RD-180's, Vulcan-Centaur will probably be flying when they run out. Delta 4 flies on US made RS68A's
>>
>>10063511
Even "new" Angara rocket is already old tech, no part of it is reuseable.
>>
>>10064813
>it's up on jacks
>all the solar panels have been stolen
>>
File: B206BC5.jpg (148 KB, 1024x768)
148 KB
148 KB JPG
>>10065081
Here's his kid.
>>
>>10064169
6 g eyeballs-in is cake. You lay there and you're heavy like a nice big autism blanket is on top of you. You don't black out or anything and you certainly don't break anything. If you were laying on something like a loose bolt then you might get a bruise but that's about it.

It's when you start getting into the >10 g range, especially in eyeballs down or out, that things get dangerous.
>>
The biggest problem here is that the Soyuz currently docked to the ISS nearing the end of its usable life. When expeditions leave, they depart using the vehicle the previous expedition crew's ascent vehicle, not the one they launched aboard.
>>
>>10065467

The real biggest problem is that only one escape option is available-and is the one with the pinhole leak. In other words, exposure, in every possible sense.

You've also incorrectly characterized the routine for ISS up/down procedures. The real answer is, "yes and no". Sometimes crew swaps take place depending on what's going on (a long-running tradition in the Soyuz program), sometimes not. The most recent trend has been for crew to stay with their ship, up and down. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions
>>
There is also an EXTREMELY INTERESTING historical precedent hypothetical scenario. In the past, Soyuz 34 was launched WITHOUT A CREW, to Salyut 6. The crew of Soyuz 32 took it home.

I am sure that Roscosmos personnel are aware of this history, thinking on contingincies. My suggestion is that they are also thinking about readying a clean backup uncrewed vehicle to rendezvous with the space station, since too much shit is going on lately.
>>
File: never.png (208 KB, 327x316)
208 KB
208 KB PNG
>>10065413
>>
>usa cant send people into space
>russia cant send people into space
i just realized that china is the only one that can currently send people into space but they rarely do it. we need more countries that regularly launch astronauts.
>>
So knowing they detached the escape tower prior to the BOOM, what did they actually use for the abort?
Upper stage engines? Landing retro rockets?
>>
how come there's not some equivalent of the Apollo command capsule for use on the ISS as a lifeboat? put just enough SRBs on it to kick it into a quick-decaying orbit?
>>
>>10063631
should be “I am the Church”
>>
>>10063637
those robes make them look like Dark Souls characters
>>
>>10066216
Well there's Orion spaceship and it was even suggested it could do crew rotations if the commercial sector fails to deliver, as is actually happening.
>>
>>10066201
RGD engines
>>
>>10066259
is orion already up there or would we have to send it up?
>>
>>10066330
Orion is a new capsule design. A refined test article was launched once for a systems test on a Detla IVH a few years ago. Other than that it's in the construction phase.

it'll probably fly once and then get cancelled.
>>
>this will be the first time in decades when no human is in space.
We are in the dark ages of space exploration. Our only vehicle for manned spaceflight is grounded and the others being developed are still far from operational.
>>
>>10066347
Crew Dragon could have been ready years ago. NASA's LOC models, with emphasis on MMOD damage and extreme factors of safety, kept pushing it back. The DM-1 core is already on its way from McGregor to the cape. The capsule is ready.

We're getting close
>>
>>10066347
The chinks can still launch people into space.
>>
How fucked is the ISS?

>>10066509

Will gooks fucking pirate it?
>>
>>10066358
Agreed. Fucking Dragon 1 was supposed to carry crew from the get go.
It's just NASA pissing themselves because human spaceflight is inherently risky.
Shuttle would never happen under current administration.
>>
>>10066347
This is fucking stupid, though.
Russians could just throw a Basedouz ASAP, and we wouldn't have to close the station.
It's record speaks for itself.
All those people complaining and getting cold feets because safety systems FUCKING WORKED AS INTENDED.
>>
>>10066530
Dragon 1 had a lifeboat mode from the get-go. They had the technical plans to add in seats and life support in a jiffy.
>>
Ol’ Fousty has an article out https://www.space.com/42120-soyuz-failure-commercial-crew-safety.html

From a NASA safety panel member:
>"While this may indeed be described as paperwork, it is not bureaucratic, it is not paperwork and, point in fact, it is the essence of the technical certification of the design by NASA, and that does have to be completed before crew flies on these systems," he said. "It is essentially extremely important and should not be thought of as some sort of bureaucratic time delay."

>yes goyim, our red tape is necessary and not stupid at all, muahahahah
>>
>>10066540
Imagine how NASA will fucking exclude itself from BFR.
The thing literally has no safe mode during early ascent.
When it launches, whatever happens, praise the passenger's fucking balls.
>>
>>10066554
That's what you can expect from government agency.
>>
>>10066555
BFR is a different beast. No abort modes makes 100% sense. Consider:
>it MUST work when taking off of mars or the moon, since abort modes would not work in those situations
>therefore, it has to be inherently reliable enough that abort systems are not necessary
>If abort systems are therefore not necessary due to the robust design, then there is no need for specific earth-only abort hardware
>furthermore, any abort system adds failure modes and weight
>>
>>10066530
>Shuttle would never happen under current administration.
that's not a bad thing
>>
This is all looking grim, guyz.
Little did we know ISS was so close to disaster.
I guess that's what you get from having only one human launch provider.
Both SpaceX and Boeing should already be sending people there. But NASA a bitch.
I hope the stare into the abyss of what loosing the ISS would mean and get their shit together.
>>
>>10066566
Yeah, that's never gonna cut NASA standards.
The one thing I'm curious about:
Does BFS has >1 TWR at sea level, when fully fueled?
>>
>>10066573
ISS is being phased out soon anyways. Cruz is strongly against doing so, but we’re going to have better stations up and running in a few years regardless
>>
>>10066578
Yeah, but it's the whole reason for Dragon 2 and CST-100.
Last time I heard, it was supposed to go on until 2025.
That's a lot of money to private contractors.
I say they launch anyways.
>>
what's even the use of a visit-only space station these days? shouldn't be be focusing on something that can do dual-duty for science and as a waypoint station?
>>
Wait.
Can't chinks send people there?
>>
>>10066576
Doesn’t really matter. You’d accelerate too slowly to get out of the kaboom zone if BFB had an issue.

LES’s are from a bygone age where 1/100 rockets blew up. The future belongs to airframes with hundreds of flights under their belts, and failure rates in the 0.00irrelevent% range.
>>
>>10066598
Wrong docking hardware
>>
>>10066599
Well, that kind of flight record is pretty hard to come by (1000 launches? I don't think even soyuz has that).
You can fucking bet the thing will be modified as fuck while missions are going on.
>>
>>10066603
Well, you know. We can give them?
>>
>>10066609
It’s more complicated than that. We’ve sort of shut out China from the I part in ISS; they’ve been naughty in the past. Also I doubt they have the capability to get one of their manned rockets integrated and launched in the next two months
>>
>>10066614
Two month is better than the spring launch from Russia.
>>
If NASA decided to get Go Fever, they could basically launch a manned Dragon to the ISS tomorrow. They're being very... careful right now with paperwork to validate everything, and have persistent lingering concerns about anything and everything that doesn't look absolutely perfect in a Falcon and ISS Dragon Capsule flight.
>>
>>10066618
Depends how long the investigation takes. If it turns out that Ivan hammered in a gyro backwards again, then MS-11 can fly as scheduled in two months and relieve MS-09
>>
>>10066620
i dont really blame them for being assholes on the safety cert paperwork for corporate shit. private industry cheats on safety tests and regulation all the fucking time. public industry probably would too if we didnt have open access to most of their books.
>>
>>10066623
Well 'spring launch' is what I heard on the news.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know that we have to wait that long before trying again.
One thing we learned from MS-10 is: escape system fucking works.
>>
>>10066629
it must be spooky as fuck to be in the rocket when the escape system kicks in
>>
>>10066629
the secondary escape system. DU SAS was jettisoned; it was the RGD engines that yanked the Soyuz away
>>
New details from Russianspaceweb

“...the pressurization valve on one of the strap-on boosters of the first stage failed to open as scheduled to push it away from the second stage during separation and it led to the collision of the empty booster with the firing second stage and damaging or pushing it off course. According to Interfax, the impact of the first-stage booster caused the rupture of an (propellant tank) on the second stage and the loss of attitude control (of the entire vehicle).
“The accident took place during a phase of the flight, known as No. 1A, extending from the separation of the main escape rocket to the separation of the payload fairing protecting the spacecraft from aerodynamic loads. During that period, the propulsive role in ejecting the spacecraft from a failing rocket shifts to four solid motors, RDGs, attached to the payload fairing. One pair of these motors is activated on the emergency command and the other two engines fire 0.32 seconds later.”
“The failure command is issued on the basis of the data from angular velocity sensors on the second and third stages of the rocket. When those sensors detect a deviation of the vehicle exceeding seven degrees on the second stage or 10 degrees on the third stage, they generate an "avariya" (accident) command, which triggers the emergency escape sequence. However, after the separation of the four boosters of the first stage, the emergency escape scenario has a six-second pause to allow the firing core booster of the second stage to stabilize its flight after the somewhat violent separation process.”
“As a result, on Soyuz MS-10, following the "avariya" signal, which was displayed on the crew's console in the cockpit, four RDG motors were activated and pulled the payload section, OGB, including the Descent Module with the crew and the Habitation Module, away from the rocket, at T+122 seconds. Next, at T+160 seconds, the Descent Module was separated from the OGB stack...”
>>
>>10066660
http://russianspaceweb.com/soyuz-ms-10.html#scenario
>>
>>10066643
Yeah, but that was the plan, so ... it fucking works?
>>
>>10066628
>i dont really blame them for being assholes on the safety cert paperwork for corporate shit. private industry cheats on safety tests and regulation all the fucking time. public industry probably would too if we didnt have open access to most of their books.

SpaceX has been very open about it. There's a mixture of manpower shortages at NASA, verifying two capsules at once, and political pressure to help keep the Boeing company from looking bad - or at least worse than they already do with the SLS debacle.
>>
>>10066670
Yep
>>
>>10066660
Looks like easy fix, then.
>>
>>10066674
>Looks like easy fix, then.
It has literally never gone wrong before. Depending on what was different this time, that may or may not be the case.
>>
>>10066684
Or, you know look at how it could go wrong, and that's probably that.
>>
It’s official, they’ll launch an unmanned Soyuz http://tass.com/science/1025597
>>
File: large.jpg (196 KB, 500x488)
196 KB
196 KB JPG
Okay the Soyuz worked as planned and aborted the launch. Now NASA is using this as an excuse to leave the ISS uncrewed for years.

I hate modern NASA so much.
>>
>>10066845
No not really. They were confident in the press conference yesterday that the stations wouldn’t be unmanned for very long, if at all
>>
>>10066347
Not really that far, two years max IMO.
>>
Manned dragon 2 flight is still a year away. Adjust for MuskTime, and more likely two years.

The ISS will be empty for the first time ever.
>>
>>10063160
Wrong, the cause seems to be failure of booster separation, and as BFR does not use side boosters, this would not happen

Even more importantly, BFS may be able to use parabolic reentry and then land in an emergency just like this Soyuz descent module did. They did not use the launch escape system either.
>>
>>10066972
And NASA has stated that they want people in the ISS for the unmanned tests.
>>
File: ubhy.png (323 KB, 580x356)
323 KB
323 KB PNG
>>10064139
>>
File: 1355097332259.jpg (83 KB, 630x400)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>10067018
>>
>>10067018
FUCK I cant go to sleep right now..... you asshole... I hate you....

pls let me in
>>
2018/10/13 7: 58, Netanyahu? A pose that took out his ass? baby? The blue light turned red from the bottom? Mombid?
Are you sure? Italian? Cucumber (Ebenki)? bipolar? Invincible?
Are you happy? Sea monkey? copy? The magic of abramerin? Mold (mold)?

Are you trying to steal my hair with neutrons in order to press 5,000 trillion yen of debt? Contamination? Gero? Romusaga?
Switch on? + Mariko? Flying Daizaka or Mami? (3: 27 of 10/10/10/13)

2018/10/13 3: 05, Scintie (metamorphosis sexual desire)? Are you sure? Mirrors?
2:55, bipolar? Diode (left side?)? Mirrors? Crystal? Contamination (contaminated)? Lead beads? Romusaga? Kiev?

2018/10/13 2: 42, Do you bald me with Abramelin's moon magic! Dogeza? Five-bank thought? Momgami compass?
2: 22, Goblin? Dogeza? Tosho □ (Zebos?)? Crouching (contamination + contamination + almond?) Almond? poison??
2: 18, is he an answering machine? Sea monkey? slave? 2:20 Shamballa thinks eavesdropping ?? Dogeza? bipolar?
1: 53, Dogeza? Mombid? Hi Ebenki? Mold (mold)? Goblin? dirty?
1:50, a feeling that the hole of the nose expands! Mold (mold)? Is it because of? Do you like abramelin? Cecum? Mariko?
>>
>>10066972
It's not MuskTime in this case, it's NASATime. SpaceX has everything ready to go, it's NASA that's dragging their feet.
>>
>>10063117
Will NASA be hitching a ride from weedman from now on?
>>
>>10064200
>sexual selection isn't real evolution hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

If Jellobaby is too weak and sick to care for more than 2 or 3 children while Chad Hardbone is making 5 or more, that's still natural selection.

The process of evolution isn't the edgy meatgrinder /pol/ tells you it should be.
>>
>>10063441
Someone that goes around claiming to be god's gift to mankind is easy to hate.
>>
>>10066250
Just "I'm Church".
>>
>>10063624
>>10063631
>>10068203
>"Colonel Korolyov, I'm ROC"
>>
>>10068199
I don't think he's ever claimed to be god's gift or anything like that, mostly he just says he's aiming to do X, Y, and Z because he thinks that doing so will move the needle in a big way.

It's primary overzealous fans that pose him as some kind of deity, and the the idolization comes more from celebration of anybody attempting to make a dent in the status quo than it is true idolization. If some other dude started making serious progress in the same industries Musk has (or other similarly stagnant industries) these fans would probably adore him too.

For me, I just want ICE vehicles to be done with already and for the space future we were promised in the 60s to actually happen. I don't particularly care *who* does it, as long as it happens. If Toyota pulls their head out of their ass and start replacing their mainstream models with full electric replacements I'd be cheering for them heartily. Same goes for ULA and affordable/reusable spacecraft.
>>
>>10065101
I'd like to see flattards try to explain this.
>>
>>10067018
This image is so fucking retarded.
>>
So who's fault is this and will the person get fired or worse?





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.