Thread: Astronauts escape malfunctioning rocket

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Don't get me started on NASA and cost.

It is mostly political directions from Congress. Much of the ISS cost is due to political decisions. ISS was used to justify the SpaceShuttle. All NASA components had to be launched on the shuttle. This was driving cost through the roof. It also delayed completion of the ISS a lot due to the standdowns after Shuttle failures.

There's more but I don't want to go deeper on this thread. If you are interested I could keep ranting on the Space news thread.

Naaah, it's just symptomatic of government spending where a screwdriver costs $300 and a bog roll is $50 etc.

The ISS snapped a pic of the mission as it failed....

That's a really cool pic, but it doesn't look it's from the ISS.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Naaah, it's just symptomatic of government spending where a screwdriver costs $300 and a bog roll is $50 etc.

Unfortunately it is worse than that. NASA has become a jobs program. NASA centers have to be maintained which means work has to be found. Best or rather worst recent example is the 2020 Mars rover which is basically a Curiosity with different science instruments. The enormous cost of Curiosity was justified by having to develop the landing system and rover chassis. The 2020 rover uses all of these, even using mostly spare parts produced for Curiosity. Yet the cost is now higher than it was for Curiosity. Reason is the cost is mainly maintaining a few NASA centers.

Originally Posted by Luigi

That's a really cool pic, but it doesn't look it's from the ISS.

So perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to who else is up in space with a camera then.... you dumbass

Current International Space Station Cmdr. Alexander Gerst expected to be welcoming two additional crew members to the orbiting laboratory Thursday (Oct. 11) — but instead, he found himself photographing their failed launch.

It doesn't look like it is.... Not the same as it isn't.

*sigh*

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Naaah, it's just symptomatic of government spending where a screwdriver costs $300 and a bog roll is $50 etc.

Recalls the myth of NASA spending millions developing a pen that would write in space whereas the Russians just used pencils. A myth. But indeed NASA did buy clutch or propelling pencils that cost circa $150 each.

Casting serious doubt is tantamount to not believing ^. So who else is in space with a camera?

^ Possibly conscious for most of the nearly 3 minute, 12 mile descent.

https://www.ranker.com/list/challeng.../kellie-kreiss

^ from that link:

The shocking truth that NASA attempted to hide was that the crew of six astronauts and one schoolteacher aboard the Challenger that day had, in fact, survived the explosion and instead met their ends after they plummeted 12 miles into the ocean. Likely embarrassed by their own lack of foresight when it came to preparing the crew for what may have been a survivable loss of life, NASA withheld information and forced people to lie on their behalf in an effort to keep the general public - which had watched the explosion live on their televisions - in the dark.

My lucidity may still be intact...

Originally Posted by Luigi

It doesn't look like it is.... Not the same as it isn't.

*sigh*

How the fuck would you know what a Soyuz launch looks like from the ISS Lulu.

You're starting to sound like fucking Manaam.

Originally Posted by SKkin

^ from that link:




My lucidity may still be intact...

Or you just don't get it.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Or you just don't get it.

I guess not...

Mr. Hotz said he believed that NASA's initial statements about the astronauts and other actions by the space agency were part of a broad effort to keep the public from learning that the Challenger crew members might have survived the disaster if certain precautions had been taken.

''With readily available standard safety equipment, like emergency oxygen and parachutes, that could have happened,'' he said. ''I believe NASA couldn't face that fact."

Determining the exact cause of the astronauts' death is important for policy and legal reasons. Safety specialists say that if the astronauts survived the fireball, they might have been saved had the shuttle been equipped with an escape mechanism.

NASA Accused of Cover-Up in Shuttle Deaths
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/14/u...le-deaths.html

Originally Posted by SKkin

I guess not...



NASA Accused of Cover-Up in Shuttle Deaths
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/14/u...le-deaths.html

How the fuck was an escape mechanism supposed to work when the shuttle was in pieces?

FFS

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

How the fuck would you know what a Soyuz launch looks like from the ISS Lulu.

Because ISS astronauts have taken photos of previous launches.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

How the fuck was an escape mechanism supposed to work when the shuttle was in pieces?

from luigi's link:

The shuttle's cabin, though intact, was severely damaged on the outside, having lost both of its wings, but still managed to be propelled nearly three miles up into the sky before nose-diving down into the ocean 12 miles below. However, upon recovering what remained of the shuttle, NASA scientists determined that the cabin had survived the blast, meaning that those aboard had survived too.

Originally Posted by Luigi

Because ISS astronauts have taken photos of previous launches.

So you carefully scanned them all to make sure eh?

Originally Posted by SKkin

from luigi's link:

I take that back Lulu, it's skkin who's trying to do a Manaam.....

I already posted the shuttle abort protocols.

You should try reading them.

I bet none of them planned for "how to save the cabin and its contents when the main tank has blown to smithereens and the shuttle's had its wings blown off and fuck knows what other damage".

Frankly you're just being a bit stupid now.

How about you post some ideas about how they could have been saved.

You know, the sort of comprehensive list that would include the fucking thing being blown up.

The SpaceShuttle did not have any escape pods. Except the first few test flights had them for 2 persons which probably would not have worked in most abort scenarios. When the crew was regularly more than 2 crew they were removed. It was inappropriate to save 2 and let 5 die, the astronauts decided.

The Shuttle had a few abort modes all of which were dangerous and unlikely to work, too risky to ever try them unless the alternative was certain death. Both Shuttle desasters could not use any of these abort modes.

Effectively the NASA administration killed the Challenger crew by deciding to launch against dire warnings. It was so bad that an engineer of the company providing the solid boosters considered sabotaging the launch because he was convinced that it would end in death for the crew as it then did.

The Columbia disaster was somewhat different but it was well known and ignored by the NASA leadership that it was likely to happen sooner or later.

Originally Posted by SKkin

Maybe they should should have consulted with the commies about the options available with the Soyuz...namely the "abort safety system."

You seem to be doing a HoHo and posting something without actually fucking reading it.

It will take awhile for the full details of the incident to be pieced together, but so far, NASA has blamed it on a problem that occurred during booster separation of the Soyuz rocket powering the launch. That triggered a warning light to turn on inside the crew capsule, NASA astronaut Reid Wiseman said during a news conference held today.
At that point, the crew capsule automatically fired engines that carried it and the astronauts away from the troubled booster and its giant stash of extremely flammable rocket fuel.

As opposed to Challenger, in which:

The forces on the Orbiter at breakup were probably too low to cause death or serious injury to the crew but were sufficient to separate the crew compartment from the forward fuselage, cargo bay, nose cone, and forward reaction control compartment. The forces applied to the Orbiter to cause such destruction clearly exceed its design limits.

So for the love of god please try and explain what part of the fucking being blown up (or as you wish to be picky, breaking into pieces as a result of a big fucking explosion) are you struggling with?

The next crew Soyuz launch is now planned for Dec 5-7. Even if preliminary it means they don't have a real investigation. As I said, they know the reasons. It is poor work by their staff.

It seems unclear if NASA is willing to fly their astronaut on that mission. There is speculation they will keep their astronaut Alexander Gerst, which is a german btw. on station. But that is possible only when the next Soyuz flies with only 2 people like the failed one. Only in that case they have a seat empty for emergency return.

Originally Posted by Takeovers

The next crew Soyuz launch is now planned for Dec 5-7. Even if preliminary it means they don't have a real investigation. As I said, they know the reasons. It is poor work by their staff.

If they know the reasons, then it can be fixed no?

Of course most accidents are never down to a few reasons, they are normally an accumulation of events which in themselves may not be catastrophic, but combined lead to disaster.

So I'd be telling them to fuck right off rather than fly in a few weeks.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

So I'd be telling them to fuck right off rather than fly in a few weeks.

It would mean leaving the ISS empty or manned only with Russians for a year until US commercial crew are ready. Congress and NASA have done everything to slow down the development process.