Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 57
  1. #1
    Thailand Expat Luigi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:48 AM
    Location
    Abuja
    Posts
    19,836

    Astronauts escape malfunctioning rocket

    Astronauts are to make an emergency landing after their Russian Soyuz rocket malfunctioned on lift-off to the International Space Station.


    Nasa said there was an "issue with the booster" and the "crew is returning to Earth in a ballistic descent mode".


    This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45822845

  2. #2
    Thailand Expat Luigi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:48 AM
    Location
    Abuja
    Posts
    19,836
    Says the news is 3 minutes old, let's hope all will be safe.

  3. #3
    Thailand Expat Luigi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:48 AM
    Location
    Abuja
    Posts
    19,836
    Search and rescue teams are in the air and heading towards the expected touchdown location, Nasa added.
    The rocket took off from Kazakhstan with Russian Cosmonaut Alexey Ovchinin and US astronaut Nick Hague on board.

  4. #4
    Thailand Expat
    aging one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Posts
    16,419
    Bit more, seems the two astronauts are safe.

    https://www.thenational.ae/world/ast...ction-1.779417

    Russian and American astronauts destined for the International Space Station made an emergency landing after an engine malfunction during takeoff.
    Both members of the crew are alive and contact has been made with Russian authorities who have launched a rescue operation.
    An issue with the booster rockets shortly after takeoff meant the crew had to make an emergency landing in Kazakhstan.
    The crew contains American astronaut Nick Hague and Russian Alexey Ovchinin.
    The spacecraft was a Russian Soyuz MS-10 and it was on expedition 57/58 to the International Space Station.

  5. #5
    peckerwood SKkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    gone down the rabbit hole
    Posts
    5,533
    Why didn't those in the Challenger have that option?

  6. #6
    Thailand Expat
    aging one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Posts
    16,419
    One reason this was going up not down, plus is was still inside earths atmosphere..

  7. #7
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:11 AM
    Posts
    53,837
    Quote Originally Posted by SKkin View Post
    Why didn't those in the Challenger have that option?
    Because it blew to smithereens.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes

  8. #8
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,669
    Do NASA get a refund from Russia? Or a credit for the next one?

  9. #9
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    12,669
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Was that the one with the teacher Sally something on board? The question at the time was what colour were her eyes. Blue. One blew this way and the othe blew that way.
    Rider?

  10. #10
    hangin' around cyrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    13,757
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Because it blew to smithereens.
    Inside job by NASA, wunnit?

    A space rocket would never do that under normal circumstances.

  11. #11
    POTUS HOCUS
    david44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    03-12-2018 @ 01:21 PM
    Location
    Inner Wrongholia
    Posts
    13,668
    It ain't rocket science...er wait a minute....

  12. #12
    peckerwood SKkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    gone down the rabbit hole
    Posts
    5,533
    Yeah it blew up Harry...but my point is American astronauts never had a plan b option like those commies do. Going up or down

    I guess it's better to burn up then to fade away...eh?

    Ol Gus from here in.Indiana ended up like a marshmallow...never even left the ground.

    Maanaam, I think that was Sally Struthers on the Challenger.

    Kentucky Freud Chicken - "It's motherfucking good."

  13. #13
    Thailand Expat
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 05:17 PM
    Posts
    8,766
    still working great, unlike the silly Space Shuttle that never had that option

  14. #14
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:00 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,383
    We will see what consequences this has. There is presently only one Soyuz capsule at the ISS and it needs to leave in December. By that time the ISS would be without crew because there is a requirement that a life boat is always present.

    So if the issue is not solved by that time and any possible problem fixed the ISS will need to be abandoned temporarily. It is unclear how long it can fly untended. There is one potential alternative. They could send up a Soyuz unmanned and keep the present crew up for a major extension. That would give them until middle of 2019 to find and fix the issue.
    "don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence"

  15. #15
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:11 AM
    Posts
    53,837
    Quote Originally Posted by SKkin View Post
    Yeah it blew up Harry...but my point is American astronauts never had a plan b option like those commies do. Going up or down
    You are being retarded again.

    If the Soyuz had blown to smithereens, they would be dead too. As it was, a rocket stopped working. It did not blow to smithereens.

    Are you able to wrap your tiny little mind around this concept of things being blown to smithereens?

  16. #16
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:00 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,383
    Best comparison I have seen yet. On top how separation of the side boosters looks normally, it is called the Korolew cross after the chief designer of the Soyuz rocket. Below how it looked on this launch. Somethingwent wrong with side booster separation.

    Attached Images Attached Images

  17. #17
    peckerwood SKkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    gone down the rabbit hole
    Posts
    5,533
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    You are being retarded again.
    facetious ol chap...

  18. #18
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:40 PM
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    1,322
    Looks like they still use the Russian rocket,, still the most reliable and maybe the only one used.

  19. #19
    Thailand Expat
    aging one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Posts
    16,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozzbie47 View Post
    Looks like they still use the Russian rocket,, still the most reliable and maybe the only one used.

    You are the Trump supporter right? It sure shows..

  20. #20
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:40 PM
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by aging one View Post
    You are the Trump supporter right? It sure shows..
    Yes, I do like Trump, but what In said was about the Russian rocket, from memory called Soyuz,,, basic design is some 50 years old,, prove me wrong.

  21. #21
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:00 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozzbie47 View Post
    what In said was about the Russian rocket, from memory called Soyuz,,, basic design is some 50 years old,, prove me wrong.
    Nothing wrong with the design of Soyuz. It is rock solid. The problem is with the workforce. Underpaid, demotivated, the space industry no longer attracts the best and brightest like they did in Soviet times. That problem is not easily fixed. That's why the commercial satellite launch business has evaporated. Insurance premiums for russian launches have skyrocketed because the insurance companies don't trust their fault analysis.

    To be fair, rockets are not 100% safe. Faults can happen. This fault by itself is not indication that Soyuz is unsafe. But the trend of failures in russian space is obvious. Glaring example is the drilled hole in the Soyuz orbital module presently at the station and the fault analysis with nebulous accusations.

  22. #22
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:40 PM
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    1,322
    Takeovers,,thank you for the constructive information.

  23. #23
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:11 AM
    Posts
    53,837
    Quote Originally Posted by SKkin View Post
    facetious ol chap...
    In the interests of fairness, you do have moments of lucidity. This isn't one of them.

  24. #24
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:00 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,383
    Good article on the situation on arstechnica.


    https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...ss-whats-next/

    Important excerpt from the article. If necessary the ISS can be evacuated and operated unmanned from the ground.

    Can the ISS be operated from the ground?

    NASA's strong preference is to keep astronauts aboard the station. But Todd said NASA does have procedures for operating the station without crew on board. "That's something that we're always prepared for," he said. "I feel very confident that we could fly for a significant period of time."

    There is no set period of time. As we understand it, the large space station can be controlled from the ground through its normal operations. However, the risk is that something goes wrong—perhaps with an ammonia pump or with the solar arrays—that cannot be fixed from the ground. In this case, the $100 billion space station would probably be lost. That would be a catastrophic outcome given that NASA and its partners spent 15 years building it, at great cost, and have only begun reaping its research rewards.
    The whole article is worth reading.

  25. #25
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:11 AM
    Posts
    53,837
    A hundred fucking billion.

    Jaysus they could have had a small town on the moon by now.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •