Unmanned Russian Soyuz Blows Up On Launch

adagioforstrings writes "CNN reports that a 300-tonne unmanned Soyuz-U launch vehicle exploded 29 seconds after take-off from Russia's Arctic Plesetsk cosmodrome late on Tuesday, its blazing debris showering onto the launchpad and its blastwave killing one and injuring eight others. A modified version of this same kind of rocket will be used to carry cosmonauts to the ISS later this month."

Comments

Last thing they needed.

[mikedaisey]

A terrible blow to the Russian program, which has been plagued by awful cost overruns and low operating capital.

(Tempting to insert a joke about how it's unfortunate that this wasn't Lance Bass' ship, but I'll let that ride.)

Without Soyuz craft the ISS can only be run at a maintenance level--i wonder how long before they'll be back in full operation, or if the Russians don't suspend their programs the way we do when we lose an orbiter b/c of an O-ring.

That doesn't make sense

[therealmoose]

That's just ridiculous, NASA practically funds the RSA, they could commit sabotage just by cutting the money out. I don't think it was sabotage, but it most certainly wasn't sabotage by NASA.

Re:Facts are EVERYTHING

[WeaponOfChoice]

They may not blow up all the time but they carry a much higher risk of spontaneous redistribution than most other transports.

I think the general public perception of space travel is far from the reality. People just seem to expect that a vehicle costing Billions in research and material should be just a bit safer than the average car and plane [and are considering the facts]. These devices are, by definition, the best we produce - made by the brightest people on the planet - and are expected to get there intact (The preceeding two statements could be completely wrong).

personally I think there is a definite limit on how safe you can make a big tube of explosives for the little mostly-water creatures trying to ride it into orbit.... roll on space-elevators...

Re:Just one question..

[florescent_beige]

Rockets blow up because physics says they just barely work. Unless you trim every last gram of excess weight off the propulsion system and structure you just can't get into orbit. At take-off they are more or less 89% fuel, 10% structure, and 1% payload (typical numbers for the shuttle). So even if you gave up all your payload to strengthen the structure, you wouldn't be able to make it perceptibly stronger and safer.

The problem is that you need go up 200 miles and at the same time accelerate to 25000 mph.

I've always said if NASA would just stop spending money on shuttle ops and spend it instead on developing air-breathing alternatives it would make so much sense. A scram-jet based orbiter would get it's oxidizer from the atmosphere so would have to carry half as much fuel (roughly speaking). The weight savings can go to payload and more robust structure.