Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unmanned Russian Soyuz Blows Up On Launch

Posted by timothy on from the what's-russian-for-nader dept.

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."

14 of 34 comments (clear)

  1. Last thing they needed. by mikedaisey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Last thing they needed. by Klox · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

      From the article:

      "There are no plans as yet to postpone the [next] flight," Sergei Gorbunov, spokesman for Russia's top space authority Rosaviakosmos told Reuters.
  2. N'Boom by suss · · Score: 5, Funny

    A modified version of this same kind of rocket will be used to carry cosmonauts to the ISS later this month

    Lance Bass still wants to go, right?

  3. Unmanned? Shew! by Aardvark99 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well THANK GOD Lance Bass is safe!

  4. That doesn't make sense by therealmoose · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  5. Facts are EVERYTHING by stevew · · Score: 4, Informative

    Look folks - the simple fact is that space travel isn't for tourists yet! Remember the Challenger?!? Rockets blow up ALL THE TIME. We take great care to make sure it doesn't happen, but it does. I saw statistics back in the late 80's that stated a failure rate of something like 1 in 25 launches. Now - that is from a 12 year old memory, but it's in the ballpark.

    Consider also that the Soyuz hasn't had any accidents (admittedly - that we know of) for like a decade. They have a pretty good safety record for launches. Their launch success record is to e admired!

    --
    Have you compiled your kernel today??
    1. Re:Facts are EVERYTHING by eggstasy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wasn't the challenger like over 10 years ago? How many planes have crashed since then? How many cars? How many trains? (...)
      Rockets do NOT blow up all the time.
      Granted, they're not used as often as other vehicles today, but claiming that they blow up all the time isn't doing them justice.

    2. Re:Facts are EVERYTHING by WeaponOfChoice · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

      --


      It's not that I'm Anti-American - I'm Pro-Freedom
    3. Re:Facts are EVERYTHING by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Informative
      There's a big difference between manned and unmanned vehicles though.

      I think the accident rate for a manned vehicle is nearer to 1 percent. Space Shuttle has had one accident in about 100 launches for example- that's a 1% failure rate. The Russian record for manned launches in recent times is better if anything.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    4. Re:Facts are EVERYTHING by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, 1 shuttle explosion out of ~ 100 launches is about 1%. If 1% of plane flights crashed, we would have around 60 crashes in the U.S. EVERY DAY. If 1% of the time a car was used it crashed, we would have about 2 million car accidents per day (assuming 200 million drives per day). Rockets DO blow up all the time. Manned rockets have the best safety records because no expense is spared to ensure their quality. Unmanned is a different story though. There was a year or two in the US where nearly 1 out of 10 rockets blew up. We lost a lot of business to Europe and Asia in that time.

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
  6. next time... by stubear · · Score: 5, Funny

    "A modified version of this same kind of rocket will be used to carry cosmonauts to the ISS later this month."

    Let's hope they modify it to not blow up next time. I'd bet those ACME rocket plans and mail order boxes wasn't the best approach for their space program after all. Perhaps we should cut off their access to the Cartoon Network until after the manned launch.

  7. The R7 family still the most reliable booster by steve.m · · Score: 5, Informative

    As it says here, the R7 family is "..the most often used and most reliable launch vehicle in history".

    The unmanned versions are built to a lower spec, as the cargo isn't as important as human life. Manned soyuz boosters continue to be the safest way into orbit.

  8. Re:Just one question.. by florescent_beige · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  9. ah, here's why.. by skotte · · Score: 3, Funny

    http://www.russianspaceweb.com/:

    The lost Foton had been the 13th in a series launched since 1985

    ah! a logical solution: it was the unlucky 13th craft, of course.