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

N'Boom

[suss]

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?

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.

Facts are EVERYTHING

[stevew]

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!

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:Facts are EVERYTHING

[Mt._Honkey]

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.

next time...

[stubear]

"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.

The R7 family still the most reliable booster

[steve.m]

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.

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.