First Man To Walk In Space Reveals How Mission Nearly Ended In Disaster

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Man To Walk In Space Reveals How Mission Nearly Ended In Disaster

Posted by timothy on Monday October 13, 2014 @12:01AM from the complicated-endeavor dept.

wired_parrot writes Nearly fifty years after the first spacewalk by soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, he's given a rare interview to the BBC revealing how the mission very nearly ended in disaster. Minutes after he stepped into space, Leonov realised his suit had inflated like a balloon, preventing him from getting back inside. Later on, the cosmonauts narrowly avoided being obliterated in a huge fireball when oxygen levels soared inside the craft. And on the way back to Earth, the crew was exposed to enormous G-forces, landing hundreds of kilometres off target in a remote corner of Siberia populated by wolves and bears.

84 of 122 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Mars one? by Therad · 2014-10-13 00:05 · Score: 1

Prediction of the future?
1. Re:Mars one? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-13 00:17 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I doubt that Mars One colonists will need to deal with wolves and bears after landing.
2. Re:Mars one? by Therad · 2014-10-13 00:32 · Score: 2
  
  Why would anyone want to see the landing if there are no bears and wolves? Landing without dangerrous animals is soooo 1969.
3. Re:Mars one? by JaredOfEuropa · 2014-10-13 00:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Perhaps the first Mars One flight could have bears and wolves on board. These would be released (in special space suits) just prior to the human settlers, who will then have to battle these animals for food and survival. Mars One is just a reality show after all, and this would make for some great* television.
  
  I doubt that Mars One colonists will have to deal much with anything, by the way. My guess is that the people behind the venture have no plans to actually launch a single vehicle, but have a whole range of reality shows planned for "selecting" the "astronauts". They're probably just waiting for a network to pick them up, or for Endemol to buy the concept.
  
  *) for some definitions of "great"
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
4. Re:Mars one? by ganjadude · 2014-10-13 01:53 · Score: 2
  
  They already have a prototype http://www.smithsonianstore.co...
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
5. Re:Mars one? by LifesABeach · 2014-10-13 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  The Wolves wouldn't be a problem. The Bears, that would be different. Though it would be interesting to see how long a Bear would take to open a CCCP'd space capsule.
6. Re:Mars one? by stoploss · 2014-10-13 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Though it would be interesting to see how long a Bear would take to open a CCCP'd space capsule.
  I bet these bears would be quite adept and preconditioned to try it.
Wolves and Bears? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-13 00:06 · Score: 4, Funny

I always thought landing in an area surrounded by wolves and bears was part of the typical mission plan for Russian cosmonauts
1. Re:Wolves and Bears? by LynnwoodRooster · 2014-10-13 03:56 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  In most of Russia, being in a area surrounded by wolves and bears describes a trip to the grocery store...
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
2. Re:Wolves and Bears? by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-10-14 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  In most areas of Russia that actually have wolves and bears, there are no grocery stores.
  OTOH, the areas that do have grocery stores, are awfully short on wolves and bears. And most other wildlife, actually. When I lived in Russia, I never saw a squirrel outside of pictures in books. The first time I saw a live one was in Canada.
Still better off than Laika. by koan · 2014-10-13 00:09 · Score: 4, Informative

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

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Neat interview by JoshuaZ · 2014-10-13 00:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

The interview is neat, but this isn't anything being "revealed"- all these details were already known. You'll see them mentioned in many books discussing early space flight. They are I think mentioned for example in Buzz Aldrin's "Men from Earth".
1. Re:Neat interview by ganjadude · 2014-10-13 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  I recall the glove story from years ago as well. who knows which is true
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
2. Re:Neat interview by sconeu · 2014-10-13 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  Hell, Leonov discussed it himself in the book he co-wrote with Dave Scott, Two Sides of the Moon.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
3. Re:Neat interview by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-13 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Glove story was from Gemini 4. In one of the videos you can watch the glove float out the open hatch into the void.
4. Re:Neat interview by sandertje · 2014-10-13 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  How does one take off a glove in space and not violently decompress?
5. Re:Neat interview by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-10-13 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Very carefully. (Especially if you don't define what it means to "violently decompress".)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
The Russian space program was amazing by laird · 2014-10-13 00:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you see the Russian spacecraft, it's amazing how determined they were to compete, relatively successfully with the US space program, despite the fact that their manufacturing capabilities were not really up to the task. But they used whatever they had, and pushed hard. So, for example, while US spacecraft are beautiful, with aluminum skins with countersunk rivets to reduce drag, etc., the Russian vehicles looked like tractors - thick sheet metal and bolts, getting into space through sheer determination. It was particularly striking with how they got a third astronaut into their two-man ship, so they matched Apollo, by taking the third man and jamming him in upside down. They made the lead engineer who came up with that idea take the first flight, so he had the incentive to actually make it work. And their venus probes - those guys just didn't give up! But definitely playing by different rules than the US - after a vehicle failure, and we shut everything down and analyzed to make it safer. With the Russians, a vehicle failure meant re-writing the history books (to remove the failed flight, erase astronauts from photos, etc.) and launching _more_.

--
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
1. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by NotDrWho · 2014-10-13 00:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The Russians had the genius Korolev all we Americans had was an old Nazi who no one even listened to until the Russians were already way ahead of us.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
2. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by Noryungi · 2014-10-13 00:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Your comment seems very condescending.
  Let's not forget the Russians were the first to send a satellite around the Earth, the first to send an animal into space, the first to send a man into space, the first to send a woman into space, the first to have a space mission that lasted more than a day, the first to have a spacewalk, the fist to send a satellite to orbit the Moon, the first to have fully automated rendez-vous between two satellites, etc., etc., etc.
  Sure, their spacecraft may look "ugly" (or at least, "uglier") than western or American ones, but they get the job done and they are reliable workhorses.
  I believe the differences between the two is mostly to the "no nonsense" approach to the Russians, and the fact that they like re-using designs and equipment that work instead of constantly re-inventing the wheel.
  Think about it this way: the USA created the space shuttle and sank billions of dollars into it. The Russians kept improving the Soyuz rockets and capsules. These days, the space shuttle has been retired, while both Soyuz still fly regularly. Which approach is better? I don't know, but you certainly can't blame the Russians for creating "ugly" machines, as long as they are functional and good at what they do.
  Recommended viewing: "The Red Stuff" about the very first Cosmonaut class of the USSR. You can view it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  --
  The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
3. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by JaredOfEuropa · 2014-10-13 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  They made the lead engineer who came up with that idea take the first flight
  Guess someone learned their lesson about not opening their big mouth... On the other hand, being crammed upside down into a tiny capsule atop a pile of combustible fuel contained by experimental Soviet equipment might still be worth it for a once in a lifetime chance at going to space.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
4. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by anegg · 2014-10-13 01:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I don't think Robert Goddard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard was a Nazi.
  I know that Robert Goddard's time came before the "Space Race". I just want to make the point that we Americans didn't just have our prize from WWII, Wernher von Braun to inform us about rocketry.
  In the interests of full disclosure, I was born and raised in Massachusetts, which may explain my more immediate familiarity with Robert Goddard.
5. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by LWATCDR · 2014-10-13 01:08 · Score: 2
  
  "Think about it this way: the USA created the space shuttle and sank billions of dollars into it. The Russians kept improving the Soyuz rockets and capsules."
  Hummm
  "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)"
  They spent billions trying to copy the space shuttle.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
6. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-13 01:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Don't forget, Soviet Russian was the first to send a manned mission outside our solar system.
  It was a one-way flight by mistake; the guy screamed until he ran out of air, but, hey, it's gotta count for something.
  A USA Naval aviator told me that the Soviet Russians did only what was necessary in flight--titantium on the leading edges and not entire wings; rivets unleveled where it didn't matter instead of everywhere like the USA. The Soviets Russians didn't economize; it's that they didn't have to put on a "beauty pageant" like the USA manufacturers who were going against competitors and "pretty" was necessary to win. Plus, Soviet Russian Theology valued the lives of their cosmonauts as an expedable commodity.
7. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by JaredOfEuropa · 2014-10-13 01:14 · Score: 2
  
  The Russians had their Space Shuttle as well, the Buran. But they applied the same principles and approach to engineering to it; apparently it was a much simpler and better integrated design than the extremely complex Space Shuttle. The thing only flew once, sadly, so it's hard to say how they would have compared in reliability and performance.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
8. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by dbIII · 2014-10-13 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly even less people listened to Goddard.
9. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-10-13 01:30 · Score: 2
  
  The SOVIETS, not the Russians. The Soviet Union conquered many different ethnic groups for their empire, and the Russians were only one of them.
  I think a lot of people forget that Russia was just the first nation to fall to the Soviets. Just like Germany was the first nation to fall to the Nazis.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
10. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by Richard_at_work · 2014-10-13 01:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes they did, but they didn't abandon their existing, working infrastructure to do so. That is the difference.
11. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by tibit · 2014-10-13 01:39 · Score: 2
  
  Apparently they tconcluded that Soyuz is better
  What a fantasy. All that happened was bad timing, they've run out of money everywhere all at once. Buran had a few quite nifty advances in its manufacturing tech over the way the american shuttles were made. They built a 3D CAD system to design the thing, for crying out loud.
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
12. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by FatAlb3rt · 2014-10-13 01:52 · Score: 2
  
  Going away from the space shuttles had just as much to do with budget cuts - Congress simply isn't as interested in space exploration. Private companies will do it cheaper and we will eventually get back to something like a space shuttle.
13. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by amias · 2014-10-13 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  i've got evidence the other way , voyager one was the first man made object to leave the solar system
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...
  maybe the poster was watching a russian translation of 2001
  
  --
  [site]
14. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by k6mfw · 2014-10-13 02:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If you see the Russian spacecraft, it's amazing how determined they were to compete, relatively successfully with the US space program,
  James Harford in the 1997 book "Korolev" he interviewed several of Sergei Korolev colleages and one of them said when Kennedy announced the race to the Moon, the Soviets can either get in the race or not. They did neither. There were those in Politburo very interested in manned spaceflight, others that were not ("stop wasting resources with man in space which is only good for propaganda instead of actual military hardware). When Khrushchev was ":sent to Siberia" Korolev lost much support. He was able to proceed with Soyuz, N1 (he was also chief of many other programs) but their space program was not given all resources. So there was not enough resources for development and ground tests, N1 never had successful launch, Soyuz had it's growing pains and its first manned flight was a fatality.
  I wonder if our space program is experiencing this "we're doing neither." No shortcuts are being taken in SLS and Orion development but there is no significant funding for landers and habitat modules. And where is US going? Moon, Mars, or an asteroid? Depends on who you talk to.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
15. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by Wycliffe · 2014-10-13 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Also, by outsourcing space exploration, congress can outsource failures and liability.
  When a private spacecraft kills someone, congress can shutter the company responsible
  without taking any responsibility itself.
16. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by LWATCDR · 2014-10-13 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  The coping part is pretty well documented.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
17. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by LWATCDR · 2014-10-13 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  True. I never said that it was not a huge mistake to stop the Saturn V production line, not developing a new Saturn 1 class rocket with maybe a single F1 for the first stage, and or stopping the production and development of the Apollo CSM.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
18. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by jordanjay29 · 2014-10-13 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Wernher von Braun, however, was an ex-Nazi.
19. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by anegg · 2014-10-13 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps few people in the United States listened directly to Goddard. But von Braun's efforts were informed by Goddard's work, so von Braun's subsequent work in the United States is in some ways a continuation of what Goddard started, just by a somewhat circuitous route.
20. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by Richard_at_work · 2014-10-13 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Best outcome would have been the CSM on top of continually developed rockets, with a hab module available for longer term Shuttle style missions - there is no reason Hubble could not be serviced by an Apollo style CSM and hab module.
21. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2014-10-13 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  The apocryphal story goes, the fountain pens with ink did not work well in zero gravity. So NASA invented the pressurized ball point pens. Russians switched to pencils.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
22. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by lars_stefan_axelsson · 2014-10-13 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  So, for example, while US spacecraft are beautiful, with aluminum skins with countersunk rivets to reduce drag, etc., the Russian vehicles looked like tractors - thick sheet metal and bolts, getting into space through sheer determination.
  And it's interesting that the reason for this was a lack of nuclear weapons sophistication. Making a hydrogen bomb required hydrogen (isotopes) as fuel. But how to store it? The first idea was using liquid hydrogen, but then you need a railway car full of cryogenic equipment to keep it liquid. That's the design parameters the Soviets used for their ICMBs, i.e. we need to be able to shoot a railway cart to the US. Teller and co. then realised that by using lithium in the Teller-Ulam design you could make the bomb much, much smaller and lighter, and the US ICBM were designed with that in mind, i.e. we need to shoot a family car to the Soviet union. (The Soviets then got clever, and didnt' actually fire a cryogenic H-bomb, while the US actually did, and then it turned out in Ivy Mike that lithium was the gift that keep on giving...)
  So, when the space race started in earnest, the Soviets had these great big bloody rockets, and hence could loft a heavy Sputnik (~80kg) into space without much trouble, while the anemic US rockets barely managed close to a tenth of that (~13kg). It took quite a number of years before US heavy lift capability had caught up.
  
  --
  Stefan Axelsson
23. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by LWATCDR · 2014-10-13 04:36 · Score: 2
  
  Actually the Apollo could have worked fine for that. A small hab module around the size of the LM and an improved Saturn 1 with a single F1A or F1B and SRBs could have reached the Hubble.
  The Shuttle is frankly a really flexible system but it would have been good if we had kept the Saturns and Apollos for some missions. Face it the Saturn V was the original HLLV.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
24. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by Deadstick · 2014-10-13 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  ...and the apocryphal story is about as accurate as one expects for apocryphal stories. http://www.snopes.com/business...
25. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2014-10-13 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I stand corrected.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
26. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by 0123456 · 2014-10-13 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  It was also standard practice after the Apollo 1 accident. The problem with Apollo 1 was that they filled it with oxygen at sea-level pressure, not the pressure normally used in space.
27. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by 0123456 · 2014-10-13 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest difference between the Russians and Americans was definitely safety. It's amazing how far you can go once human life becomes expendable.
  But the Russians killed a bunch of astronauts in the early years, too.
28. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by jafac · 2014-10-13 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  You could argue that after a vehicle failure (STS/Challenger); we didn't shut everything down and analyze it to make it safer. If we had, we would have thrown out the ATK-booster and side-tank design, and built a new shuttle. Instead, we kept shovelling pork at ATK, and fired the program up again months later. It wasn't the same defect that destroyed Columbia, but it was the same design mentality: #1 priority was appease congress by sending their districts pork, no matter how technically irrelevant the design was. (don't get me wrong. ATK makes fine ICBM's. But that technology has no place in manned spaceflight). So, I'm not sure which system was worse, the US-1970's corporate welfare system, or the Soviets' "It works because the Kremlin said so!" system. Buran was similarly ballsy. . .
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
29. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by jafac · 2014-10-13 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think he was an enthusiastic/ideological Nazi. He was just unfortunate to have been enmeshed in the German industrial hierarchy when he was recruited to work on their missile program.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
30. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by gmhowell · 2014-10-13 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget, Soviet Russian was the first to send a manned mission outside our solar system.
  It was a one-way flight by mistake; the guy screamed until he ran out of air, but, hey, it's gotta count for something.
  I can't find reference to this. Link?
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
31. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by DerekLyons · 2014-10-13 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  I believe the differences between the two is mostly to the "no nonsense" approach to the Russians, and the fact that they like re-using designs and equipment that work instead of constantly re-inventing the wheel.
  Except... they don't re-use designs and equipment. The current mark of the Soyuz (capsule) has almost nothing in common with the early ones other than a reasonably similar moldline. Soyuz has been modified and updated multiple times, not the least as it evolved from a general purpose Earth orbiter into a very specialized station taxi.
  
  Sure, their spacecraft may look "ugly" (or at least, "uglier") than western or American ones, but they get the job done and they are reliable workhorses.
  Reliable... is a very shaky claim given the number of near failures and almost disasters suffered by Soyuz over the years. It hasn't killed anyone in a long time, but it's come uncomfortably close an uncomfortably significant percentage of it's flights.[1] And speaking of flights and workhorses... even though it started flying over a decade earlier, it won't match the number of Shuttle flights until somewhere around the end of this decade at the current flight rate. (Last time I looked, I haven't calculated in a while.) In the same vein, while Shuttle suffered two LOCV accidents, it had zero complete mission failures and only one partial mission failure due to an abort-to-orbit placing it in too low of an orbit. Meanwhile, Soyuz had one pad abort, one failure to orbit, and at least two complete mission failures due to an inability to dock with a space station. (As well as several instances of either the orbital module or the re-entry module failing to separate properly.)
  
  All of which is a roundabout way of saying the comparison isn't really as black-and-white as people would like it to be once you compare the actual Shuttle against the actual Soyuz (as opposed the largely fictional Soyuz the actual Shuttle is commonly compared to) and look at the actual numbers.
  [1] Here's three accounts just covering reentry and landing failures.
32. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by tehcyder · 2014-10-14 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think he was an enthusiastic/ideological Nazi. He was just unfortunate to have been enmeshed in the German industrial hierarchy when he was recruited to work on their missile program.
  Yeah, him and every other German. There were , of course, only ever a few TRUE Nazis (Hitler, Goebbels, a handful of others, definitely not anyone's grandfather).
  Everyone else just joined for the cool uniforms and healthy camping, and had absolutely no idea what was going on with all that "rounding up the Jews" and "invading Poland" stuff.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
33. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-10-14 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, if we're going to the times before the actual Space Race, then Soviets similarly had Tsiolkovsky.
34. Re:The Russian space program was amazing by laird · 2014-10-15 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  Comparing the records (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents#Astronaut_fatalities_during_spaceflight ) the US and Russian/USSR space programs have fairly similar safety percentages - "About two percent of the manned launch/reentry attempts have killed their crew, with Soyuz and the Shuttle having almost the same death percentage rates."
  The main difference that I see is that the US has launched many more launches, and many more astronauts, and in particular the two Space Shuttle disasters, with 7 person crews, feel very different than the USSR's much smaller crews.
  "About five percent of people who have been launched have died doing so. As of November 2004, 439 individuals have flown on spaceflights: Russia/Soviet Union (96), USA (277), others (66). Nineteen have died while in flight: one on Soyuz 1, one on X-15-3, three on Soyuz 11, seven on Challenger, and seven on Columbia. By space program, 16 NASA astronauts (5.8%) and four Soviet cosmonauts (4.1% of all the people launched) died while in a spacecraft."
  But the main thing that strikes me reading the list of events is that space travel is amazingly complex and dangerous, and a huge number of things can result in death. And while safety is important, so is exploration, even if it's dangerous. Or, as test pilot I worked with put it - "everyone dies, I'd rather die in an airplane, doing something nobody's done before, than get hit by a bus."
  
  --
  Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Only revealing thing... by denzacar · 2014-10-13 00:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

...is how when I first read about this back in the late '80s it was not "wolves and bears".
It was A wolf, reported by the rescuers as "going in their direction".
To which the cosmonauts, knowing what they've just been through, laughed.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
1. Re:Only revealing thing... by NotDrWho · 2014-10-13 01:09 · Score: 2
  
  It was A wolf, reported by the rescuers as "going in their direction".
  To which the cosmonauts, knowing what they've just been through, laughed.
  It would be kind of like asking an astronaut "But weren't you afraid of drowning when your pod splashed down?" ;-)
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
2. Re:Only revealing thing... by murdocj · 2014-10-13 01:36 · Score: 2
  
  One of them almost did drown, so it's a valid concern.
3. Re:Only revealing thing... by denzacar · 2014-10-13 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Valid, but trivial in comparison to being incinerated during the reentry.
  Or being smashed to paste cause the chute didn't open.
  Or bouncing off of the atmosphere into space cause the angle was wrong.
  Or one of the millions of other things that could have potentially gone wrong, many of which DID go wrong in the past.
  Drowning?
  Hell, at least you made it back to Earth in one piece and it is trivial to do something about it compared to having your air sucked out in space cause you ran into a screw someone left up there.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
4. Re:Only revealing thing... by denzacar · 2014-10-13 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Very close to that.
  Except they came extra prepared.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
5. Re:Only revealing thing... by sandertje · 2014-10-13 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Point three is, depending on orbit and resources still on board, quite survivable. Since that means you're technically aerobraking, you'd lower your apogee, and next time you circle around our planet, you'd again re-enter the atmosphere, repeat that x times until your apogee lowers to well inside the atmosphere.
6. Re:Only revealing thing... by NotDrWho · 2014-10-14 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny, when I was a kid, I had seen so many scifi movies, games, books, etc. where the characters who crash-landed or got attacked by aliens always seemed to have weapons on board. So I just assumed that every NASA or Soviet space capsule had weapons on board. I guess I was at least partially right. I wonder if any of NASA's splash-down pods had emergency fishing poles. ;-)
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:From TFA by NotDrWho · 2014-10-13 01:07 · Score: 1

Pissing on the spacecraft before launch was a Russian tradition (no joke). I would laugh at this, but it seemed to work out pretty well for them.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
really? A fireball? by slashmydots · 2014-10-13 01:18 · Score: 1

"Later on, the cosmonauts narrowly avoided being obliterated in a huge fireball when oxygen levels soared inside the craft."
It was really close but luckily they realized Oxygen isn't flammable and requires other flammable materials to burn. Boy, that was a close one!
1. Re:really? A fireball? by Richard_at_work · 2014-10-13 01:40 · Score: 2
  
  Other things become flammable in high oxygen environments, such as most metals and materials that any space craft would be built from.
2. Re:really? A fireball? by FatAlb3rt · 2014-10-13 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  High oxygen levels help make things that aren't otherwise considered flammable burn easily.
3. Re:really? A fireball? by GuB-42 · 2014-10-13 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of things are flammable in pure oxygen.
  A few astronauts would have been able to testify, had they been alive... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... )
4. Re:really? A fireball? by CauseBy · 2014-10-13 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  "they realized Oxygen isn't flammable and requires other flammable materials to burn"
  I went back and re-read the article just to make sure and, yep, sure enough, it appears that they weren't in a pure oxygen environment, but rather were actually inside a spaceship made from various and sundry materials, most of which are sufficient fuel when surrounded by high-content oxygen gas.
  The fuel is the spaceship and its contents: knobs, buttons, seat covers, clothes, hair, flesh, tools.
5. Re:really? A fireball? by GrahamCox · 2014-10-13 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  As the crew of Apollo 1 sadly discovered, or at least the accident investigation discovered. In hindsight it certainly seemed a really, really bad idea to have a near-pure oxygen environment at 16psi.
Not the time to put them down for inferiority by dbIII · 2014-10-13 01:24 · Score: 1

It's not the time to put them down for inferiority - wait until the US has something that is putting people in space again and then try. Trying the "master race" shit without even a horse in the race is just embarrassing and actually brings the country down.
1. Re:Not the time to put them down for inferiority by lgw · 2014-10-13 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Trying the "master race" shit without even a horse in the race
  
  Wait, what? I don't even?
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
2. Re:Not the time to put them down for inferiority by JeffAtl · 2014-10-13 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Putting people into low earth orbit isn't really something all that impressive or useful - it's just for propaganda.
  It's much more impressive to go the route of the Americans and Europeans and actually explore the solar system.
3. Re:Not the time to put them down for inferiority by dbIII · 2014-10-13 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Incredibly condescending nationalistic putdowns come across in exactly that fashion. You wrote it - live with the obvious comparison.
4. Re:Not the time to put them down for inferiority by dbIII · 2014-10-13 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  The ISS is for a lot more than propaganda.
5. Re:Not the time to put them down for inferiority by lgw · 2014-10-13 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  Is "horse" the master race or not? I'm still trying to sort this one out ...
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
6. Re:Not the time to put them down for inferiority by JeffAtl · 2014-10-14 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. Could you list out some?
7. Re:Not the time to put them down for inferiority by dbIII · 2014-10-14 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  A recent thing from there is a discovery that a lot of proteins react differently when there is no gravity. If you can't see major implications in that you are not trying.
Re:From TFA by Nimey · 2014-10-13 01:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's a tradition that started with Yuri Gagarin and has been done before every Soviet and Russian space flight since.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Gus Grissom by ganjadude · 2014-10-13 01:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

not only that, but no one believed him for years that the hatch blew. really messed him up mentally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Lost in Space by Latent+Heat · 2014-10-13 02:41 · Score: 1

I read that read that in the unmanned tests of the Vostok spacecraft, they played tapes in the cabin to test the comm system, and there is speculation from that of pre-Gagarin human spaceflights.
To squelch the rumors, the story told is that the Soviets then played tapes of vocal choruses. No one would believe that they orbited the entire Soviet Army Men's Choral Group . . .
Reakl reason he had trouble getting back in. by Peter+Simpson · 2014-10-13 02:44 · Score: 1

His huge testicals.
Soviet or US, those space pioneers deserve a lot of credit for taking those risks.
Why? by CauseBy · 2014-10-13 04:31 · Score: 1

"Not because it is easy, but because it is hard!"
Eaten by a bear by X10 · 2014-10-13 05:45 · Score: 1

You survive a spacewalk, an inflated suit, too much G-force, and everything dangerous that can happen in space, then after you land you get eaten by a bear. How ironic.

--
no, I don't have a sig
1. Re:Eaten by a bear by k6mfw · 2014-10-13 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  That's why they carry firearms unless new procedures are otherwise.
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
2. Re:Eaten by a bear by Thud457 · 2014-10-13 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Notice to capsule-jackers : Cosmonauts pack heat
  Not sure if badass or crazy...
  
  But then, Americans put bear in escape capsule....
  
  Maybe wait for the arrival of the first Antariksha yaatri before attempting to engage in interplanetary space piracy.
  
  --
  the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Leonov was in Milpitas! by k6mfw · 2014-10-13 06:35 · Score: 1

In late 1990s I think. I saw a small article in San Jose mercury news he had a table and some his artwork (yes this cosmonaut is an accomplished artist ) but most passerbys didn't recognize him. If I knew he was on tour I'd ask him to autograph my Apollo Soyuz poster. Arrg. Also few years ago one of his paintings and a photo of him showing it that was up for auction. Next year is his 50th anniversary of that spacewalk and 40th anniversary of Apollo Soyuz.

--
mfwright@batnet.com
Mr. Gagarin relieved himself on the tire by Latent+Heat · 2014-10-13 08:33 · Score: 1

They both had to relieve themselves, but Colonel Gagarin did this against the tire of the van carrying him to the rocket. Since then, crews regarded this "pit stop before boarding" as good luck.
Commander Shepard, I guess, was bolted into the rocket for so long he had to "do it in the suit."