Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Spaceflight News Share news, stories, or discussions about government and private spaceflight programs; including ESA, ISS, NASA, Russian Space Program, Virgin Galactic, & more!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-11-2018, 02:36 PM   #31
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linguofreak View Post
 Nah. As unsafe as Soyuz might be at the moment, it's still safer than STS *ever was*.
Moderators, he is trying to bait me into a "Soyuz vs STS" flamewar!
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2018, 03:04 PM   #32
Xyon
Puts the Fun in Dysfunctional
 
Xyon's Avatar



Default

I will turn this car around if you two don't stop it!
Xyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2018, 03:04 PM   #33
Linguofreak
Orbinaut
Default

Nah, I'm not that partial to Soyuz. Just bitter that STS set US spaceflight back 50 years when we could still be flying Apollo to this day as America's workhorse manned spacecraft. Soyuz isn't a really great or special spacecraft on the tower-and-capsule principle, it's just the only one flying since Apollo was scrapped, so it wins by default.
Linguofreak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2018, 03:47 PM   #34
MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
 
MaverickSawyer's Avatar
Default

Yeesh. What a hell of a thing to wake up to.

This'll light a fire under both SpaceX and Boeing.
MaverickSawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2018, 03:49 PM   #35
4throck
Enthusiast !
 
4throck's Avatar
Default

Why make the new US capsules dependent on ISS dockings for qualification?

Can't they take astronauts for a few orbits and test the thing?
And if docking is really important to test on the first flights, why not launch a docking target....

With two capsules to test, a docking target makes perfect sense. Both could use it.
(It would make a great orbiter add-on...)
4throck is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 10-11-2018, 03:51 PM   #36
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linguofreak View Post
 Nah, I'm not that partial to Soyuz. Just bitter that STS set US spaceflight back 50 years when we could still be flying Apollo to this day as America's workhorse manned spacecraft. Soyuz isn't a really great or special spacecraft on the tower-and-capsule principle, it's just the only one flying since Apollo was scrapped, so it wins by default.
Well, and I disagree there. I think that the STS was the only way out of stagnation, because even as expensive as the STS was - Apollo was more expensive and far less capable. And any future capsule will not just be compared to Soyuz or Apollo, but also to the performance of the STS.

Even as much as I laugh often about the recent Powerpoint rockets of SpaceX: I think they are really the only program that tries to do something beyond STS and could really become the spacecraft, that the Shuttle should have been.

And about comparing safety, well, its too easy to compare a program with no LOCV in 15 missions to one that had two in 135 missions. How safe would Apollo have been, would it have been used exactly the same way as the Shuttle? We will never really know, because Apollo was not even made for it - it was never made to be reusable, never meant to be turned around on the ground and especially never made to do this in mere 54 days as it happened between STS-51-J and STS-61B. The Saturn V needed half a year to be assembled in first place, from the arrival of the first component at the cape to launch readiness review - and it needed seven times more workers for it than the STS.

But that is now getting far off the topic and I have to excuse for being annoying there.

Would I have to do a Space shuttle successor based on the Ultra project context, it wouldn't be Orion or Crewed Dragon or CST. It would be the BFR. Not that I especially like what I see there. But I see the spirit.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 10-11-2018, 04:30 PM   #37
Yuri_Gagarin
Orbinaut
Default

Sorry to bump but I was crying for 30 hours that I missed it. You know, i will have to take the vcr and wait for December 20th and RT.
Yuri_Gagarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2018, 04:33 PM   #38
MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
 
MaverickSawyer's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4throck View Post
 Why make the new US capsules dependent on ISS dockings for qualification?

Can't they take astronauts for a few orbits and test the thing?
And if docking is really important to test on the first flights, why not launch a docking target....

With two capsules to test, a docking target makes perfect sense. Both could use it.
(It would make a great orbiter add-on...)
Nah, NASA needs to bite the bullet and take a risk by flying an operational mission ASAP. There's a time and place for being cautious to the point of paranoia... This isn't one of them. It's spaceflight... It's inherently risky no matter how well you prepare, as today shows. But you cannot let the fear of failure stop you.

Put simply... Modern NASA wouldn't have made it to Apollo 11. They'd have thrown in the towel after Gemini 8.
MaverickSawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2018, 04:33 PM   #39
Thorsten
Orbinaut
 
Thorsten's Avatar
Default

Am I a pessimist or a realist when I say that I believed this was bound to happen (and will happen again), nobody should kid oneself that spaceflight is a risk-free game because 'now we've figured it all out'?

I don't think the rocket is more or less safe than it was - accidents generally seem to happen with a probability of order of a percent - which means you can have many trouble-free flights, but it doesn't mean that percent is not there. I'm mainly glad the crew got off lightly in this one...
Thorsten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2018, 04:45 PM   #40
IronRain
Moderator
 
IronRain's Avatar


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorsten View Post
 Am I a pessimist or a realist when I say that I believed this was bound to happen (and will happen again), nobody should kid oneself that spaceflight is a risk-free game because 'now we've figured it all out'?
IMO you're a realist. At my job we build our infra (IT wise) with the knowledge that servers WILL fail. It was this morning, just before launch that I thought: "I hope the persons who are responsible for the LES and QA never think "let's finish this really quickly and go home. It always works""
IronRain is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 10-11-2018, 04:53 PM   #42
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Or this one:


Image of the Soyuz MS-10 launch as seen from the International Space Station by Alexander Gerst, auf Flickr
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2018, 05:23 PM   #43
4throck
Enthusiast !
 
4throck's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaverickSawyer View Post
 Nah, NASA needs to bite the bullet and take a risk by flying an operational mission ASAP.
I think that a first full automated mission (no crew) makes sense, specially because that capability might save the crew latter on.
And automation would be new thing compared to Apollo or STS.

I don't think there's a big risk with a capsule + LES / abort system.
The Soyuz just proved that once again.
If NASA thinks flying a capsule is risky then its all over...
4throck is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
Old 10-11-2018, 08:14 PM   #44
Linguofreak
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urwumpe View Post
 
And about comparing safety, well, its too easy to compare a program with no LOCV in 15 missions to one that had two in 135 missions. How safe would Apollo have been, would it have been used exactly the same way as the Shuttle?
The entire problem with the Shuttle is that the design features meant to enable that usage made it a death trap. Apollo was safer because it wasn't trying to be a reusable vehicle 30+ years before reusability was feasible.

In any case, to bring things back to Soyuz MS-10, this is exactly the sort of failure that is a guaranteed LOCV for a side-of-stack spaceplane (and likely for a top-of-stack spaceplane), but not a huge problem for an Apollo/Soyuz style capsule.

The point I was making is, whatever the Russians actually do, they can afford to keep flying manned missions while they investigate, because even if this happens again, there's not a huge risk of LOCV.

Quote:
We will never really know, because Apollo was not even made for it - it was never made to be reusable, never meant to be turned around on the ground and especially never made to do this in mere 54 days as it happened between STS-51-J and STS-61B. The Saturn V needed half a year to be assembled in first place, from the arrival of the first component at the cape to launch readiness review - and it needed seven times more workers for it than the STS.what I see there.
For LEO missions, such as to the ISS, you'd probably use a Saturn I adapted for mass production, which I imagine could be made fairly cheap through a half century of routine use.
Linguofreak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2018, 08:32 PM   #45
Urwumpe
Certain Super User
 
Urwumpe's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linguofreak View Post
 The entire problem with the Shuttle is that the design features meant to enable that usage made it a death trap. Apollo was safer because it wasn't trying to be a reusable vehicle 30+ years before reusability was feasible.

It was very well feasible 133 times. And no death trap for hundreds of astronauts.



Yes, it failed badly two times. But then, its still doubtful Apollo would have survived similar accidents. A massive booster failure? A damaged heat shield? Even if you include that the Shuttle failed because of inherent design flaws, this doesn't mean those didn't exist in Apollo as well.



Apollo simply had one key feature: A lot of luck. It had a lot more anomalies per mission than the Space Shuttle still nobody died. It required a lot of changed from mission to mission to address them. Remembering Apollo 13? How would this have gone out if the heatshield got damaged in the explosion?


How would Apollo 12 had ended if the pyros fired already on launch as feared? or if the booster disintegrated below them because of POGO? It was a real danger.

Remembering that the Apollo 1 hatch was designed that way because one of the astronauts killed in the fire experienced a hatch failure?



Its easy to view Apollo with a lot of survivor bias. But that doesn't work.

Last edited by Urwumpe; 10-11-2018 at 08:36 PM.
Urwumpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Spaceflight News


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:24 AM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.