Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday November 03 2018, @01:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the would-you-ride-that-now? dept.

Humans are to blame for the October failure of the Soyuz rocket:

Roscosmos: An assembly error doomed our Soyuz, but we promise it won't happen again

The Russian space agency, Roscosmos, has completed its investigation into October's Soyuz mishap in record time, pointing the finger of blame at problems during assembly.

Mutterings emitted from the space agency earlier this week suggested that the issue was related to a sensor that detects stage separation of the booster. In yesterday's press conference, Roscosmos provided a few more details and shared a terrifying video[*] showing the moment things went bad for the Soyuz. It then gave the green light for putting a crew back on the thing next month.

The actual explosion was, according to the State Commission tasked with getting to the bottom of the mess, caused by one of the side boosters not separating correctly and striking the rocket core. This led to the depressurisation of a fuel tank and the loss of control of the booster. The problems start at 1:23 in the video.

Of course, the real question is why did the separation fail? The answer, according to Roscosmos, was a failure to open a nozzle at the top of the strap-on booster to vent its tank. This meant the booster did not separate cleanly. The nozzle failure was caused by a faulty contact sensor, which had been "bent" during assembly of the Soyuz at the Baikonur cosmodrome.

[*] [This appears to be the video. --Ed.]

Also at Inverse.

Previously: Soyuz Crew Vehicle Fails Mid-Flight, Astronauts OK
Soyuz Failure Narrowed Down to Collision Between Booster and Core Stage


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday November 03 2018, @01:52PM (5 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday November 03 2018, @01:52PM (#757280) Journal
    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @05:36PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @05:36PM (#757340)

    All I'm getting from that graph is that there are tons of lonely Russian MILFs and GILFs because all the males have died from too much vodak. Time to emigrate!

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 03 2018, @05:52PM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 03 2018, @05:52PM (#757343) Journal

      GILF's? Guys you'd like to fuck? Go for it. I look at the chart, and during the first half of the 20th century, there were a lot of "surplus" women. Looking at the bottom half of the chart, there are a lot of surplus guys, right now. I don't think the women are any more lonely than they want to be, or in some cases, than they deserve to be. Go on over there, though. If you have a taste for the guys, they are there!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @04:28PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @04:28PM (#757653)

        GILFs. That would be "Girls I like to...". What are you thinking about?

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 04 2018, @05:23PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 04 2018, @05:23PM (#757670) Journal

          I spelled it out for you. In recent years, there are no "surplus women". If you're going there for the lonely GILF's, then it must be the guys.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @08:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @08:40PM (#757721)

    The Yeltsin era really did a number on them...