Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday January 09, @02:14PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the rain-drops^W^W-rockets-keep-falling-on-my-head dept.

A big failed Russian rocket just came crashing back to Earth out of control:

A Russian rocket fell to a watery resting place on Wednesday after an uncontrolled reentry into Earth's atmosphere.

The Persei booster was launched on Dec. 27 by the heavy-lift Angara-A5 rocket for a test mission. However, the upper-stage booster failed to enter the Earth's orbit as planned. Instead, it began inevitably being pulled back toward the atmosphere by Earth's gravity for an expected return to the surface in bits and pieces (if at all) on Wednesday afternoon, Pacific time.

[...] "I do NOT regard this object as a significant risk," leading orbit watcher and astronomer Jonathan McDowell said on Twitter.  "Reentries for a object with dry mass of about 4 tonnes may see some debris reach the ground, but not much."

The rocket is thought to have weighed around 20 tons, but over 75% of that mass would have been in fuel that almost certainly would have burned up in the atmosphere.

The 18th Space Control Squadron of the US Space Force confirmed that the rocket reentered over the Pacific Ocean just after 1 p.m. PT on Wednesday.


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article 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.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @04:01PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @04:01PM (#1211253)

    My Big Failed Russian Rocket

    If this doesn't sound like an Adam Sandler movie, I don't know what does.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @04:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @04:06PM (#1211255)

      Red Rocket was recently released.

      Relatively unknown cast; no Adam.

    • (Score: -1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @07:07PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @07:07PM (#1211290)

      It's a movie written by democrats:

      My Big Bad Failed Russian Rocket

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @07:31PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @07:31PM (#1211294)

        ?? I don't get the "joke." What do the democrats have to do with this? The only US political jokes that have to do with Russia most certainly don't have to do with the democrats.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @08:14PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @08:14PM (#1211305)

          Because some Democrats pointed out that Russian interests help elect dumbo and Republicans can't handle the idea they were duped by a country they considered the enemy. Also explains their unexpected change of heart where Russia became best buds for 4 years. Wild times, it was very shocking to see the GOP suddenly get friendly with Russia even sending some prominent pols over on July 4th one year. So mentioning Russia now triggers them to blame Dems, cuz Rs are nothing if not consistent in their projectng their issues on others.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @11:59PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @11:59PM (#1211352)

            More precisely, the Democrat party lied during Trump's entire presidency (before he even took office) by referring to a dossier Hillary Clinton had describing intel about how Trump was completely compromised by Russian agents. They referred to this for years. It turns out to have been 100% bullshit after it was officially investigated by the Federal govt. They traced the author of this dossier as a liar paid by Hillary Clinton to provide this dossier. All of the claims made were found to be fake. Hillary commissioned this fictional writing right at the time it was discovered that she had been using a personal email server instead of her govt one to host classified info so as to evade the scrutiny mandated by law for govt records. When found out, she immediately erased all the email evidence and was never charged for this major breech of security and released the Russian dossier to throw media attention off her crime and create a new scandal (made up) about her opponent in the presidential election.

            The fact that the parent commenter mentions this debunked Russian "evidence" as if it were true shows that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth to those who want to believe it.

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Joe Desertrat on Monday January 10, @12:26AM (3 children)

              by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Monday January 10, @12:26AM (#1211357)

              Some documentation please. Of pretty much every claim in your statement, the existence of said dossier, Hillary claiming to have it, Democrats referring to it, etc.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 10, @02:25AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 10, @02:25AM (#1211383)

                These events and facts are all public information, esp. the findings of the federal investigator.
                You can google it all.

                • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 10, @04:26AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 10, @04:26AM (#1211410)

                  No, most of what you claim are not "facts" outside of Fox News. They are unsubstantiated statements, or at least the ones not shown to be outright lies. You also don't need a dossier when you have people like Flynn and Kushner directly meeting with the Russians for the purposes of getting "dirt."

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 10, @05:58PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 10, @05:58PM (#1211557) Journal
                AC refers to the Steele dossier [wikipedia.org]. I guess the relevant facts are that 1) the dossier's allegations claimed extensive collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia (as well as some other exciting stuff like the golden shower thing), 2) those allegations have never been proven, and 3) it appears that the dossier was a significant component [thefederalist.com] of the justification for surveillance warrants against Carter Page, one of the earliest people put under investigation (only Manafort (and his associates) seems to be earlier - see this timeline [factcheck.org], including a warrant from 2014, because he was already under investigation for earlier crimes).

                That last point is significant because once they had surveillance of Page, they could get information to get surveillance on others. From the "significant component" link above (a report by US Inspector General Michael Horowitz):

                “Nevertheless, we found that members of the [counterintelligence] team failed to meet the basic obligation to ensure that the Carter Page FISA applications were ‘scrupulously accurate,'” the report reads. This is because the counterintelligence team used unverified hearsay from Steele — and only the information from Steele — as evidence to justify eavesdropping.

        • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 10, @04:48AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 10, @04:48AM (#1211416)

          Russia is the scapegoat for all democrat losses in an election, and now, while the dems are in charge, Russia is responsible for everything else that they (the dems) screw up.

          And now, the democrat mod squad will entertain me with more downmods...

  • (Score: 1, Redundant) by crafoo on Sunday January 09, @05:05PM (3 children)

    by crafoo (6639) on Sunday January 09, @05:05PM (#1211263)

    The big rocket worked fine. The upper stage failed to re-light to get to it's designated orbit.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Sunday January 09, @08:31PM (2 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Sunday January 09, @08:31PM (#1211309)

      Pretty sure they refer to the entire stack, i.e. all the booster stages collectively, as "the rocket." So yes, if the first stage works and the second stage doesn't fire, "the rocket failed."

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 10, @03:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 10, @03:47PM (#1211505)

        The first and second stages both worked fine. It was the third stage (Persei tug) that failed. Had the tug been supplied by a different company, as is often the case, this would have been counted as a successful launch.
        https://spacenews.com/angara-upper-stage-reenters-after-failed-launch/ [spacenews.com]

      • (Score: 2) by legont on Monday January 10, @05:21PM

        by legont (4179) on Monday January 10, @05:21PM (#1211539)

        Let's not forget "successful rocket landings" by Mask.

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @05:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @05:25PM (#1211269)

    Wednesday...

    Three days ago...

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @06:33PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @06:33PM (#1211281)

    ...this was the universal outcome of just about any orbital launch.

    This only started being noticed when Skylab fell over Australia (landing in pieces in the wilderness), and the Russian satellite with radioactive components that fell over Canada (landing in pieces in the wilderness).

    It's only the Communist Chinese who put people at real risk from failing launches.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday January 09, @07:18PM (3 children)

      by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Sunday January 09, @07:18PM (#1211292)

      It landed in the Ocean for Goddess sake. Just like almost every other booster rockect, defunct satellite, and decommissioned space station that has ever fallen to Earth.

      Seems more like that only time anyone mentions it is when it's a rocket or such from any non-Western aligned nation. When was the last time anyone heard about a US booster falling as expected into the ocean?

      But no, because it was Russian it gets a click bait headline that stirs up FUD.

      --
      "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @07:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @07:33PM (#1211295)

        It landed in the Ocean for Goddess sake.

        Yup. A big nothing.

        Unlike the multiple times the Chinese dropped booster rockets on their own people.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @07:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @07:34PM (#1211296)

        It's news when it is unplanned/uncontrolled, just like it is news when one goes off course and has to be blown up.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @07:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @07:38PM (#1211299)

        "Goddess' sake" and defending Russians? You're pretty sus, gigglybro.

  • (Score: 0, Redundant) by tangomargarine on Sunday January 09, @06:40PM (5 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Sunday January 09, @06:40PM (#1211285)

    Instead, it began inevitably being pulled back toward the atmosphere by Earth's gravity for an expected return to the surface in bits and pieces (if at all) on Wednesday afternoon, Pacific time.

    What the fuck is this supposed to mean? Like that one Hitchhiker's Guide book where Arthur Dent learns to fly by falling and missing the ground?

    It's going to inevitably hit the surface one way or the other; just staying floating in the air somewhere isn't an option.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @08:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @08:22PM (#1211307)

      Some things burn up on reentry, but agreed on weird wording.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @08:47PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 09, @08:47PM (#1211312)

      lucky it did not turn into a bowl of pettunias then, that would have got you really riled.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 10, @12:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 10, @12:00AM (#1211353)

        Oh no, not again.

    • (Score: 2) by martyb on Wednesday January 12, @12:38AM (1 child)

      by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 12, @12:38AM (#1211977) Journal

      That was a direct quote from original story [cnet.com].

      Maybe you want to take it up with the author [cnet.com]?

      --
      Wit is intellect, dancing.
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 12, @02:18AM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday January 12, @02:18AM (#1211997)

        Is that supposed to surprise me? Yes, I have an issue with the original author.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(1)