Apparently, the Soyuz entered hatch first, instead of leading with the heat shield, and burned off an antenna. I hate when that happens.
Yi said during a news conference at the Star City cosmonaut training center outside Moscow that she was frightened. “At first I was really scared because it looked really, really hot and I thought we could burn,” she said.
I’ll bet it was some serious pucker in that capsule for all three of them.
As the article notes, this is the second time in a row they’ve had a non-nominal entry, and the third time in five years. Is their quality, in manufacturing or launch processing, declining? Not good news if we’re reliant on them for transportation after 2010. And no, I don’t think the problem was too many women aboard (what an idiot).
Faster please, Elon.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jim Oberg shares my concerns about Russian quality problems. And he’s in a lot better position to know.
Funny how the parachute always works, it’s located on the top of the capsule. You’d think it would burn first.
Hmmmmm.
Instead of aiming for Mars or the Moon, perhaps NASA could aim for a working rocket to support the ISS?
And perhaps someone, somewhere, could accomplish something useful with the ISS? So far it seems the only people to actually get anything useful or beneficial out of the ISS have been the Russians.
Don’t like to complain but I would be more appreciative if the $100+ billion spent didn’t have the appearance of being completely flushed down a never ending toilet.
I don’t think the problem was too many women aboard
Yeah, if anything that would make the capsule bottom-heavy.
Wait… am I reading this right?
It entered completely backwards, and not only survived intact, but the critical subsystems (read: parachutes) worked correctly?
That seems a bit amazing to me. Really, really bad, but still amazing.
Now that’s advanced space technology. It gets the crew home even when there’s a massive failure that would have killed a shuttle crew. When you talk about “airline like” access to space, this is what you’re talking about. The ability to accomplish the mission even with multiple failures.
Now someone over there needs to address their quality control issues.
My understanding, from what I can gather via various reports, is that the entry began hatch first but that the capsule then naturally oriented itself heat shield first and the vast majority of the entry was in this condition. Score one for capsule designs.
Not meaning to sound like sexist or a man-hater, but let’s wait on the name-calling until (and if) he “elaborates”. When he says a “majority” of women, he’s not talking about 5-4, he’s talking about a man alone with two women. He may not be talking about doing their makeup or talking about boys; the presence of another man would curb certain, ah, inappropriate behavior in the man, also. Let’s hear Mr. Perminov out, first.
‘Not meaning to sound like sexist or a man-hater, but let’s wait on the name-calling until (and if) he “elaborates”. When he says a “majority” of women, he’s not talking about 5-4, he’s talking about a man alone with two women. He may not be talking about doing their makeup or talking about boys; the presence of another man would curb certain, ah, inappropriate behavior in the man, also. Let’s hear Mr. Perminov out, first.’
Jon, did you read the man’s comments? He said women are bad luck on a ship based on old seafaring lore. I think I’ll go ahead and start my name-calling now, thanks.
“Jon, did you read the man’s comments? He said women are bad luck on a ship based on old seafaring lore.”
Of couse anyone who believes that, would believe the number 13 really carries bad luck.
Oh, wait… 🙂
Now that’s advanced space technology. It gets the crew home even when there’s a massive failure that would have killed a shuttle crew.
Oh, bog! Here we go again!
That “advanced space technology” killed the crew on Apollo 1, Soyuz 1, and Soyuz 11. It nearly killed the crew on Apollo 13, Soyuz 23, and other flights. It crippled one cosmonaut on Soyuz 18.
Capsules have killed fewer space travellers than the Shuttle only because they’ve *carried* fewer space travellers than the Shuttle.
When you talk about “airline like” access to space, this is what you’re talking about.
Hardly. Do you think airliners kill their crew and passengers on 1% of all fights? And destroy their engines and airframes on 100% of all flights?
FYI, if airliners were as “reliable” as capsules, an airline pilot would have a life expectancy of a few months.
Wow if somebody is automatically sexists for mentioning old naval superstition or making a joke about it then I’d say one needs to take the political correctness off the hair-trigger mode.
Jim Harris wrote:
“Yeah, if anything that would make the capsule bottom-heavy.”
I grinned at that, guess that makes me a sexists to some.
Guess I should also point out that 1 in 100 is less than 1 in 60.
“Wow if somebody is automatically sexists for mentioning old naval superstition or making a joke about it then I’d say one needs to take the political correctness off the hair-trigger mode.”
You’ll have to point out where anyone here has claimed sexism. More than one finger on the hair-trigger hereabouts.
You didn’t write sexist, but you did say:
“He said women are bad luck on a ship based on old seafaring lore. I think I’ll go ahead and start my name-calling now, thanks.”
Which names did you have in mind?