digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Hatch of Soyuz capsule nearly burned up

iht.com — The crew of the Soyuz capsule that landed in Kazakhstan hundreds of kilometers (miles) off-target after an unexpectedly severe descent was in serious danger, a Russian news agency reported Tuesday...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SuperOmegaSlack, on 04/23/2008, -1/+47Thank you for making sure "miles" was there, otherwise I would have no idea how far it landed!
  • adml_shake, on 04/23/2008, -1/+32"the capsule entered the atmosphere improperly, with the hatch-first, instead of with its heat shields leading the way."

    Wow, thats amazing that it made it at all.
    • Railz, on 04/23/2008, -3/+2Depending on the angle of descent, and the surface area of the capsule, its not a bad chance. Shuttles have a huge surface area compared to capsules so the amount of friction they cause is astronomical.
    • lex0nyc, on 04/23/2008, -1/+38In Soviet Russia, crew protects heat shield.
      • espek, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6Never gets old.
      • benhollister, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5It's not a meme, it's FACT.
      • xmkrx, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2The entire European continent will have gone under another in hundreds of millions of years, and that joke will still be funny.
    • mercano, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4I think the capsule is shaped so that it will automatically right itself once there is enough atmosphere that aerodynamic forces enter the equation again.
      • lex0nyc, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah, if they rode the hatch all the way in, they would be crispy critters.
    • Genady, on 04/23/2008, -0/+9Say hello to Russian engineering. May not be as flashy or sexy as Western design, but when you really really need it to work in unusual conditions it does. Or not.

      Freddy Noonan: Pretty intense, huh?
      Lev Andropov: That's why I told you to *touch nothing*... but you were all a bunch of cowboys!
      • starmanjones, on 04/23/2008, -1/+6you are exactly right. this headline thing just doesn't represent reality. the thing that should be important is that it couldn't have gone much worse and they landed in one piece only a couple hundred miles from where they should have.

        the russians have crewing a space station and going up and back routinely for years... we [US] were bumming time on their space craft and their space station for years when our clean white shuttles were grounded for safety. . and they have had ONLY three bad rides home all of which landed safely.

        the russian [soviet] program is conducted differently than ours [IS]... they find a design and they just keep making it better. the spacecraft they use today are improvements on the ones they flew during the apollo years. frankly, its a better way to conduct the business of space. if i had a choice to ride a shuttle up and back or a russian space craft up and back i'd take the russian ride without a second thought.

        people have a tendency to knock russian tech and point out how dangerous mir was but the real story is that while we were sitting on our hands they were permanently in space learning how to stay alive. they have the market cornered on "how to stay alive." any of us could live in a working space station or moon base... but things get old... and need fixing. when things go wrong as they always will you either live or die by your own hands and experience. the russians have proven you can survive everything from fires to collisions.

        the only imperical proof we can survive can live long term on the moon or mars or free space is russian experience. nothing has gone drastically wrong on the ISS in great part because of experience with mir. it hasn't been tested with fire or the other things that will go worng.

        that is the real story.
        • Butros, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1That's why there's a Russian flag on the moon. O WAIT!
          • BabyWookie, on 04/24/2008, -0/+2There is a Soviet flag on the Moon. The Luna 10 lander brought it there.
        • abuelos84, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2butros-> But who put the first man in space? Neil Armstrong was a hero, no doubt, but also was Yuri Gagaryn.
          When will we learn that not everything is a COMPETITION
      • endlessoul, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2Damn straight. I'd be just as happy in a Russian spacecraft as I would a NASA/US craft.
        • abuelos84, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1heh, i'd be happy in ANY spacecraft, be it russian, us-ian or jamaican (the latter should be funnier though...)
      • BossKey, on 04/23/2008, -1/+4I am not so sure that is true. The Soviet space program suffered many more catastrophic accidents than the US space program did, particularly the R16 incident.
        • starmanjones, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1i don't think any astronaut or cosmonaut would approve of a score card. the numbers are an apples and oranges comparison and the differences are not statistically significant. both programs had military and political pressure put on them that stupidly risk lives.

          that R-16 explosion is a good example. the challenger was another. the whole shuttle program was compromised when they cut the original booster design. there were many engineers that thought it was a really bad decision that was almost certain to kill astronauts. both the shuttle losses have been due to that compromise.

          we've killed our share. if you want to talk race to the moon you'd have to include that the russians just conceded because it was too risky for the crew. not because it was impossible to overcome the US program. it was risky and "maybe" it would have been riskier for them... maybe... the LM ascent engine had a 50% failure rate.

          look at the result. we never followed up on that "victory." the russians diverted their resources to building space stations. they created the experience needed to stay alive.

          if humans survive long into the future it will be russian cosmonauts and american astronauts that made it possible. they won't be remembered as americans and russians.

          the cold war is over. we all lost.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fallen_Astronau ...
  • zaf43, on 04/23/2008, -11/+0and the Borat jokes ensue
  • CA55IDY, on 04/23/2008, -11/+1The Soyuz capsule killed ma waaiiffeee
  • zaldoe, on 04/23/2008, -1/+14wish i could concoct up some witty comment, but I'm just glad you're OK guys.
    Godspeed spacedudes
    • akimbo, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4Barreling down the atmosphere would be the last place I would wish to go Godspeed...

      Sorry... that was just the physics in me speaking.
      • DooM, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Godspeed is ok for reentry, actually - Ludicrous Speed on the other hand you completely want to avoid.
        • underdog5004, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2And don't even think about going plaid in atmosphere!
  • ShempRider, on 04/23/2008, -0/+4"The fact that the entire crew ended up whole and undamaged is a great success. Everything could have turned out much worse," the official was quoted as saying.

    Translations can be tricky.
    • DrDragun, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1I bet "I'm glad they made it back in 1 piece" would translate funny into Russian as well
  • gambyt13, on 04/23/2008, -11/+13In Soviet Union, you are heat shield.
    • crapmatic, on 04/23/2008, -9/+2Meh. In the U.S., spacecraft goes through re-entry. In Soviet Russia, re-entry goes through spacecraft.

      OK, well, after Columbia I guess that's not so accurate.
    • mooninite, on 04/23/2008, -3/+4*face palm* Wow, you just butchered that joke. It's "In Soviet Russia, heat shield burns YOU."
    • BabyWookie, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1In Soviet Russia, Internet fails you.
  • gpost12345, on 04/23/2008, -15/+1Hey, i really like your stories you post, vick3ii, can you add me as your friend, i've added, just waiting for you confirmation. Thanks
  • VegasJack, on 04/23/2008, -1/+4I guess space travel is still pretty dangerous
    • sporg, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Well if you are too scared I will take your spot on the next launch okay?
  • Chairboy, on 04/23/2008, -1/+29The Soyuz was designed to evolve into a moon capsule, and spacecraft returning from the moon re-enter the atmosphere much faster than from low earth orbit. This may be a situation where engineering the craft to function in a normal lunar re-entry may have meant a safe abnormal LEO entry. It's certainly a testament to the advantages of a simple design.

    The US shuttle is fragile in comparison. A tiny hole in the leading edge of a wing resulted in the Columbia disintegration. Compare that to the Soyuz facing _the wrong way_ and surviving... astonishing.

    There's an old aviation joke: "If the black box always survives the crash, why not make the whole airplane out of the black box?" Using small capsules for humans and unmanned boosters for cargo (the way the Soviets then Russians have been doing since 1957) is the orbital equivalent of 'making the spaceship out of the black box', being compact the way it is you can have safety features that aren't feasible for a big spaceframe like the shuttle.

    This may be an embarrassment for whoever is responsible for the improper entry angle, but it's a victory for the Soyuz designers and advocates of the new Orion capsule that will be replacing the Shuttle for US manned spaceflight.
    • Wildthing, on 04/23/2008, -4/+3The new Ares V rocket looks fantastic and I hope it comes into service sooner rather than later (like if Obama delays project constellation in favor of using the funds for education).
      • Chirp08, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Or if he cancels that war thing and puts some money from it towards nasa..
      • Wildthing, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3Look, I like Obama too, I just don't like his plan to delay Project Constellation to divert funds towards education. I bet that none of you that dugg me down even knew that's what he intends to do, and if you did know, I would think that at least some of you (since this is a tech driven community) would rather see the money spent on Project Constellation over more education funds. And please link me to his statement that he will use war money for NASA instead. I swear, one negative thing about Obama on digg and the entire community hates you.
    • xmkrx, on 04/23/2008, -4/+3The black box survives because it's made out of heavy, durable materials. If they made the plane out of the same stuff, it wouldn't be able to fly. :P
    • Butros, on 04/23/2008, -3/+2Christ you guys like bagging on the space shuttle. It's capabilities are far beyond the soyuz in terms of research, payload, and crew capacity. Oh and it has a Canada arm, how cool is that?
  • h4k0r, on 04/23/2008, -0/+13Hope this didn't hurt Kazakhstan's exporting of potassium
    • pauliusuza, on 04/23/2008, -0/+7In other news: Russian space capsule has crashed into Kazakhstan's only potassium mine leaving 5 pregnant.

      Uh?...
    • endlessoul, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3And the exportation of sexytime.
  • bowdie, on 04/23/2008, -0/+6Inanimate carbon rod to the rescue!
  • gemlarin, on 04/23/2008, -3/+3I hate stories without pictures.
  • garryw, on 04/23/2008, -6/+1Every re-entry vehicle nearly burns up. Even the SR-71 gets red hot and it's not nearly as fast.
    • sporg, on 04/23/2008, -0/+3 The Soyuz just mainly falls so I don't understand how you can compare the two really. The SR-71 is a true aircraft not a re-entry vehicle and it does not "nearly burn up" it is designed to operate at the temperatures experienced during high speed flight. The SR-71 tends to be very loose and leak fuel when sitting cold on the runway.
    • drgreenberg, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1More like "got red hot" and "tended to be very loose" as all but 2 of the planes were sent to museums and the 2 remaining ones, on loan to NASA, haven't been flown since 1999.
  • mrjah, on 04/23/2008, -7/+1So the Soyuz capsules are proving unreliable just as we approach a multi-year window in which the US will have no manned launch capability?

    I thought I had read that the Soyuz capsules are engineered with a CG that causes them to right themselves if they enter the atmosphere sideways or upside-down. That doesn't guarantee single-degree accuracy in the re-entry angle, but it would at least prevent re-entering DOOR FIRST. So maybe that CG claim was wrong.
    • mercano, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1I think it only works once there are aerodynamic forces involved. (i.e., they have to get a little ways into the atmosphere before it'll right itself.)
    • RevLoki, on 04/23/2008, -0/+5Here's the thing... if you had bothered to read the articles you'd learn that the propulsion module did not separate correctly. This throws the whole CG of the craft off balance.

      Try reading before getting witty.
      • mrjah, on 05/21/2008, -0/+0The article says no such thing. You probably read that elsewhere. Nowhere in the linked article is the propulsion module even mentioned.

        Teach yourself to read before lecturing others, Deputy Fife..
  • sporg, on 04/23/2008, -3/+4"I can land Souyz capsule drunk, You Watch! I even sing you song meanwhile!

    "Tý poidi, maya karovushka, damoi,
    tý poidi, maya buryonushka, damoi!


    Akh, tilili, kalinka maya,
    f sadu yagoda malinka maya.


    Uzh kak yal mayu karovushku lublyu,
    uzh kak yal to yey krapivushki nazhnu!"






  • lazerus9, on 04/23/2008, -1/+4NASA has superior duct tape!
  • MrFurious2k, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2I'm impressed - sounds like that thing is fairly robust.
  • Sherman901, on 04/23/2008, -2/+2of course... it had to be Kazakhstan
  • p51d007, on 04/23/2008, -1/+2Hey, I have an idea!! The next one they build, just slap a bunch of "This end up" stickers all over the place! Problem solved! :)
  • GettinReal, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Hats off to all space travelers. These are the real heroes of this world.
  • angusm, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2"ballistic re-entry" sounds better than "basically, it fell like a rock from the edge of space".
    • sterni, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1lol... my exact thought on that statement
  • wyzzerdd, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1a 3 on the oh ***** meter? man id hate to see a 5 lol
  • intekra, on 04/23/2008, -2/+2For some reason I thought this article was about Keyser Söze.
  • wilf_brim, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1How the heck did the capsule start re-entry facing the wrong way. I don't get it. I'm no rocket scientist, but even I know it is critical to being a re-entry with the heat shield facing DOWN. Still, pretty impressive the thing survived.
  • dertykevin, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1The crew of the Soyuz capsule that landed in Kazakhstan hundreds of kilometers (miles) off-target after an unexpectedly severe descent was in serious danger, a Russian news agency reported Tuesday...

    This description is bothering the hell out of me. Take out "that" before landed...
  • bermudianguy, on 04/23/2008, -2/+2"Space Capsule land safely in glorious nation of Kazakhstan after landing on village idiot , great success my son Hooeylewis able to find work." -- Borat Sagdiyev

    sidenote - thank goodness that all landed safely .
  • cerejota, on 04/23/2008, -2/+1The design being for moon travel has absolutely nothing to do with it. All moon-traveling vehicles, manned or unmanned than have re-entered earth have first made at least one orbit around the earth. This because gravity is used to efficiently travel to the moon.

    So you have you facts wrong.
    • codwars, on 04/23/2008, -0/+0I think Apollo 13 came in directly from the moon due to them running out of air and this was possible because the capsules were designed for much higher speed re-entry
    • DoscoJones, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1You either have your facts wrong or your writing is muddy. None of the Apollo missions went into Earth orbit after returning from the moon. All went directly from their lunar return course directly into Earth's atmosphere. The last of the fuel in the service module main engine was used in a final deceleration burn.
  • ihccab, on 04/23/2008, -1/+1Hokay Natasha, next time we send moose and squirrel.

    That's two in a row, and three since 2003. Someone is making some serious miscalculations. Once the shuttle program is retired, the only means of transport to and from the ISS is Soyuz. All cosmonauts and astronauts will be exposed to the same dangers.

    I know this is dangerous business, but making the same mistake over and over is no way to gain support for the space program.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.