oh common people, this is minor stuff, this types of incidents are not life threatening. It's not like the rocket blows up of they burned up in reentry like the american shuttles.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Scary stuff which once again demonstrated how inferior Russian technology is compared to that in the West.
The shuttle should NOT be retired in 2010. With all the safety checks now in place and replacing redundant parts, the shuttle could continue for at least another 10 - 15 years.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh please, dont quote MIR as an example. First a Soyuz crashed into the poor MIR and not long after that a fire nearly killed those on board. Their spacecraft is just as useless. Only 3 men can barely fit into this fish can. The rocket is not powerful enough to lift heavy cargo either. The re-entry capsule is dangerous like hell, while the Shuttle glides like a swan right onto a dime and land safely and precisely onto an airstrip. Viva the Shuttle!!!
Ok, maybe it looks scary. But we hear of the Shuttle victims more frequently than the Soyuz ones. Ok, 10g and uncontrolled ballistic trajectory is not the best thing to bear. But Soyuz systems work fine even on these conditions. Soyuz is just old and unimpressive workhorse.
As for Shuttle... Yes it's a cool looking spacecraft. But it's too expensive even for US. Certainly the commercially profitable manned spaceships is a huge modern problem for engineers.
Shuttles, Soyuzes,... they all use those damn chemical jets. Everyone can be proud of his or her favourite spaceship but all of them are just for fundamental experiments - not for business.
In fact ISS is just a plaything for the relatively small circle of scientists and engineers. It's a drop in the ocean of the humanity.
Soyuz is much more reliable and cheaper than Shuttle. The rocket was never designed to carry heavy loads in the first place and while we're there - shuttle launch system never launched anything else than shuttle itself, so I'd say such comparisons are not even possible. If I were to choose landing spacecraft I'd use Soyuz, as it's much more fault tolerant. In case of major malfunction it just goes into ballistic mode - problem solved. In shuttle with major mulfunction You're most likely dead.
Soyuz is more reliable than american shuttle, why do you think american is going back to the sixties with their future Orion space capsule. Because capsules are safer, they ride on top of the rocket so they are not exposed to insulating foam, also they can separate from the rocket in case it explodes, also it's better to return to earth with your back against the earth not in front, like the space shuttle. Also Soyuz has made well over a hundred launches, and there were only two fatal accidents.
If there is a problem with Soyuz, they need to address it before someone gets killed, not do spin control. Honestly, saying "but look, there's stuff wrong with the shuttle" is childish. The "back" component that needs to be "against the Earth" is called "the heat shield". Both Soyuz and the shuttle re-enter with their heat shields in the proper orientation (normally). Also, capsules are being currently used to save money. Their obvious flaw is that they are not reusable.
Who was on this reentry ride? They mentioned the American woman. Who else?
mlovmo 10 months ago
What the hell they haven't fixed this yet? They had the same issues back in the late 60's.
NaturalGroundation 11 months ago
Good by manned exploration of space.
TheCottonTop 2 years ago
oh common people, this is minor stuff, this types of incidents are not life threatening. It's not like the rocket blows up of they burned up in reentry like the american shuttles.
bombarderoazul 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Scary stuff which once again demonstrated how inferior Russian technology is compared to that in the West.
The shuttle should NOT be retired in 2010. With all the safety checks now in place and replacing redundant parts, the shuttle could continue for at least another 10 - 15 years.
oomblikkies 3 years ago
complete bs.
russia actually has more experience with manned space stations and their technology has proven sound over the decades.
maborosi 3 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh please, dont quote MIR as an example. First a Soyuz crashed into the poor MIR and not long after that a fire nearly killed those on board. Their spacecraft is just as useless. Only 3 men can barely fit into this fish can. The rocket is not powerful enough to lift heavy cargo either. The re-entry capsule is dangerous like hell, while the Shuttle glides like a swan right onto a dime and land safely and precisely onto an airstrip. Viva the Shuttle!!!
oomblikkies 3 years ago
I can't agree the Soyuz is unreliable.
Ok, maybe it looks scary. But we hear of the Shuttle victims more frequently than the Soyuz ones. Ok, 10g and uncontrolled ballistic trajectory is not the best thing to bear. But Soyuz systems work fine even on these conditions. Soyuz is just old and unimpressive workhorse.
As for Shuttle... Yes it's a cool looking spacecraft. But it's too expensive even for US. Certainly the commercially profitable manned spaceships is a huge modern problem for engineers.
dvelasov 3 years ago 6
Shuttles, Soyuzes,... they all use those damn chemical jets. Everyone can be proud of his or her favourite spaceship but all of them are just for fundamental experiments - not for business.
In fact ISS is just a plaything for the relatively small circle of scientists and engineers. It's a drop in the ocean of the humanity.
dvelasov 3 years ago
Soyuz is much more reliable and cheaper than Shuttle. The rocket was never designed to carry heavy loads in the first place and while we're there - shuttle launch system never launched anything else than shuttle itself, so I'd say such comparisons are not even possible. If I were to choose landing spacecraft I'd use Soyuz, as it's much more fault tolerant. In case of major malfunction it just goes into ballistic mode - problem solved. In shuttle with major mulfunction You're most likely dead.
astylospongia 3 years ago 13
Noboby was killed when Soyuz ТМ-17 hit the MIR.
4 russian cosmonauts died at all (1 in 1969 Soyuz-1 and 3 in 1971 Soyuz-11)
Shuttle crashed 2 times too. Much more ppl died.
kibabiba 3 years ago 4
Soyuz is more reliable than american shuttle, why do you think american is going back to the sixties with their future Orion space capsule. Because capsules are safer, they ride on top of the rocket so they are not exposed to insulating foam, also they can separate from the rocket in case it explodes, also it's better to return to earth with your back against the earth not in front, like the space shuttle. Also Soyuz has made well over a hundred launches, and there were only two fatal accidents.
bombarderoazul 2 years ago 4
@bombarderoazul
If there is a problem with Soyuz, they need to address it before someone gets killed, not do spin control. Honestly, saying "but look, there's stuff wrong with the shuttle" is childish. The "back" component that needs to be "against the Earth" is called "the heat shield". Both Soyuz and the shuttle re-enter with their heat shields in the proper orientation (normally). Also, capsules are being currently used to save money. Their obvious flaw is that they are not reusable.
Hannsfeld 1 year ago