Soyuz TMA-15: Landing in Kazakhstan, Part I

[themainproblem]

I have always liked the way Russians engineer their spacecraft. No flash, just a great functioning and very practical, reliable vehicle. But I also find their spacecraft beautiful to look at as well. The Vostok series is my favorite.

Respect from Apache Junction, Arizona.

[FunKitYourSelf]

for mother russia!

[romrayla]

Russian technology I guess is mostly about functionality. Their tanks, their spaceships, their guns, are not so flashy at all... but they are used for scores and are just as effective as current models. Rugged, yes. Does the job, yes.

[dhbiza]

Boy, the photographer really knew his stuff. He is trying to get a video of a capsule 1000 yards away and has it focused on an anthill 10 feet in front of him. Nice footage of the actual touchdown, I think he actually held the camera still for 0.012 milliseconds.

[skyprop]

Simple is a Great start in designs

[rajithaify]

soviet technology is rugged but works great!

awesome!

[DiabloRussia]

America and Russia = cosmofriend =)

[hunk4hire]

That damn thing is a tin can! It makes me claustrophobic just looking at it.

[rocaho001]

@hunk4hire That's why you're not an astronaut. How do you think it's in the ISS you fool?

[timothy1837]

kalashnikov and armalite., soyuz and space shuttle..which one is better?

/

[sambaboy81]

@timothy1837 Anything that is complex is not useful and anything that is useful is simple. This has been my whole life's motto.

[mlovmo]

They have to be EXTRACTED from the damn thing...

(sorry komrade, you have to vait until vee get permission from ze politburo to take dese bolts out of ze hatch with ze 'power-drill'...)

Just kidding...

I like Soyuz, too. If it works, don't fix it, right?

However: Why haven't they updated the basic design, even just a little? Why do they waste the Orbital Module still? All that's in there is a toilet and a docking port, so why can't they integrate it into the reentry module?

[rocaho001]

@mlovmo hahahahah LOL I'm russian and u got the accent just right haha! :DD

[Bhorzo]

The key to good engineering is simplicity.

[sambaboy81]

@Bhorzo Anything that is complex is not useful and anything that is useful is simple. This has been my whole life's motto. -Mikhail Kalashnikov-

[rocaho001]

@Bhorzo Look at honda.

[DestroyTheseWalls]

@Bhorzo simple yet horendously idiodic..... like" oooohhh oohhh i got an idea what if we have it smash into the ground from space"...... kinda unsafe if you ask me......

[Bhorzo]

@DestroyTheseWalls Meh... add a parachute and you're good to go. I've never seen a parachute fail before... umm... errr... nevermind... :D

[romrayla]

@DestroyTheseWalls It's not really "smashing" it to the ground. I guess it's an intelligent way of using nature (gravity) to do the job. It requires far less resources. And oh, just so you know, these Soyuz crafts have rockets. Along with the chute, these rockets fire to counter gravity to ensure smooth landing. The dust cloud is caused by these rockets.

[DestroyTheseWalls]

@romrayla well lets put it this way....u can use a controlled landing with francy smancy airbrakes, and long runways and reuse it.... oooorrrr use a craft with an expiration date that looks lke sheeot XD lol jk..... i mean smash it in water Apollo style....ill gve them credt for it surving though =D

[romrayla]

@DestroyTheseWalls But this method is cost effective. This is even more cost effective than a shuttle. And yes these things are safe. There were a few who died here and there in a soyuz craft, but the same is true for the shuttle.

[oomblikkies]

Sorry, it may be effective, but compared to the Shuttle, this looks extremely primitive.

[LeMegasandwich]

@oomblikkies Apparently the last people to die from Soyuz was 40 years ago, shuttles don't have such a nice record.

[Suyamu]

@oomblikkies

it's simple - that's why it's good.

More parts and a more complex system means more failures.

Soviets had a shuttle as well - it had made it's maiden space-flight + landing unmanned before being shelved.

[chillaxer1993]

@Suyamu they learned the hard way what complicated systems are more prone to failure. the soviet N1 was the one of their biggest fuck ups. 30 engines. if one engine failed all of the engines would shut down unlike the saturn 5. the second stage could keep working on 4 engines.

basically the soyuz is antiquated. it's good but old.  they're too scared to come up with new technology.

[Suyamu]

@chillaxer1993

Russia is constantly upgrading it's Soviet tech - the R-7 family of rockets has seen it's upgrades and variations - one thing remains though - it's the most used rocket with the best safety record. What about that is antiquated? What improvements do you suggest need to be done to make it modern?

You might not be used to the concept, but this thing is designed to last - not to be replaced every 2 years by a new model. Having a well tested system is worth gold in space exploration.

[AnExplorer1000]

@oomblikkies This is not about beauty. OK?

[oomblikkies]

@AnExplorer1000 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So, if the Soyuz looks beautiful to you - enjoy it ... I wont.

Returning to earth in the Shuttle is the dream of every astronaut. I guess it is much more comfortable and probably medically safer to glide into the atmosphere and land like a plane for a human body who was exposed to zero gravity for 6 months.

[AnExplorer1000]

@oomblikkies I'm sorry, but I have a feeling that you don't understand. They are not doing all this because of that kind of beauty. S.S. is nice, but it's not safe (just google about S.S. accidents). On the other hand Russian rockets like Soyuz have been working perfectly for the last 40 years (use google for this also). That's the point.

[oomblikkies]

@AnExplorer1000 The Soyuz was safer than the SS, but as the program went on, the SS got safer and safer. Challenger was lost because of manegerial issues on what was safe and what was not. Columbia broke up because of the inability to inspect the SS heat shield. All these problems were eliminated. There is just no way the ISS could have been built without the SS. The fact that the SS could not go into high orbits and still use the ISS as a safe haven, killed the SS.

[AnExplorer1000]

@oomblikkies I agree.

[rocaho001]

@AnExplorer1000 Exactly. It's not about beauty and showing off. It's about getting to space safe and returning safe and getting the job done. Glad to see some people use their brains unlike many others.

[AnExplorer1000]

@oomblikkies Is that what bothers you?

[jupiter9211]

40年間飛行士を最後まで守ってる健気なソユーズの最後の姿は味­があるなあ