Do you think the Soyuz has had it's day?


#1

The Soyuz failure today is one of many in the last 10 years. It seems that the reliability of Soyuz might be lower than you think. Although this failure ended up with the crew safely back on the ground, which proves their abort systems work well, does it signal bad management and / or bad build quality. With the hole in the last Soyuz capsule on the last launch, it must call into question the quality checks done during manufacture. It also brings the Commercial crew program into question, this should of been a higher priority over the last few years, which would of meant that other options would of been operational by now. What do you think?


#2

There is no such a thing as 100% probability. Especially in a rocketry business. Crew is safe that’s ok. Rocket wasted and that’s bad and sad. Was it bad management or/and bad quality we will know it latter maybe.
And yes, the Commercial crew program had to be started at least few years ago. We need few options for humans to reach LEO.


#3

We still have many ships that can service the ISS if absolutely needed… Just not politically OK, to do it.

Eg. The Chinese ships are compatible right? But I am sure they would use a an un-certified Dragon before asking for help from China. I would probably be more keen to get on a SpaceX dragon myself :smile:


#4

Been following comments in the SpaceX public group page. My post was prompted by this post - by Wes Barnes, "I was reading an article online and they made this statement about the Soyuz program,

“In total Soyuz rockets have been launched 745 times of which 21 have failed. Thirteen of those failures have been since 2010, calling into question the continued reliability of the rocket.”

That’s a pretty high failure rate to have happen all in less than the last decade."

I have not had the time to research these statistics and wondered if anybody knew if this was true. I assume the 745 launches is for the Soyuz family of rockets and not just this variant.


#5

They should probably do some serious investigations… There may be something more to the Conspiracy Theories … ? or more likely they need to make sure the servicing and pre-launch infrastructure is not cutting too many corners.


#6

Do we know if the Chinese capsule uses the same international docking adaptor standard. I would hope they do but I doubt it. It’s just a shame it had to happen now and not in 6 months time. Shame Nasa did not push CCP a bit harder, I know some of the delays have been NASA based, earlier on in the program. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if the investigation takes a long time and the solution once found takes a while to implement. SpaceX might be able to help but the timeline and the Nasa guidelines are against them.


#7

I think they do use the same adapters… engineers are usually not politically motivated … and i think the Chinese space stations are based off the Russian blue prints which are part of the ISS. and were supposed to be part of the ISS at some point… so technically there should be no issues.


#8

The Russian government has been pushing Roscomos to move faster and cut corners (at least as far as building the new launch facility goes). The same is probably true in other areas of their space program. Not unlike the US program, if you want to know what’s gumming up the works, check the effluent lines leading from the political module.


#10

could the quality control problems be related to the fact that roscosmos has gone from 50% of the launch market in 2013 to 4% in 2018. The 4% coming from Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin in a press release earlier this year. In the same press release, he talked about how they are shifting to satellite manufacturing.


#11

That is a massive drop in custom and therefore profit. I suppose that Spacex, the Chinese Space Agency and various others have all taken work from the Russians. I think it might soon be time to part ways and get manned flight back into America again. It must be so much easier to train in your own language for a start.


#12

i dont want to sound critical but if i was looking to by something from Russians i would buy rockets over satellites. they have what 60 years in making rockets. i think it will be a challenge for them to cut into the satellite market, not that i dont think they can but it will be interesting to see what and how they do it. Roscosmos may find a niche market for something and run with it becoming the best at X item. Russia has built some of the largest vehicles in the world maybe they will go into largest satellites with multi functions as a one stop shop for customers. Then leave the challenge of laughing it to Spacex or blue origin. if they build near or out of vladivostok that will give the easy access to almost all the launch providers in a year round deep water port. The Sevastopol Marine Trade Port is there only other year round deep water port but that is located in the disputed Crimea area.


#13

We have had a monopoly for human transportation to and from ISS (and we still have).
The current situation is very serious. So it’s very critical to eliminate monopoly in human and cargo transportation system. There is no such thing as 100% success probability especially in rocketry. We must have a backup better two or even more if we want to have current infrastructure intact and progress further. Otherwise it will be regress it’s just a matter of time.
p.s. with cargo it’s not a problem but situation with astronauts scaring me :frowning:. We often think that technological civilization can only progress. We want that to be the case.


#14

It is good to know that the Soyuz safety measures worked, however this proves that there is a major lack of redundancy. There should be a backup rocket standing by and ready to go within 72-96 hours, not weeks.


#15

There have been more incidents of late… And the general public is starting to notice.

Soyuz has been very reliable in the past. It’s been held up as an example for our own engineers to strive for that level of robust quality. But recently that quality seems to be lacking. The sloppy drilled hole in MS-09 that allowed air flow when the outer hull was punctured by a micro meteor… the upside down sensor in the proton… and now this mishap for which we don’t yet know the cause… They show something has gone wrong with their process.

Perhaps the old engineers who had pride in their work are retiring… perhaps there is some sort of sabotage… Who knows? But one thing is certain, Soyuz is not as reliable as it once was.


#16

I always look on the Soyuz as a “good old reliable space tractor” not build for comfort or high tech but a machine to get the job done without all the bells and whistles (or touch screens). C’mon folk the Russians make great reliable spacecraft that do the job. Remember the old adage… SPACE IS HARD.


#17

Museum
__

Angara


#18

onboard video of the outside of the vehicle showing the incident.


#19

Scott Manley analysis.


#20

Good for them showing the footage and assembly errors. Should go a long way to rebuilding some trust provided they can correct the problems. I would have liked to have seen the missing frames where it ripped up the rocket though.


#21

simulation of the mishap.