** The Official Space Flight Thread - The Space Station and Beyond **

[PermaBanned]

It hasn't been the same failures though?

No, but it's a pretty unlikely coincidence - nothing for 40 years and then three failures all at once? Besides, wasn't the last one put down to a 'construction line defect'? Pretty vague, could be effected by a lot of things.

 

[Glaucus]

Different models though, how many 1b variants have been flown? Wasn't the old model replaced this year?

 

[pyropetepete]

No, but it's a pretty unlikely coincidence - nothing for 40 years and then three failures all at once? Besides, wasn't the last one put down to a 'construction line defect'? Pretty vague, could be effected by a lot of things.

Fuel line blocked! How does something block the line whilest being fitted as im sure anyone non anal would look down or azlike to make sure it's clear. Uber suspect to me!

 

[Dureth]

A fuel line blockage could be caused after fitting by an internal fuel tank lining starting to deteriorate. If there are mesh filters at any stage of the fuel line then even a sliver of paint can block the flow sufficiently to cause problems.

 

[Westyfield2]

Argh, and the Soyuz is our only way into space.

Can haz shuttle back plz.

 

[Cosimo]

Soyuz TMA-03M has docked with the ISS and the space station is now fully staffed with the six member Expedition 30 crew:

​

 

[Glaucus]

Here we go both third stage, but two different systems
August's botched launch involved a Soyuz-U. An inquiry into that incident eventually traced the problem to a blocked fuel line, again in the third stage of the vehicle. But the U and 2.1b Soyuz variants use different engines in this segment of the rocket, so no immediate parallels between the two incidents can be drawn.

Also wiki says 21 failed missions, which I think is a large % failure than the shuttle.

 

[Tefal]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Soyuz_and_the_Coastline_of_Africa.ogv


cool

 

[PermaBanned]

Here we go both third stage, but two different systems
August's botched launch involved a Soyuz-U. An inquiry into that incident eventually traced the problem to a blocked fuel line, again in the third stage of the vehicle. But the U and 2.1b Soyuz variants use different engines in this segment of the rocket, so no immediate parallels between the two incidents can be drawn.

Also wiki says 21 failed missions, which I think is a large % failure than the shuttle.

Different systems maybe, but they're both very similar, will share some common parts and are both made in the same place by the same people.

As for 'Soyuz verses Shuttle' - it's not quite that clear cut, as the Shuttle was a dedicated reusable manned delivery vehicle whereas Soyuz is a modular system capable of launching manned and unmanned cargo missions.

Where are you getting that figure from anyway? I can't seem to find it anywhere... nor the total number of Soyuz missions, be it total, manned or unmanned that are anywhere near up to date.

 

[Glaucus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-U

Soyuz-u 745 launches, 21 failures
Soyuz-U2 14 launches, 1 failure
Shuttle 135 launches 2 failures.

 

[PermaBanned]

You could also look at it like this:

Soyuz-U Launch Vehicle:

• 745 launches
• 21 failures
• 0 loss of crew

Shuttle Space Transfer System:

• 135 launches
• 2 failures
• 2 loss of crew

 

[Glaucus]

I wasn't really looking at it like that. Just as a reliability.
Also as you said one usually isn't manned.

 

[PermaBanned]

Well i know which i'd rather fly in

Also, why is it so hard to find these figures?

 

[Glaucus]

Well i know which i'd rather fly in

?

The shuttle, not only iconic, but safer

No idea. I also though I read that modern space flight is rated at 1 in every hundred lost. Neither come close to that.

Ariane V is 56 for 2, that's pretty bad as well.

 

[Spook187]

The shuttle, not only iconic, but safer

No idea. I also though I read that modern space flight is rated at 1 in every hundred lost. Neither come close to that.

Ariane V is 56 for 2, that's pretty bad as well.

The shuttle was classed as high risk by nasa though.

 

[Glaucus]

The shuttle was classed as high risk by nasa though.

It's all high risk.

Just been reading about the Russian copy. Fully automated so no need for humans.
And no external fuel tank so no insulating foam. Shame they binned it after the one and only test flight.
Also had ejected seats for all crew and crew could escape at all stages of launch.

 

[PermaBanned]

No, not safer. We were talking about ratio of successes to failures - reliability. I think that's a different think entirely. Soyuz is definitely safer.

Something goes wrong on the pad; in Soyuz you use the emergency escape tower to get the hell out of there, in Shuttle you're screwed.

Something goes wrong with the lower stages; in Soyuz they're liquid fueled and they shut down, you separate, deploy parachutes, land and try again; in Shuttle they're solid fueled so they keep going no matter what, all that energy has to go somewhere and if it doesn't end up pointing you straight at the ground it will probably blow you up, unless by some miracle you've all managed to unbuckle, jump out the hatch and start praying.

Something goes wrong in the upper stages; in Soyuz they shut down, you separate and go for a ballistic re-entry, uncomfortable but easily survivable, in Shuttle you have to wait until the external tank has less than 5% fuel before you jettison or else it could slosh back and hit you, ruining your chances of a safe re-entry. If engines shut down before then, you're screwed.

 

[Glaucus]

Good points.

Still rather be in shuttle, it's sexy and iconic.

 

[PermaBanned]

Ah, Buran. Makes you wonder what the Soviet Union did right... not a lot, but it can't be said that state capitalism is all bad.

 

[Combat squirrel]

You could also look at it like this:

Soyuz-U Launch Vehicle:

• 745 launches
• 21 failures
• 0 loss of crew

Shuttle Space Transfer System:

• 135 launches
• 2 failures
• 2 loss of crew

the shuttle has lost 14 crew i think 7 x 2