Only one shuttle failed while attached to a rocket and that was totally preventable.. the engineers told them not to launch in that cold of weather and they did anyways. The engineers said it would fail at that temperature.. the manager that signed off on the launch should have been charged with manslaughter. If you've Bennett watched the documentary about the investigation you should.. very enlightening.
@@jearmeymorgan8297 Very true, management made mistakes. Challenger was preventable, Columbia was potentially salvageable if they used gov satellites to image the belly and scramble Atlantis. However, I think design still has some role. It's a balance between simplicity, and sophistication. From what I've heard the engineers were under pressure from a few different agencies to to make a highly versatile vehicle that meets a number of requirements. This produced a very impressive and sophisticated vehicle that required more maintenance than was ever planned.
Jearmey Morgan - Buran, Soviet space shuttle had same facility as Soyuz, in that it could eject the whole crew capsule in case of emergency. US space shuttle never had that facility.
The Shuttle had a 99% success rate across three decades. Soyuz is sort of like a VW Beetle. Old, basic, reliable, while the Shuttle is more like a utility truck...Large, complex, and capable. Comparing the two, even though the Soyuz has nearly none of that capability, doesn't make a lot of sense. If the Shuttle had been Russian and carried that 99% success rate, you people would praise it's reliability. But it's American, and so you have to ignore the facts and piss on it.
It is worth noting that there has already been one successful recovery of an un-controlled space station. One of the Salyut stations lost attitude control and electrical power, then froze in orbit, but was docked with and repaired by cosmonauts.
5:22 it is attitude control,You mentioned altitude control which is a whole another thing! Please mind , Altitude is the height from the earth's MSL and Attitude refers to the orientation of the space station!
All I want to say is that I am at a similar place when you started your channel and I am inspired by your work to keep on making my own videos. Thanks!
I haven't even watched your vids (I will in a couple minutes) but there titles are amazing and entice me to watch them u just earned yourself a sub Many small youtubers aren't as good as you
People like to hate on the Russians because of the tensions between Russia and the US. But, I respect the work the scientists at Roscosmos do and completely trust them to ensure the continued safety and reliability of the Soyuz.
Do you think it's kinda odd that someone drilled a hole in Soyuz MS-09, then Soyuz MS-10 explodes during launch? I mean the Russians opened a criminal investigation. Maybe they have a bit of a sabotage problem?
Fact error one, it was not the same launch abort system. The launch tower had jettisoned. It was the SRMs on the shroud that separated the descent module for the rocket. Fact error two, the astronauts can not come back anytime. The peroxide fuel the soyuz capsule attached to the ISS expires in DEC. This is the same MS-9 soyuz that they found had a hole drilled through it's capsule and was leaking. If the astronauts stay past that time, they run the risk of having to do a uncontrolled and potentially more risky orbital ballistic re-entry. Fact error three, the ISS is not the most expensive research station in the world. The ISS is out of this world. Additionally Elon Musk had a meeting at the White House the very day of the Soyuz failure. Coincidence or will commercial crew be push up?
They can come back at a later date. He mentioned that when he was saying Roscosmos can launch an unmanned Souyz ms-10, that capsule can be used to come down at a later date. The current capsule (ms-9?) can just come down unmanned.
The problem is possibly Roscosmos itself. With two failures in two successive missions to the ISS, their credibility is totally ruined. No one right now can ensure that Roscosmos won't push out another faulty rocket or spacecraft. The problem is probably with management and with poor oversight. I seriously doubt Roscosmos can fix the institutional problems and restore their credibility or confidence in their hardware in six weeks. On the other hand, SpaceX and ULA both have hardware at the Cape getting ready for in flight tests.
1: The escape tower is there for zero/zero escape from the launch pad and when the boosters are still providing thrust and significant acceleration. The shroud motors then provide extra altitude and space from the failing rocket. It isn't one or the other. The shroud motors are sufficient once the boosters reach burnout. The tower is jettisoned at that time to reduce mass. This is one of the things that distinguishes Soyuz-MS from the earlier variants which held onto the tower until shroud jettison. 2. This was addressed in the video. Replace the expiring Soyuz with a new one. MS-11 was already scheduled for December. So, with a timely finish to the inquiry, this concern could be mooted. 3. Pushing aside the conspiracy theory, the timeline for commercial crew can't be rushed too much. The capsules still need to be proven before you put crew in it. You don't trade lives for hardware unnecessarily. Remember, two Shuttles and crew were lost to launch fever. It could be that Musk had other business to attend to as well.
1. The thrusters on the shroud are still part of the launch abort system, they're just activated at a later stage. In fact, they also activate when the abort is down on the launch pad, does that elminate them from being part of the LAS? No 2. Did you really see the entire video? 3. Seriously? -_- Given the time needed to fly from LA to DC, no, it was not related with Soyuz, he would have had to fly before the failiure happened so no, he was there for another reason, maybe to lick some ass at DC so he won't be sued anymore for doing the idiot on the internet.
Very neat presentation. Coming to the soyuz issue I think the quick and the best way to resolve this matter is to do one or even two test flight tests of the spacecraft and send an unmanned or even a manned capsule to the ISS in December. An alternative way could be to wire the ISS to operate autonomously to a degree where it can maintain the station basics for 3 to 4 months keeping our fingers crossed that no major malfunction occurs due to internal or external factors.
The station can already run indefinitely without crew. Ground controllers already monitor all critical systems at all times. Some systems would fail in the event of decrew, but that isn’t a major safety risk (everything critical is very redundant; everything non-critical is not a risk)
Previous crew members have stayed onboard for longer than their original plans scheduled. Peggy Whitson did that, for example. It’s not a huge problem to ask the remaining crew to stay on board for a few months longer. Before the ISS was built, one cosmonaut remained in orbit for about a year, while his country dissolved; he launched from the USSR, and returned to Russia, via a landing in Kazakhstan.
Nice vid. A few minor details. In that quote from Leroy Chiao you stated "altitude control" but the quote actually referred to "attitude control" which pertains to orientation, not altitude. Also, you may have been wanting to avoid escalating controversy, but it seemed a glaring omission to note the air leak in 2004, but not the air leak which occurred on August 29th of this year (2018), just months ago, which appears to be by deliberate sabotage to the same type of spacecraft, a Soyuz MS-09.
The ISS doesn't have a lot to do with going to Mars. It can be used for examining the effects of weightlessness and perhaps long term crew stress (though the latter can be done on Earth). It is in low Earth orbit, not exposed to the various types of radiation that would be experienced on a trip to and life on Mars. I still have no idea why some people think that Mars is able to be colonized. Underground you might survive, but since Mars has little atmosphere and virtually no magnetic field, it is blasted by radiation and anyone on the surface would require a huge amount of shielding to survive. Any increase in the atmosphere via some type of terraforming would quickly be blasted away by streams of radiation from the sun and outer space.
I have to correct a little mistake that you said at 5:21. You said “altitude” but you meant to say “attitude” control. There’s a big difference between the two. Altitude is referred to as height and attitude is orientation.
Will the lack of the specific crew from Exp 57 and 58 impact any plans for the ISS or DM1? Do these crew members have any specific training that is needed (like the installation of IDA-3)?
Clearly the soyuz Engineers forgot to check their stagin, even masters can make rookie mistakes, in all seriousness though, as reliable as Soyuz has been, it's good that other options are on the way relatively soon
Thanks for the great video. I highly recommend you make better use of your videos description to explain about the video content, this will help with SEO as well as increase views. We would also share it on our website if the description had text content relevant to the video.
Soyuz MS-13 was scheduled to late 2019. If they get the program running again, wouldn’t that be a great flight to send a Mexican to space (preferably one with facial tattoos)?
Actually Soyuz and Progress are able to dock with uncontrollable station because it has RCS. Only Dragon and Cygnus cant do that, so it isn't a problem. There was such a situation in 1985 with Salut-7. Station had been rotating in several axis, but pilots made it.
Dragon and Cygnus have RCS. They can’t dock because they don’t have a docking port and only berth with the station. Crew Dragon has similar capability to Soyuz.
okay, I meant self docking ability. But there is a problem with crew dragon... There isn't one. So it cant help cosmonauts/astronauts get to orbit this autumn/winter or save the station if it will fail
Agreed. But the ISS won't fail immediately if it doesn't have crew. It would probably be fine for a few years in terms of critical systems staying up, though the longer it is de-crewed the more time the next crew has to spend fixing the (non-critical or redundant) systems that are much more likely to fail.
Of course. I think there won't be any problems even if ISS will fly unmanned. I mention this because author of this video said that it's a possible problem. Actually ISS is very unlikely to fail because to do that all the systems and their redundants must fail in both US and Russian segment. I think there are more politics in this type of "problems" than the real danger.
This brings up a huge issue with BFR. BFR does not have a launch abort system, if something goes wrong the passengers have no way of getting to safety.
It seems they're going to go with reliability and redundancy instead. There will likely be a pile of BFR flights with small crews before anyone stuffs 100 people into one. :)
Soyuz can't even make 100 failure free launches in a row. So I don't think reliability is viable. Imo they need a special BFS that's designed for people transport, that has an launch abort system. Once in orbit there'd be a transfere onto the long distance BFS.
@@muuubiee How many manned systems have flown a hundred times in a row without issue? I have no idea how things will be finally addressed in terms of large numbers of passengers. I just don't see the need cropping up early in the program but later after there have been lots of flights with small or no crews before they have to start looking at a escape system or transfer system or whatever system.
Planes fly thousands of times without issues. Even if they do get issues there are ways to deal with them, like a failed engine it's still possible to pilot and land, and with both failed engines you can try to land as well as you can without everyone dying. With BFR too many failed engines, or fuel issues, means every single passenger dies. Any pressure issue on the pad may mean the passengers can't escape, and everyone dies on the pad. Earth to orbit definitely needs a different BFS.
@@muuubiee Exactly, and like an airplane there will be times when failures are more catastrophic than others. In the airline industry they try and minimize with redundancy and reliability and because they do fly a lot they have been able to ID weaknesses and address either through engineering or maintenance (thought a large number are still human error). I think (but don't actually know) that spacex is going to try the same thing or at least identify the more dangerous points of failure during the early days. A full escape system for all points between pad and orbit is unlikely though just as there are situations in commercial air travel where a failure can be catastrophic. BFS doesn't even have to get to airline levels of safety and probably in reality can't. I think the odds of being killed in your car are between 1 in 80 or 1 in 100. If they can hit that point then at least it'll be as safe as driving somewhere and lots of people do that willingly enough. :)
I don't know why this is being so overblown. It is not a crisis to leave the station uncrewed. Yes, if attitude control also failed in that time it would be bad, but a total failure of both propulsive and non-propulsive attitude control systems is so unlikely that it's not worth discussing (in the 6-month-maximum span that the station could be uncrewed). The annoying thing is that several science experiments won't work, and some non-critical systems are likely to need repairs once crew comes back (which just takes extra time).
Why the Soyuz as a lifeboat has a expiration date? Does the propellant degrade or become less stable after prolonged exposure to Space radiation? Also what about teleoperating the GM humanoid robot to make EVA repairs?
Why sending an empty capsule when you can have a crew? If safety reasons are a concern, the Soyuz already proved itself as one of the safest launch system. So...
That was certainly a different perspective and extremely interesting. I do worry that now the Russians are turning nasty what will become of the ISS though.
The thing is "Russians being nasty" is a very general statement. It really wouldn't be in their interest to kill their own astronaut and destroy their rocket to kill an American astronaut. If this cooperation broke, ISS would be just as much as a loss to Roscosmos as NASA. Even if they did do it in purpose, it's not a killing blow. With ISS aging and NASA funding a large part of it's maintenance, end of life is in serious consideration, especially with the deep space gateway in development. (Although from what I hear it won't quite be an ISS replacement)
There is nobody in the ISS so what's the big deal. All the videos with the "astronauts" being held up by wires and the females having their hair fixed in place as though it's floating in weightlessness.. Laughable.
Lol, idk if you can blame it in his accent, he called the Astronaut "Hagel" I'm hoping it was the accent thought, otherwise, it doesn't look good on the research of the video.
I think this proves how safe the Soyuz really is ths rocket failed the crew survived. The space shuttle cant say that.
Only one shuttle failed while attached to a rocket and that was totally preventable.. the engineers told them not to launch in that cold of weather and they did anyways. The engineers said it would fail at that temperature.. the manager that signed off on the launch should have been charged with manslaughter. If you've Bennett watched the documentary about the investigation you should.. very enlightening.
@@jearmeymorgan8297 Very true, management made mistakes. Challenger was preventable, Columbia was potentially salvageable if they used gov satellites to image the belly and scramble Atlantis. However, I think design still has some role. It's a balance between simplicity, and sophistication. From what I've heard the engineers were under pressure from a few different agencies to to make a highly versatile vehicle that meets a number of requirements. This produced a very impressive and sophisticated vehicle that required more maintenance than was ever planned.
Jearmey Morgan - Buran, Soviet space shuttle had same facility as Soyuz, in that it could eject the whole crew capsule in case of emergency. US space shuttle never had that facility.
The Shuttle had a 99% success rate across three decades. Soyuz is sort of like a VW Beetle. Old, basic, reliable, while the Shuttle is more like a utility truck...Large, complex, and capable. Comparing the two, even though the Soyuz has nearly none of that capability, doesn't make a lot of sense. If the Shuttle had been Russian and carried that 99% success rate, you people would praise it's reliability. But it's American, and so you have to ignore the facts and piss on it.
But you have to agree that Buran was way better system them shuttle because Energia rocket and Buran were separate systems.
It is worth noting that there has already been one successful recovery of an un-controlled space station. One of the Salyut stations lost attitude control and electrical power, then froze in orbit, but was docked with and repaired by cosmonauts.
Movie was dope
Which movie?
@@MathijsGroothuis Salyut 7
yeah
I'm glad that SpaceX crew dragon is just around the corner and will give backup options to the astronauts.
And the Boeing Starliner, right after. And also the Sierra Nevada Dreamchaser, eventually. Lots of options going forward.
Ya Boeing has great reliability. Didnt know about the Sierra Nevada Dreamchaser. I'll have to look that one up! Thx for the info.
5:22 it is attitude control,You mentioned altitude control which is a whole another thing! Please mind , Altitude is the height from the earth's MSL and Attitude refers to the orientation of the space station!
After this mistake, turned off.. looked not professional. :)
@@virgis21 we're all still learning. Lei is free to make a mistake here and there, just like the rest of us.
Your videos are amazing and especially it is completely non boring.
All I want to say is that I am at a similar place when you started your channel and I am inspired by your work to keep on making my own videos. Thanks!
Glad to have you here
I haven't even watched your vids (I will in a couple minutes) but there titles are amazing and entice me to watch them u just earned yourself a sub
Many small youtubers aren't as good as you
inspiration is the millennial food that gives you fake euphoria
101k subs now. awesome
On an unrelated note, hello L.
yo
102k
2:40 should also mention the soyuz 18a mission which also suffered a high altitude abort.
People like to hate on the Russians because of the tensions between Russia and the US. But, I respect the work the scientists at Roscosmos do and completely trust them to ensure the continued safety and reliability of the Soyuz.
Hey I love Russia and especially roscosmos.
How about russian aggressive wars? >10k people killed on Donbas only. This is what you called "tensions"?
Do you think it's kinda odd that someone drilled a hole in Soyuz MS-09, then Soyuz MS-10 explodes during launch? I mean the Russians opened a criminal investigation. Maybe they have a bit of a sabotage problem?
@@THX..1138 definitely could be sabotage
Even though I am kinda American I do have to admit Russians: better at rockets, Americans: better at make military planes.
Fact error one, it was not the same launch abort system. The launch tower had jettisoned. It was the SRMs on the shroud that separated the descent module for the rocket.
Fact error two, the astronauts can not come back anytime. The peroxide fuel the soyuz capsule attached to the ISS expires in DEC. This is the same MS-9 soyuz that they found had a hole drilled through it's capsule and was leaking. If the astronauts stay past that time, they run the risk of having to do a uncontrolled and potentially more risky orbital ballistic re-entry.
Fact error three, the ISS is not the most expensive research station in the world. The ISS is out of this world.
Additionally Elon Musk had a meeting at the White House the very day of the Soyuz failure. Coincidence or will commercial crew be push up?
They can come back at a later date. He mentioned that when he was saying Roscosmos can launch an unmanned Souyz ms-10, that capsule can be used to come down at a later date. The current capsule (ms-9?) can just come down unmanned.
The problem is possibly Roscosmos itself. With two failures in two successive missions to the ISS, their credibility is totally ruined. No one right now can ensure that Roscosmos won't push out another faulty rocket or spacecraft. The problem is probably with management and with poor oversight. I seriously doubt Roscosmos can fix the institutional problems and restore their credibility or confidence in their hardware in six weeks. On the other hand, SpaceX and ULA both have hardware at the Cape getting ready for in flight tests.
1: The escape tower is there for zero/zero escape from the launch pad and when the boosters are still providing thrust and significant acceleration. The shroud motors then provide extra altitude and space from the failing rocket. It isn't one or the other. The shroud motors are sufficient once the boosters reach burnout. The tower is jettisoned at that time to reduce mass. This is one of the things that distinguishes Soyuz-MS from the earlier variants which held onto the tower until shroud jettison.
2. This was addressed in the video. Replace the expiring Soyuz with a new one. MS-11 was already scheduled for December. So, with a timely finish to the inquiry, this concern could be mooted.
3. Pushing aside the conspiracy theory, the timeline for commercial crew can't be rushed too much. The capsules still need to be proven before you put crew in it. You don't trade lives for hardware unnecessarily. Remember, two Shuttles and crew were lost to launch fever.
It could be that Musk had other business to attend to as well.
1. The thrusters on the shroud are still part of the launch abort system, they're just activated at a later stage. In fact, they also activate when the abort is down on the launch pad, does that elminate them from being part of the LAS? No
2. Did you really see the entire video?
3. Seriously? -_-
Given the time needed to fly from LA to DC, no, it was not related with Soyuz, he would have had to fly before the failiure happened so no, he was there for another reason, maybe to lick some ass at DC so he won't be sued anymore for doing the idiot on the internet.
you must be fun at parties.
Very well explained and beautiful production. Thank you 🙏
Great video as usual! Keep it up you'll get to 1 Million subs in no time!
You explain everything easy and detail. awesome 👌
I think it will all work out okay.
Very neat presentation.
Coming to the soyuz issue I think the quick and the best way to resolve this matter is to do one or even two test flight tests of the spacecraft and send an unmanned or even a manned capsule to the ISS in December. An alternative way could be to wire the ISS to operate autonomously to a degree where it can maintain the station basics for 3 to 4 months keeping our fingers crossed that no major malfunction occurs due to internal or external factors.
The station can already run indefinitely without crew. Ground controllers already monitor all critical systems at all times. Some systems would fail in the event of decrew, but that isn’t a major safety risk (everything critical is very redundant; everything non-critical is not a risk)
Love your stuff! ❤️. Keep up your great work.
Previous crew members have stayed onboard for longer than their original plans scheduled. Peggy Whitson did that, for example. It’s not a huge problem to ask the remaining crew to stay on board for a few months longer. Before the ISS was built, one cosmonaut remained in orbit for about a year, while his country dissolved; he launched from the USSR, and returned to Russia, via a landing in Kazakhstan.
Nice vid. A few minor details. In that quote from Leroy Chiao you stated "altitude control" but the quote actually referred to "attitude control" which pertains to orientation, not altitude.
Also, you may have been wanting to avoid escalating controversy, but it seemed a glaring omission to note the air leak in 2004, but not the air leak which occurred on August 29th of this year (2018), just months ago, which appears to be by deliberate sabotage to the same type of spacecraft, a Soyuz MS-09.
The ISS doesn't have a lot to do with going to Mars. It can be used for examining the effects of weightlessness and perhaps long term crew stress (though the latter can be done on Earth). It is in low Earth orbit, not exposed to the various types of radiation that would be experienced on a trip to and life on Mars. I still have no idea why some people think that Mars is able to be colonized. Underground you might survive, but since Mars has little atmosphere and virtually no magnetic field, it is blasted by radiation and anyone on the surface would require a huge amount of shielding to survive. Any increase in the atmosphere via some type of terraforming would quickly be blasted away by streams of radiation from the sun and outer space.
Very informative video,thumbs up, and I like the way you say we and our,instead of them and us.
First hurricane 🌀 Michael then this. It was a bad week! 😲
I have to correct a little mistake that you said at 5:21. You said “altitude” but you meant to say “attitude” control. There’s a big difference between the two. Altitude is referred to as height and attitude is orientation.
Or crew temperament, depending on who you ask
3:03
On the Left side: "Kosmo blyat..."
On the right side: "At least I got coffee and cookies"
so Roscosmos, ISRO, and the Chinese Space Agency all use the Starfleet insignia in their logos!
Thanks.you answered a lot of questions.
Will the lack of the specific crew from Exp 57 and 58 impact any plans for the ISS or DM1? Do these crew members have any specific training that is needed (like the installation of IDA-3)?
what about the hole drilled in the hull?
You are the best bro! Keep going..
Great Video.. Hey Lei, a great fan of ur channel
ty for the great video! :)
Clearly the soyuz Engineers forgot to check their stagin, even masters can make rookie mistakes, in all seriousness though, as reliable as Soyuz has been, it's good that other options are on the way relatively soon
I have heard the space station will be left with no people on aboard December
Thanks for the great video.
I highly recommend you make better use of your videos description to explain about the video content, this will help with SEO as well as increase views. We would also share it on our website if the description had text content relevant to the video.
what's is that song in the end?
3:33 did you mean April 2019?
Soyuz MS-13 was scheduled to late 2019. If they get the program running again, wouldn’t that be a great flight to send a Mexican to space (preferably one with facial tattoos)?
Can you do a video on ISRO's Gaganyaan crew capsule which is scheduled for launch by 2022? Thanks!
Which other UA-camrs have covered it?
Scott Manley, and EverydayAstronaut are two I watch
@@chris-hayes thanks
Why are people saying it's supposed to be attitude control? Isn't it altitude control? It was typed wrongly as "attitude" control, I guess.
6:16 i Honestly thought you were about to say this video it's sponsored by brilliant or something lol
:)
Actually Soyuz and Progress are able to dock with uncontrollable station because it has RCS. Only Dragon and Cygnus cant do that, so it isn't a problem. There was such a situation in 1985 with Salut-7. Station had been rotating in several axis, but pilots made it.
Dragon and Cygnus have RCS. They can’t dock because they don’t have a docking port and only berth with the station. Crew Dragon has similar capability to Soyuz.
okay, I meant self docking ability. But there is a problem with crew dragon... There isn't one. So it cant help cosmonauts/astronauts get to orbit this autumn/winter or save the station if it will fail
Agreed. But the ISS won't fail immediately if it doesn't have crew. It would probably be fine for a few years in terms of critical systems staying up, though the longer it is de-crewed the more time the next crew has to spend fixing the (non-critical or redundant) systems that are much more likely to fail.
Of course. I think there won't be any problems even if ISS will fly unmanned. I mention this because author of this video said that it's a possible problem. Actually ISS is very unlikely to fail because to do that all the systems and their redundants must fail in both US and Russian segment. I think there are more politics in this type of "problems" than the real danger.
One day will come in that can be ISRO also perform like this 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
Definitely bro. Our country will have its space station in coming years.
3:40 Alexander Gerst yeah!
why is there two Soyuz docked on the station
Enough escape craft for a full crew, if things go horribly wrong up there.
Didn't they have a backup crew for MS-10?
how close is the dragon.. that my question
This brings up a huge issue with BFR.
BFR does not have a launch abort system, if something goes wrong the passengers have no way of getting to safety.
It seems they're going to go with reliability and redundancy instead. There will likely be a pile of BFR flights with small crews before anyone stuffs 100 people into one. :)
Soyuz can't even make 100 failure free launches in a row. So I don't think reliability is viable.
Imo they need a special BFS that's designed for people transport, that has an launch abort system. Once in orbit there'd be a transfere onto the long distance BFS.
@@muuubiee How many manned systems have flown a hundred times in a row without issue? I have no idea how things will be finally addressed in terms of large numbers of passengers. I just don't see the need cropping up early in the program but later after there have been lots of flights with small or no crews before they have to start looking at a escape system or transfer system or whatever system.
Planes fly thousands of times without issues. Even if they do get issues there are ways to deal with them, like a failed engine it's still possible to pilot and land, and with both failed engines you can try to land as well as you can without everyone dying.
With BFR too many failed engines, or fuel issues, means every single passenger dies. Any pressure issue on the pad may mean the passengers can't escape, and everyone dies on the pad.
Earth to orbit definitely needs a different BFS.
@@muuubiee Exactly, and like an airplane there will be times when failures are more catastrophic than others. In the airline industry they try and minimize with redundancy and reliability and because they do fly a lot they have been able to ID weaknesses and address either through engineering or maintenance (thought a large number are still human error). I think (but don't actually know) that spacex is going to try the same thing or at least identify the more dangerous points of failure during the early days. A full escape system for all points between pad and orbit is unlikely though just as there are situations in commercial air travel where a failure can be catastrophic. BFS doesn't even have to get to airline levels of safety and probably in reality can't. I think the odds of being killed in your car are between 1 in 80 or 1 in 100. If they can hit that point then at least it'll be as safe as driving somewhere and lots of people do that willingly enough. :)
Even though I am kinda American I do have to admit Russians: better at rockets, Americans: better at make military planes.
I don't know why this is being so overblown. It is not a crisis to leave the station uncrewed. Yes, if attitude control also failed in that time it would be bad, but a total failure of both propulsive and non-propulsive attitude control systems is so unlikely that it's not worth discussing (in the 6-month-maximum span that the station could be uncrewed). The annoying thing is that several science experiments won't work, and some non-critical systems are likely to need repairs once crew comes back (which just takes extra time).
5:23 it says Attitude control, not altitude control.
How about the falcon dragon capsule
can't carry crew
Why the Soyuz as a lifeboat has a expiration date? Does the propellant degrade or become less stable after prolonged exposure to Space radiation? Also what about teleoperating the GM humanoid robot to make EVA repairs?
The propellant degrades
nothing to do with space radiation, by the way. just that hydrogen peroxide is inherently a bit unstable
Oh shoot i missed the event
I would say something but i can't come up with anything. Yeet.
I'm sure there's more research to do with the ISS but aren't they thinking about retiring it anyways?
Methinks this might be the way and the Russians have lit the match
Please make a video on the artificial moon project of China..
Why sending an empty capsule when you can have a crew? If safety reasons are a concern, the Soyuz already proved itself as one of the safest launch system. So...
Why hasn't SpaceX made a capsule yet? And please make an elaborate video on JPL.
They have a capsule, but certifying it for manned flight is no trivial task. They should however be ready next year along with Blue Origin.
@@chris-hayes what ? Blue origin ?! They don't even have put anything into orbit yet, how are they supposed to send people to the iss next year ?
Chris Hayes Not Blue Origin, Boeing.
Oops. Boeing, not Blue Origin.
Blue Origin's manned flight whenever they happen won't quite reach the ISS haha.
Mercury mission !!! Video plz
Oh, hi Lei :)
Hi
Come on... Shit happens, first time the Soyuz failed and everyone survived, still absolutely amazing engineering.
Just arrived here from The Other universe! Hit like you know what I mean ;)
I wish Borat sagdiyev will cover this news
Attitude =/ altitude
$20/year is really cheap! Will give it a try!
Good Wark
It's time to discard this vintage station
This is a severe blow to Soyuz's safety record I think.
Maybe, but the safety abort system proved itself yet again.
I am still a fan of Soyuz and I like the LES of Soyuz very much. One may say its outdated but its success rate can't be beaten.
All the Soyuz rockets on earth could never make the oceans curve around the exterior of any shape
hey
NASA watched this video lol
The days using Russia is closing as there are private alternatives nearly completed.
Soyuz!
Hopefully SpaceX gets the crew dragon up and running soon!
The hold up is with the bureaucracy.. not the capsule.
one time u wrote attitude instead of altitude😉
He meant attitude. He's human.
if we wait for NASA it will be another 100 years before we get to mars ...peace out
*attitude control and not altitude control
115 Likes and 0 Dislikes. Nice
That was certainly a different perspective and extremely interesting. I do worry that now the Russians are turning nasty what will become of the ISS though.
What's that supposed to mean?
I would have thought that was pretty obvious!
Exactly my point c Lyon!
The thing is "Russians being nasty" is a very general statement. It really wouldn't be in their interest to kill their own astronaut and destroy their rocket to kill an American astronaut. If this cooperation broke, ISS would be just as much as a loss to Roscosmos as NASA. Even if they did do it in purpose, it's not a killing blow. With ISS aging and NASA funding a large part of it's maintenance, end of life is in serious consideration, especially with the deep space gateway in development. (Although from what I hear it won't quite be an ISS replacement)
@@woodypigeon that's bullshit
YOU WILL NOT GO TO SPACE TODAY
*There's the face of a typical chinese stealing Curious Droid's name lmao*
There is nobody in the ISS so what's the big deal. All the videos with the "astronauts" being held up by wires and the females having their hair fixed in place as though it's floating in weightlessness.. Laughable.
Your accent straight butchered both of their names.
Lol, idk if you can blame it in his accent, he called the Astronaut "Hagel"
I'm hoping it was the accent thought, otherwise, it doesn't look good on the research of the video.
your accent is really really weird....
Bad !!!!!!Unsubscribe and sub to pews
Not much interesting