Astronauts Escape Failing Rocket - Soyuz Did Not Go To Space Today
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
- Soyuz MS-10 was supposed to carry a pair of crew to the International space station, but there was an issue shortly after staging which forced the crew to abort.
This video is already a little out of date:
Timeline on NASA site is incorrect, Launch Escape Tower does indeed jettison near to staging time, shroud jettisons 40 seconds later. The capsule was pulled from the rocket using the shroud motors.
This is the first time in hundreds of space flights that a crew had to use an in flight abort system.
At this time Soyuz is the only rocket able to send astronauts to the space station and the current crew will have to return home in 2 months. If the situation isn't resolved there's a chance the ISS will be left empty for a while. - Наука та технологія
Scott, the tower was indeed jettisoned, what pulled the crew out to safety was the shroud, it has thrusters and can do it and it has being reported by NASA astronaut Mark Vande Hei that that's what exactly has happened. The tower is jettisoned BEFORE booster sep, so by the time of the failiure the tower was already out and indeed there is other footage that shows the tower releasing from the rocket as expected and then a few seconds later the failiure happens at booster sep.
Thanks, info has been fluid and I’m glad we got confirmation of this. The timeline on NASA's page put the tower & shroud Jettison as 42 seconds after staging, but clearly the tower was supposed to be gone 10 seconds after staging. The shroud has rockets which can be used for separation and those were used in this case.
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/soyuz/timeline_ascent.html
@@scottmanley BTW, I've seen pictures coming from Alexander Gerst (ISS Commander) of the launch seen from there and I think he actually captured the moment in which the LES kicks in and puts the capsule away from the rocket.
Yep, I was sharing these on twitter but forgot to include them in the video.
Can you please tell us what the shroud is, as opposed to the LES tower? Also, what G-force results from use of the shroud? I know the main LES has wicked G-forces, have seen 17g given. Apparently much less with the shroud, but - how much?
Alejandro Alcantarilla You, my friend, are the man of the day with the answers. Thank you very much.
The fact they bailed and survived just fine shows the several decades long proven record of the system.
Why didn't they revert to launch tho?
You know those Russians, its all about that hardcore playthrough
They do! They didn't forget to bind the Backspace(Abort) key. Those pesky Russki knew the thing or two about how to into space.
@@RustedCroaker except when they launched a rocket from the wrong SPACE CENTER!
I see what you did there!
Russians always have the difficulty set to Hard - no revert to launch or quicksave. They really should load MechJeb though.
I speak Russian and was watching the incident live. As the fault happened, there was only one communication from the Space Crew, saying ДЕРЬМО. Roughly translated " SSHHHHIIIIITTTTTTTTTT"
Сука блять, Серега, падаем!
@Rhys Wong I know this from watching Russian dashcam videos. It's probably the most-spoken word you'll hear.
@@ShroomKeppie lol
I need to see this broadcast.
what the hell kind of letters are those
bartender pours a single jigger into a glass: man replies "i just fell out of a damn rocket, gimme the bottle."
vodka
A bottle of vodka
sourav thakur No, A *LARGE* VODKA!
Yosef Stalin yeah
If Russia had Tim Hortons they'd probably serve vodka at the drive thru. "Hi I'd like to have a large double double vodka" "Hey you're back I thought you were going to space" "yeah... make that TWO extra large vodkas"
The moment I heard of the abort, my first thought was "I wonder if Scott knows what happened."
He's my first port of call to get the real info.
Me too!
I acutally went to youtube after hearing about this just to search for Scotts video on this. Was not dissapointed
Same here. Scott is my go to guy for anything space related.
I saw the news article and before I'd even finished reading it I checked Scott's channel lol
I like how they called it ‘Ballistic descent mode’ that’s PHD for ‘OH My God! We are going to Crash!’
Ballistic rather than aerodynamic
Scott Manley it just seemed a funny phrase to me, but then I see things in a simple light. And thank you for the very informative videos, everyday is a school day.
It's not quite "lithobrake" levels of "science-speak for 'we're screwed'," but I see where you're coming from.
Ballistic, aerodynamic, whatever: the sudden stop at the end is the same.
Ballistic descent is the best descent.
A few fun facts about the crew that escaped the burning Soyuz on ground using the tower :
- When the tower was activated, the capsule underwent an acceleration of *FIFTEEN* Gs for 5 seconds
- During these five seconds, it broke the sound barrier *twice*
- After it landed 4 kilometers away from the launch pad, the Russian crew was recovered safely, and the first question they asked was "So, when do we go back ?"
4:30 I love the fact that the cosmonauts had the presence of mind to turn off the recording system before they started swearing. Now that's some self-control :-)
That's years of authoritarian rule that caused that.
@@sirbader1 lmao what
The Souyz saved lives since 1983 when activation of LES saved Vladimir Titov and Gennady Strekalov. Soyuz just rocks!
My only hope that engeenirs of SpaceX, Boeing and Lockheed will put the same passion to the safety of their capsules as Korolev and his teem did for Soyuz.
“Leave the ISS empty”... inviting squatters to set up residence!!!
David Webb heh, I could imagine Elon getting up there and being like “finders keepers, it’s mine now!”
I can't wait for a time where that might be possible- some homeless guy in a tiny spaceship he stole going and settling in.
@@Mostlyharmless1985 And without a space force, what are you going to do Kappa
They can't leave it empty - when they get back it will just be full of Space Raccoons...
If they leave the porch light on it might deter potential squatters
Rockets can be replaced....human lives not..glad the crew made it out Alive!
@John Toas so you're volunteering to be dinner, then?
@John Toas Alright let's replace you then
John Toas not astronauts. They’re probably the most expensive single part of a rocket. Consider that, apart from a few exceptions, all rockets are single use. They would have to replace the rocket anyway. Replacing the crew much harder.
Try telling that to the crews of the space shuttles
Our futile obsession with getting everybody back alive is killing our expansion into space
Im russian and i can say only one thing - shit happens. Meanwhile in our news sayed that something going wrong with connections between stages. Anyway it's the second Soyuz fail in history. Glad to see alive astronauts.
Vl1dimir 777 Same.. ain't no shame in the Russians space game.. among them best
Aren't they cosmonauts?
Niclaz Lindström I think one russian one not.
Cosmonaut and Astronaut
That is amazing only 2 failures!!!
When you disable revert to Launch for the first time
you can do that?
Ducktape a few falcon 9s on there
I felt bad never having to use the LES, so I disabled it.
Then crew dies due to a bug and I enable it again....
@@lordaaa9945 and use a lot of struts for safety
That is my standard operating mode in career. I only fly crew on certified lift vehicles though, that have made at least 1 good flight with a similar weight. I don't have random parts-failure enabled though, so I generally don't need an escape system.
I'm glad the crew is safe !
I remember that you said on another video that this was a great month for astronomy, that was before Kepler ran dry, Hubble got trouble and now this. That month turned quickly on us, you might want to rethink that comment.
Sure they are bit.ly/2Eo36v0
lol, I like it :)
T.E.C. --- I second that. Glad everyone is okay.
The Exoplanets Channel ...the Crew? Actors!!!!!! Momo
Impressive that the abort worked so safely. Glad these guys are OK - spaceflight is such an important venture and we need to get better at doing it safely. Props to the engineers!
I'm so pleased that the safety equipment worked so well. I confess that I am impressed by the reliability of Russian spacecraft.
Soyuz, the lil spaceship that could!
This is exactly why you want an abort capability. Glad those two men are safe.
While I commend your compassion for the men, remember that capability to abort is more about women’s safety.
While i applaud your consideration of the female, you would not need an abort system without the man
This was a thinly veiled jab at the Space Shuttle, but hey man, there's not much law around these here Internet parts, so you drive this cart to wherever you want. ;}
7 Space shuttle crewmembers disliked this comment, before abruptly dying...
@MrBadBricks did you just assume there species?
We have to congratulate Roscosmos. They managed to complete Earth-to-Earth mission before SpaceX.
lmao
Roscosmos
Roscosmos done it many times before, so nothing new here.
Baykonur - Zhezkazgan 15 minute travel time confirmed.
They also have good experiance in Earth-to-Ocean mission
"Turned off the capsule recorders so that they could scream obscenities..."
I totally understand that part, trust me I do...
Dutch J makes me think of the horrific recording from the Challenger crew - alive until impact..
@@LionheartedDan and Columbia
crew be like : Blyaaaaaaaattttt!!!!!!! Cykaaaaa;!!
actually yes it is terrifying if you spin 2wise a second at 5000km/hr i can also understand
also it came in a nightmare once and i was TERRIFYED didnt sleep that night and had to skip school that day while sleeping
I believe the Soyuz is a superbly reliable launch vehicle. Almost a thousand have been launched, and most of the failures happened early on, in the late 1960's. In recent decades the Soyuz has worked with the reliability of a Swiss watch.
Pretty ironic that my Swiss watch broke today but I get your point.
Fun fact: There were more Shuttle flights than Soyuz launches at the time it was retired.
@@HalNordmann Yeah but those astronauts didn't make alive from the shuttle.
I’m glad the crew are ok!
I'm just glad everyone is safe. Remember people, "Space is hard".
Just thank you so much for always being unbiased, Scott.
Thank you a lot from Russians for everything you do.
In 30 years from now, this will be featured in VintageSpace
Lol wtf :-D
Its weird but true
We'll be showing this to our grandkids telling them it's too dangerous to go on their week excursion to the moon
@@yaj126 yeah lol fieldtrips are gonna be on a whole another level
You mean that hot-looking girl is going to become a grizzled old woman?
Cosmonauts were first talking about feeling weightless, then getting ready for ballistic reentry. Towards the end they were describing g-forces, which were 2.. Considering the circumstances they did sound real calm and chill.
Honestly staying calm and chill is your only chance at survival in a situation like this. Kudos to them for managing to do that instead of panicking.
I don't think they select for panicky men in any such training problem but certainly not in Russia! These programs do have decades of experience in how to select men that may buckle but wont break.
Russians panic? Don't they fight bears on a daily basis? :p
Probably disappointed that they didn't get to go to the space station cause their rocket broke down, more than anything.
Cosmonaut and Astronaut*
Isn’t it amazing how safe is Soyuz over the years? It has ultimate priority to protect the passengers.
No, Russians have used the same technology over the decades. They have perfected what they have. Russians (especially under the Soviet Union) put less concern on the safety of the "passengers".
@@tetornow Are you crazy? Americans put less concern on the safety of passengers. Space shuttle had no rescue system. Americans: "Who cares". Technicians said that it is too cold for SRB sealing system on Space schuttle Chalenger. NASA bosses: "Who cares, POTUS Reagan is waiting for the launch too long". And astronauts died.
Astronauts critically complained that Apollo 1 is a danger shit full of danger materials. NASA bosses: "Who cares, POTUS Kennedy wants us quickly on the Moon". And astronauts died.
Cosmonauts died in Soyuz 11, when they landed without space suits. Americans in Apollo landed without space suits all the time. Even after the Soyuz 11 tragedy in Apollo 15, 16, 17 .
@@mareksykora5197, as a culture for decades, Russians under the Soviet Union were property of the state and very disposable. To a lesser extent under the Czars but still second class. America did not kill 10's of thousands of its own citizens, Russia did. America did not kill 300 or so workers in a launch pad explosion, Russia did. Yes, we lost three Apollo I astronauts. But Russia can not hide the fact that they lost several more in their first attempts to put men (and a woman) in space.
@@tetornow Those 300 death workers on the launchpad where a bad accident. People under the Czar were the same "property" as all english people under queen Victoria in old England, or french people under Napoleon Bonaparte in France. Sorry, but America killed much more cosmonauts than the Russians. Thanks to incredibly safe Soyuz system.
@@mareksykora5197, the launch pad accident was the result of intentionally overlooking safety protocol, the topic was the American and Russian space programs and cultures not other aristocracies and cultures, and yes there were about seven or so people on each shuttle mission.
This was an extremely rare anomaly ... The Soyuz has proven to be a safe and reliable method to the ISS for a long time - Just remember, every flight is a test flight. 🚀
Transcription:
- got the side blocks(boosters) engines shutdown, got the separation of side blocks
- got the first stage separation
- 150
- second stage engine operating normally
- 160
*BANG*
- here, launch vehicle fail. yes?
- 2 min 45 sec
- 170
@Scott Manley maybe you could pin this translation.
It was like that:
The timing is as before.
Groud: launch vehicle fail
Souze: Yes?
Groud: 2.45 launch vehicle fail
Souze: Well, we got back quickly.
Then it is just action taking on separation and re entry
i believe he said "booster failure"
This baffles me. Their ascent is going terribly wrong and this stoic bastard just goes,
"Well that was a short flight."
Rocket hast to be powerful to carry those men and their balls all the way up
Spent all day waiting for this!
You and me both
Same here! I kept refreshing my feed
Commentory from Roskosmos - meh
Commentory from NASA - ignore
Commentory from Scot Manley - YES. We are waiting!
In America, space rocket failure means the astronauts go for swim.
In Soviet Russia, space rocket failure means the cosmonauts spend night in hotel. =)
Correction - In America Space Launcher failure = Death (in the only case it has actually happened). This is the first case of an American surviving a launch failure which lifted off and didn't make orbit in the history of NASA.
Both sides have had more than their fair share of close shaves. Yes the Russians have lost more launchers...But they have launched a hell of a lot more boosters than the USA have, therefore the statics (I.e. Facts!!!) are in their favour. They have only launched two manned flights without an escape system (both managed to land with the occupants alive) and have only lost 4 people in actual flight. USA have lost 14.
And engineer gets thrown in the gulag.
@@richardvernon317 To be fair, the Shuttle was a fucking catastrophe waiting to happen.
In China an entire village gets wiped out.
Absolutely crazy! So glad they're safe! Col. Nick Hague's wife was my Air Force studies professor my freshman year of college! Hope he gets another opportunity to go to space!
4:34 .. "they turned the cockpit recorders off" ... damn that could have been one of the most well deserved "Cyka Blyat" tirades ever recorded. I dare to say this could have been meme-worthy material.
Mark Abrams I say dear boy. You might be right
Actually there is a video on UA-cam of Russian cosmonauts in orbit swearing in Russian, its the best
@@user-lz6kf9ue8c brb for links
Edit: Was that cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov?
Is that where they say "Я от тебя это слышу каждый раз"? That's not swearing that's idle mens' chatting.
Bump
5:42 ISS has been occupied since November 2, 2000. There was a 15 month gap in between MIR being occupied (Sept. 8, 1989 to Aug. 28, 1999) and the ISS that reset the timer.
that's a 10 year gap
Rhapbus1 DenseAlloy was just giving the years the MIR was continuously occupied (3,644 days, about 10 years, according to wiki)
@@Rhapbus1 he means human presence in space has had a 15 month gap between MIR last expedition and ISS first expedition when there was no human in space for 15 months
Most (if not all) of the early news agency reports on this today were awful. Lots of use of the words "bail out" and "7G" as if that was barely survivable, and "4,970 MPH" shows up as if it's significant, instead of just the speed the core was going when things went south. "Ballistic re-entry" always showed up in quotes , as if it's some kind of intentional maneuver the spacecraft makes ("Engage ballistic re-entry!"), instead of just falling back to earth. Then I came here, and all was made clear!
Two very lucky people, it's nice to hear good news for a change.
Amen that!
Unlucky* They wanted to get to ISS, but they're out of luck.
Saw this live. Was so intense. Those search and rescue guys are stellar.
I’m pretty sure the LES had jettisoned already, as is normal for the Soyuz launch sequence - that and if they got up to a maximum of 6.7Gs, there’s no way the LES pulled them.
The LES tower jettisoned, but the shroud was still over the entire vehicle. It used the RDG motors, which are part of the shroud and used in a tower launch abort sequence, to escape from the vehicle.
The voice of Ovchinin over the radio really was quite something. I am so grateful that they escaped unscathed, because as they were left weightless and in a roll shortly after the incident, I am pretty sure that for a moment at least even they feared the worst. Maybe i am just projecting, but that is how it seemed to me at the time.
It gone off when the boosters seperated and the failure happened when the fairing already flew off
The LES was not jettisoned, it was the tower which is not the only component of the LES. The shroud pulled away te capsule automatically after the sensors felt something was wrong, that's why the crew was shaked at that point in the video. If you look back, you can see they "relax" after what should be "booster sep", which is normal. HOWEVER the booster sep didn't go well so rapidly after that the LES kicked in and they were shaking due to that
The "6 to 7 g" was about the deceleration as they hit the atmosphere on the way down, being that high due to the ballistic trajectory. Nothing to do with how the orbiter/capsule got away from the rocket.
feels like an appropriate time to say: "check yo' stagin"
wow i think you need my profilepic xD but put one of these chubby lil fluffy pet things in there you know these "Hamster"
First in history: Astronauts survive in-flight launch failure. Nice.
Jj Timmins Apollo 12 doesn’t qualify? Hit by lightning, twice, on launch.
@@catguta That was not the same as a critical failure of the rocket resulting in a compromised hull/explosion. The lightning caused fixable electronic issues which could have posed a major issue, but wasn't per say an in-flight launch failure.
I love the way Russians design things: they expect them to fail, and make them so that the failures aren't fatal.
LOL So many is how many? As many as astronauts in Columbia and Challenger accidents? Soyuz flew for 50 years without fatalities, and as for the shuttle idea, whether Soviet or American designs, - sure it looked great, but designing something without an escape tower or parachutes in the event of an accident is not the most safe idea out there. Personally I would prefer crammed Soyuz, because if one doesn't make it to space, one at least has a very good chance of returning to Earth in one piece.
There was a grand total of 4 cosmonauts death, 0 during launch procedure. Compare that to the 14 death of the US Space shuttle. 7 of which died on the STS-51 few seconds after launch.
Russians ??? That is engineering 101 when designing any system in charge of lives. You watch too many Hollywood movies.
I mean, weren't the Russians the first people to the moon? Just merica has been the "first" to make it there, and back alive, the Russian crew plummeted into the moon or something fatal like that atleast. So id say thats a pretty good reason to make things that fail not to be fatal lmao
Arnaud MERET
I guess the NASA engineers skipped that class... because there were so many single points of failure on the Space Shuttle-two of which cost the lives of 14 astronauts and destroyed two orbiters.
I was looking forward to your excellent commentary. Thanks!
Thank you for this Scott Manley. I was looking forward to seeing your take on this.
Here is the difference between the Space Shuttle system and the Soyuz system. In one you are doomed during almost all of stages of the flight and in the other you are safe during ALL the stages! Korolev and his teem were geniuses!
Never over-engineer where safety is concern. Hope it will be the lesson for SpaceX, Boeing and Lockheed and their future capsules.
Yeh. If state capitalist get it right in any area it's that they can often figure out what really needs doing and then doing; as Eisenhower (or some other president) remarked when advised that the USSR was spending 5% of their Gdp on Defense " Remember that they have no one working in marketing" .
First, you cannot really compare the Shuttle with Soyuz. No Soyuz can transport 7 people, put a satellite on orbit or bring it back and also act as a mobile orbital laboratory. Second, do you remember Buran? Yeah, the russian shuttle which was enough over-engineered to be able to get unmanned into orbit and back. Also, I woudn't place in the same basket the russian safety principles, with a long history of rather lacking of, with the, as you said, genius and managerial capability of Korolev, a former convict for anti-Soviet activities. In a sense, both the Americans and the Russians politics interfered with engineers creativity with disastrous results.
Milutzu K you can very much compare them in terms of safety, reliability, punctuality and cost as vehicles for orbital spaceflight (for cargo both the USSR/Russia and the US had/have different rockets). and this comparison is devastatingly unfavorable for the US. the Soyuz is extremely safe and has not had a casualty in almost 50 years, while being basically THE workhorse of manned spaceflight for the whole time until today. www.upl.co/uploads/czREOoV3iKjq1Z3bDRv6c4Xyh1eUj9W5Xd0CTpMm46MCWfaHT10xdsHIpcKkOdq8qKOgmvpjQa0l7p7Jo2lGOs2S7xIpwlw2ONCTsYS6I1539300062.png speaks volumes (and that's just since 2001). while the Shuttle program was a complete disaster, with 2 total losses and 14 deaths, Columbia in 2003 basically leading to the termination of the whole program (along with wildly climbing costs and delays). the Buran, by the way, flew its whole mission on autopilot to orbit and back, something the Shuttles were never able to do (not that I encourage the whole idea of reusable space vehicles on chemical engines).
Of course, you can always compare apples with melons or grapes on some properties. You can also compare chimps with humans. But if you want to design a spacecraft you'll use a human as engineer. The same human can teach his children, sing, paint, etc. The human is more versatile and the evolutionary price is that the human is more... squashy. Of course the Shuttle was a disaster, but... 1. There were 14 deaths because of the bigger transport capacity. With Soyuz's 3 people capacity it would have been 6 deaths. And with dropping the big cargo capabilities and adding safe extract, maybe it would have been none. If you really want to compare apples to grapes, you have to scale accordingly. 2. the much higher complexity of the Shuttle increased the risks, which was statistically expected. 3. I brought the Buran-Energia as a counter-example for over-enginnering on the Russian part. With only 1 orbital flight (compared with 135 of the STS) is hard to make any statistics regarding the reliability of the Russian Shuttle. So I wouldn't say the STS was a "complete" disaster unless I want to forget or deny everything else it has done. Let's now switch the perspective. The Russians used the golden KISS principle, they had a linear development of their (manned) space program: Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz and I'll add as branches Salyut and Mir. US had Mercury, Gemini and STS, STS being a big departure from the "tradition". I'll put Skylab as a branch (and not the ISS which was an international project). And there's the Apollo project, another big departure from the "tradition" of a capsule on the top of a rocket. So, you see, we cannot REALLY compare the STS with Soyuz unless we REALLY want to be unfair.
@ Akin Khoo I don't want to get into conspiracy theories because I don't have hard facts. But it's true that in the STS project entered some political (and financial) interests. About the civilian interests of Soviets in the space, if I remember well, the Buran was intended to be a match for the STS capabilities because the Russians were afraid that the Space Shuttle can "steal" their satellites directly from the orbit. It was purely a political and military decision. And please don't argue with me about the Soviets, I know them pretty well, basically I'm next door to them. I know how the communist mentality works from my own experience (you care about safety only if you care about loosing your face, the lives doesn't really count). More, as far as I know, only the Russians destroyed, as a test, a satellite on the orbit leaving a lot of junk flying around, but I may be mistaken. Buran-Energia, safer than STS? Not much data to get a statistical meaningful comparison (1 versus 135 launches?). Yes, Buran could have been a "STS destroyer", it was a more modern design, more clever in several aspects, but from an operational cost point of view it could have been even more expensive.
damn, soyuz is pretty amazing to able to save them under such circumstances
Actually, it's pretty average. Every manned spacecraft except for one has had a launch abort system. That one is the Space Shuttle.
@@stargazer7644 the shuttle was the biggest death trap ever made. Glad it was decommissioned
Star Gazer and soon to be two when starship comes online
Eggbert08 the space station and Hubble wouldn’t exist without it
umop apIsdn not exactly true those goals would have just be achieved through other single use rockets.
"In the US, Dragon and StarLiner are still months away from being ready to fly"
Just weeks from now. Time flies...
Just a couple of weeks ago
Man that was quick
@@nigelwigglwattle the StarLiner will fly in a few days
In russia even our failed space flights make it to space and back in one piece.
Oh yes as opposed to the manned rockets in the US that have failed. Oh wait.
@@MichaelS-vy1ku Apollo 13?
Also crewed russian rockets have launched about 50x more than american ones
@@MichaelS-vy1ku
The crews of Columbia and Challenger might disagree with you.
Dave Webster lol
Michael S what do you mean by that? NASA has an entire section dedicated to the lives they lost
Check yo Stagin !!!
Keybinding fucked them
what is the staging you are refering to, young man
because if i may say so "this shit darn fukken lit" these lads literaly fell out of a rocket and live to tell the tale.
I was waiting for this! I was hoping for context and an explanation on a level that I could understand. You hit the sweet spot for the right amount of detail. Thank you Scott!
Really appreciate the speed at which you respond to space news. This channel has become my first stop right up there with The Everyday Astronaut! Glad to have such excellent content to draw space news!
Needed more boosters and MUCH more struts, the strongest form of construction.
When in doubt, strut it up, everyone knows that, use mirroring for easier strutting.
KSP reference?
It must be.
autostrut has not jet been updated to run with the 1.4.5 version
Imperative Games duh? Do you really think NASA has a “mirror” button in their construction hall?
And probably little less reckless drivers with forklifts and trucks going around like they're in a great hurry :D
KSP style: add more space tape and more boosters
What tape? Struts
They either forgot to add struts or forgot to set the staging. Everyone does it.
Duct tape > Struts
Antonaros Flex Tape > Duct Tape
Thank you Scott for the great update.
Thank God that the crew landed safely.
Still the most reliable rocket in the world, only 3 instances in 50 years, nobody can beat that record.
Plenty of other failures.
A 1950s deign rocket that is still fairly reliable, the r-7 is one of my favs !
*_T O T A L L Y R E L I A B L E_*
And it looks so Damn cool, too.
Fairly reliable? For a huge barrel filled with extremely flammable fuel powered by an controlled explosion its extremely reliable, you can count it failures with just one hand and in all of these cases the crew survived. The Soyuz is a space Lada.
Soyuz is a space Porsche 911
Space Honda. A rocket you can trust.
This happened to be one of the few launches I actually watched live and your right it was a bit confusing but im glad I can always rely on you to put out the truth
Usually when you hear "There was a failure with a rocket..." it's usually followed by "...and there were no survivors."
Good that this case is different.
Usually when you hear "There was a failure with a rocket..." it's usually followed by "and there was noone harmed". Because a huge majority of rocket launches don't carry crew.
In fact, the last time we had humans die on a rocket was in 2003, and before that in 1986. So I'm really not sure where what you are talking about.
Your space coverage is way better than the news I heard about this on NPR with no explanations.
You have to admit. That escape system is damned impressive.
One thing that stuck out to me and my fellow students at Cal Poly was the appearance of a significant yaw of the rocket following the failed booster separation. It appears that the entire rocket yawed significantly to the left, with the rocket body appearing from behind the exhaust plume. This seems to correspond to the capsule feed video where the astronaut and cosmonaut are violently jarred to the right of the capsule (consistent with a heavy yaw moment).
ok im not far off reality then cause that what i seen the "yaw" you called it. I am not rocket scientist yet I seen an event that was not matching the narrative. Thank you
It's happened many times when I played KSP :-) I'm glad to hear that nothing bad happened to the crew.
Glad the guys are safe and sound. I'm also glad to see the Roscomos system works. Onward and forward!
SpaceX is actually ready to do the unmanned Dragon 2 test flight, they've been standing by mostly because of the busy ISS schedule. NASA could greenlight the mission to happen now, and then speed up the crewed mission schedule. I'm sure SpaceX would rise to the challenge. In chess they call this tactic Accelerated Dragon.
I'd still rather fly a soyuz to the iss then with spacex..
I think nasa probably thinks the same... Soyuz is proven tech.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 but how are you gonna get new proven tech without testing new tech?
Catch 22
@@465fire you sent it a few times unmanned into space.
I don't know SpaceX schedule but I don't think they can launch 5 or so times in only 2 months.
Just popping in to mention the Space Shuttle, a vehicle with a crewed first flight.
I have watched your video for the first time (July, 2019) and have Subscribed to your channel. This is interesting! Hello from Texas!!
Awesome video Scott! Thank you for detailing all that!
Saw the headline on the BBC UA-cam feed. Came to you for the details. Thanks for your diligence.
This is why we need CST-100 Starliner, SpaceX Dragon, AND SNC's Dream Chaser. Backups launch vehicles and spacecraft for the backup systems' backup systems.
And I wouldn't turn down including the Chinese, Japanese and ESA either.
Ya I was wondering if they could dock a Chinese spacecraft with the ISS
The Russian vehicles are the best out there they been doing the job fine for ages
@@TheRagingStorm98 yah but it would be great to have options at times like this
ESA scrapped the whole Hermes system... Funding mostly but at the same time both the US-at the time-offered ESA Astronauts rides on the shuttle and Sojuz systems. Had ESA known the Shuttle program was going to be defunded the Hermes Shuttle would probably had been given the green light. The Ariane rocket is a champ and could easily lift the Hermes with crew and cargo. Sad really.
Can't understand why Saab Space in coop with Saab defence in Sweden doesn't make a reusable spaceplane. Talk to Airbus (Ariane) and get things moving! Or involve Boeing now that Saab and Boeing won the bid for the new US TX Trainer jet. That shows they can work together..
Put an adapter on the next dragon for a chinese one
Soyuz is so awesome, it has a very long service record, it's like the AK-47 of spaceships. I'm so glad that those men survived. Soyuz maybe didn't get them to space but certainly saved their lives that day.
Of rockets. Spaceships are in a completely different territory.
Scott you are the best in this field. thank you so much for making these informative videos
(click recorder off) "BLYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTT!"
More like BLYAAAAAAATTTTTTT CYKAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
must have said
I'm pretty sure they turned the recorder of because back then, you could get in trouble for swearing the wrong way. If you for example said something along the lines of "fuck those who put me in this thing", expect more then a simple paycut.
@@carljohan9265 headcut
SpaceX unmanned demo flight was planned for November/December 2018,
BUT moved to January - due to ISS cargo vehicle and Soyuz logistics.
SpaceX started, last week, they would be ready for original time schedule.
SpaceX moved to unmaned to April 2019
accckiy Nope still January
The current opportunity is before the astronauts have to come home, or many more months away.
We just have to wait right now to see if Soyuz will go before the station hast to be uncrewed.
No unnecessary risks will be taken
Excellent engineering. Well done. Any flight you can wall away from is a successful mission!
Really???---like going up everest and turning back 200ft from the top???
4:35 "the launch escape system did save the crew who of course immediately turned off the cockpit recorders so that they could scream obscenities without going on the record" LMAO
It probably had Windows 10 on board.
OsakaRose you could change it out to the more favored Windows 7. I’m getting a new laptop pretty soon to replace my aging 2009 HP Pavilion but I’m gonna have the OS swapped for Windows 7. Windows 7 still should be supported until at least the mid 2020’s I think. Even after there are still ways to keep an older OS in check with 3rd party workarounds & support. Having to upgrade to Windows 10 is a total myth perpetuated by Microsoft.
AAHHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHEU
No, comrade Ivanoff, it was 100% Russian-made disaster.
@@theatom7264 Microsoft announced that they will stop supporting win 7 in January 2020
someone did an update before the launch
I was watching the stream live and all of a sudden the Russian translator started dropping the word "failure". Not something you want to hear on a manned mission.
It was pretty funny though how the NASA commentator continued to read the script how everything is fine and the "telemetry" showed a normal launch when the engines had already stopped.
@@benbaselet2026 i wonder if the NASA commentator was pre-recorded.
On a manned mission any failure you can walk away from is a favorable outcome.
Yep, had the stream reminder on all day to then watch and know something was wrong when the the word failure and frantic morse code like sounds were being broadcast. Glad they are safe and abort procedures worked.
Me too!
The REAL REASON for the abort... They forgot the VODKA!!!!
nicely funny comment!))))
Pretty sure vodka is a part of the soyuz emergency survival kit.
dimitri you have the engines?
yies
dimitri you have also the oxygen for breath in capitalist space?
yies i have
btw dimitri where you put vodka supply
*shocked silence
DIMITRI WHERE IS VODKA !?
*dimitri pulls eject leaver
DIMITRI YOU CYKA
I am glad that we come a long way to improve the safety protocol to save life. Good work engineer!
An incredible escape. Reading others comments, who know Russian tongue, and were watching, they were very fortunate indeed. Supercharged re entry, " hold on to your joy joysticks , chaps ", and hoping for the best. Great upload, thanks.
My first reaction also was that the Soyuz has been so reliable that even with this accident I would be comfortable boarding one tomorrow, but then I was considering possible causes and remembering that the cause identified for the Falcon 9 failure in flight was the supplier of a small part of the rocket. It could be that a supplier for a critical part has let some faulty workmanship through their quality control, so while it is incredibly unlikely that there's anything sub-par about the rocket design and assembly, there are some other factors that could affect multiple rockets, and would like to hear what an investigation reveals.
or the russian government is trying to sow more disarray into the world, wouldn't put it past them considering the ISS hole, their meddling in different elections worldwide and the annexation of Crimea. not saying that's what happened as so many things can go wrong in spaceflight, but I wouldn't rule it out either.
Reading up there have been a significant number of failures in unmanned launches using much of the same system. 8 in the last 10-11 years and that is has finally happened on a manned mission probably wasn't a surprise to those who kept track of all this.
Fair few people saying that with the generation switch over, the guys who built these things from the 50s till 2000 retiring, a lot of skill and knowledge has been lost on top of the regularly expected reduction in funding, fraud and dodgy dealings that can hit any large project in any country.
Shady subcontractors. My bet is on shady subcontractors. A subcontractor QC failure is what caused the whole Apollo 13 drama.
If its malicious, (with two issues so close together you wonder) supply chain attacks are the new hotness for criminals to use and for security to worry about. Significant ratio of companies recently that have been hacked/had breaches were due to problems with their suppliers (or their software/processes not considering security appropriately)
"A manned spacecraft exploded! [...] Fly safe!" Mr. Scott I'm quite sure it's one or the other
Fantastic overview, and very good narration of what happened with historical context. Also, love the KSP figurines in the background 👾
I was one of the confused people watching. Something looked wrong. But then I was also tired and went to sleep before I found out what happened. Great video!!
A beautifully recovered failure Russia, Congratulations.
Alexey was calm and professional during the incident. The canned video had me confused during the replay I watched at 5:30 EST (9:30 UTC). After seeing the crew tossed like that, I was thinking - that is abnormal. Then I heard the translator saying, "Booster" and "Abort" while the NASA commenter was saying "Nominal" at 2:11 into flight. Then the "Weightless" translation. It was a scary moment for sure, but that is what training is all about. I am glad the crew is safe.
There was a joke by louis CK about astronauts. "If you ever listen to black box recording pilots are calm right to the last second, astronauts are the very best of them". Im paraphrasing and probably butchered his bit but you get the idea, nothing is gained by panicking, all panicking will do is cause you to make further mistakes, dont panic and you have at least some chance
You fly the plane/craft until it doesn't.
Timothy Fargo NASA can’t afford a translator?
Thanks for breaking it down for us, Scott!
Here's your translation from spaceflightnow.com, совпадает с расшифровкой.
“Failure of the booster,” a translator called out, presumably relaying a report from Ovchinin to Russian mission control near Moscow. “Failure of the booster.” Moments later, he confirmed the Soyuz had separated from the rocket’s upper stage, saying “we are in weightlessness.”
Moments after that, as the spacecraft plunged back into the thick lower atmosphere, it rapidly decelerated, subjected the crew to nearly seven times the normal force of gravity at one point.
“We are getting ready for the G loads,” Ovchinin reported. “G load is 6.7.”
“Copy,” a Russian flight controller replied.
“We are feeling rotation, the G load is going down,” the cosmonaut reported. “G load is 2.72 and going down.”
“Tighten the straps” for landing, the flight controller called.
Actually, there was more talks, but this is the most relevant part of them.
shoulda just toggled all the switches repeatedly until it started workin again tbh
purposly “I t hink the booster exploded”
“Have you tried turning it off and on again?”
IT Crowd = NASA’s tech support confirmed
Hey Scott, loved the video, but I do have a slight correction. In his press conference today, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine did say Soyuz MS-09 can stay in space until January 4th of next year, so there is a little more margin then you were saying.
I give your comment a like - although that doesn't really change the situation. There's still the same three options (leaving the ISS vacant I consider the far least desirable of the three).
Scott, great explanation!
Look at the launch video shortly before the abort. I noticed on replay that the contrail looked a little wavy, like if perhaps there was an engine problem, or if the teardrop cluster of engines might not had separated cleanly.
Then, just as the video inside the crew cabin was breaking up, the Russian ground controller switched to the camera back at the launch site, as it looked like then the booster after separation might had yawed slightly to the left prior to the cloud of liquid oxygen that you showed.
Scott, thank you for posting about this so quickly; I was hoping you would. From the cockpit video it looks to me like the crew was experiencing some pogoing; what do you figure was up with that?
Big up the safety systems! ... Imagine being strapped to a giant firework and living to see another day :)
Those standard timed comments for the launch milestones, including animations and graphics are very confusing. In this case, the commentator was just reading a script which was very stupid when it was clear that something wrong was going on by the tone of the russian communications. This is another point which I like SpaceX, they give you video all the way up until the last event.
Because SpaceX has control over their own launches and how to present them.
Um... the FH centre core landing - initially no video, no confirmation of what happened to the core, and telling their presenter to STFU when he kind of implied it had failed.
There's always a lag on these RUDs, Russian or American. The PAO, though reading a script, generally relies on headset chatter for actual mission status from CAPCOM or the Flight Director -- even if they have a live feed and/or telemetry. As jumping the gun is a bigger PR SNAFU than sounding like you're clueless, SOP is to just sound clueless for a handful of seconds. It's not a perfect system.
I love the Space X rocket booster landings, they remind me of my childhood watching 'Thunderbirds'
Ricardo Funes they always read a script! The whole thing is scripted.
You could clearly see the two bursts of exhaust but there did appear to be a couple small waves in the rocket's trajectory as well. And even with the video breaking up, it looked like the astronauts had a few good jolts as well with their knees and heads bouncing around.
And real quick, that was quite a story about that capsule tumbling down a hill and only being saved from falling off a cliff by the parachute getting caught on trees. That was one of those "thank God" moments, for sure!!
The Soyuz capsule is in unplanned descent once you hear "AN" repeated in morse code { di-dah, dah-dit } - this is transmitted on 121.5MHz, AM, during descent. (audible on the video) I think (but am not sure) it changes to the standard distress "chirp" or "pheewip" tone once the chutes are deployed for homing purposes. The AN code is to warn homing stations that a spacecraft is in descent mode as the event could take place anywhere on the planet at little or no notice.
Astronaut voice transmissions on 121.5 override both these automatic transmissions, presumably with a manual control so they can receive and chat with rescuersfor coordinating exit from the capsule.
Once upon a time this information was promulgated via Russian diplomatic missions overseas to international Rescue Coordination Centres, who then decided if they should promulgate them further or simple "be aware" in case an emergency occured. I'm not sure what happens nowadays though.
I was waiting for this video! thank you for the explanation. NASA was very confusing.
NASA, never a straight answer.
Wouldn't that be Roscosmos's fault and NOT NASA's?
You people treat the shitty Russian space program like some deity lmao
*"I'm Scott Manley. ABORT safe...."*
😊😊😊
I wish he’d said that. :-)
Amazing, so happy they made it back after the failed start!
Lucky escape. Good to see the Eject procedure worked this time.
Did anyone else notice that the exhaust of the 2nd stage was not stable?
No - and I'll give you props for even mentioning it.
Maybe *you* should be on the investigation committee, and slap some ethics into the corrupt ruskys ;D
Before the incident, it looked like the exhaust trail was showing an oscillation in the rocket. I watched the MS07 launch and just before the booster separation the trail behind the rocket was very smooth. The MS10 launch had some noticeable back and forth visible.
even at launch before release there were oscillation on the pad, dont know if that is normal. seems like one quadrant is off by miliseconds somehow...
I saw the trail 'wobbling' but thought it was something like high-altitude winds (you see the same thing sometimes in SpceX launches). Then something clearly went pear-shaped.
after "one" but before the cut... it wobbles right then left then right then cut..
I saw that too. It seemed like the 1st stage motors were gimbaling a lot to compensate for something, and that may have created the opportunity for one of the boosters to slam into the 2nd stage. I haven't seen enough "normal" flights to know if that kind of motion has happened in the past.
only problem is that they dont gimbal. each booster has two angled smaller thrust nozzles that are throttled up and down to do attitude control. I think something got pinched or pulled on the stage 1 and stage 2 junction from all that flexing.... although i have been watching a lot of earlier launches, and there are quite a few that do indeed rock like this... no pun intended! the other idea i had was that it seemed that there was some un-smoothness on the main nozzle ignitions after the 17 second engine turbo pump spooling up. and maybe this caused fuel balance problems instead of shaking damage.. if one hard started (too much bang) and damaged something, it might have burned fule too quickly and ran out in a non synchronized way, or maybe a valve was damaged open or closed so booster seperation was under partial throttle on one of the 4 boosters. telemetry should have indicated something, maybe they already know and arent saying! i would assume they could terminate launch even miliseconds before actuall lift off if someting measured bad. then again... russia!
Damn good reporting! Thank you for sharing.
The good thing is that the Astronauts can give good feedback as to what they knew or didn't know about - both important for creating an interface in the rocket for everyone to be able to see important information.