
Astronauts escape malfunctioning Soyuz rocket - farseer
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45822845
======
okket
"The Soyuz capsule has landed back on Earth carrying two crew members. Search
and rescue teams are in contact with the crew and are en route to the landing
location."

"Search and rescue teams report they are in contact with the Soyuz crew, who
report they are in good condition. The teams are en route to the landing
site."

[https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1050316612304175104](https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1050316612304175104)

Possible implications:

"You can be sure Soyuz launches will be grounded indefinitely. Commercial Crew
has to conduct a successful uncrewed launch next year before flying astronauts
to the ISS (and no - they will not 'fast track' anything that involves crew
safety)."

[https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/10503184728598405...](https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1050318472859840512)

~~~
tfha
May not be what we wanted to happen, but everyone got home safely. That's a
win in my book, glad the emergency systems are working as intended.

~~~
mikeash
I wonder what it’s like for the astronauts. One moment you’re sitting in a
rocket ready to spend the next six months in space, you’ve said your goodbyes,
you’re thinking about what it will be like, what sorts of pictures you want to
take, what you’ll say when you make that first phone call home from space...
and then ten minutes later you stumble out into the Kazakh wilderness and
start scanning the sky for rescue helicopters.

~~~
phyller
Yea, wonder if they felt disappointed or relieved. Regardless, they are part
of a very small club of "astronaut's whose rocket broke during launch and are
still alive". I wonder who else is in that club?

~~~
dba7dba
I honestly cannot think of any such incident happening in all the years of
space exploration. Crewed or not-crewed capsule. And I've watched enough
documentaries on Apollo and other space programs.

It's the beginning of a very very small, exclusive club, one that will
hopefully not be too big.

~~~
dba7dba
Learned something new today.

The other Soyuz incident in 1983 was Soyuz 7K-ST No.16L, sometimes known as
Soyuz T-10a or T-10-1.

Found below from wiki.

 _It was an unsuccessful Soyuz mission intended to visit the Salyut 7 space
station, which was occupied by the Soyuz T-9 crew. However, it never finished
its launch countdown; the launch vehicle was destroyed on the launch pad by
fire on September 26, 1983. The launch escape system of the Soyuz spacecraft
fired two seconds before the launch vehicle exploded, saving the crew. It is
the first case in which a launch escape system has been fired with a crew
aboard._

In early US space program, in one of the test flights before Apollo program, a
2 stage rocket failed mid flight. The rocket escape system attached on top of
the capsule fired and successfully saved the capsule. But there was no crew in
the capsule.

Just watched this PBS special on the US space program. Pretty interesting
footage.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jia78xRMTEc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jia78xRMTEc)

~~~
mikeash
The best part about that Apollo test flight is that it was intended to be a
test of the escape system, but it was not intended to involve the rocket
exploding underneath the capsule. It ended up being an even better test of the
escape system than was planed.

There have been some other, less consequential manned launch failures.

Apollo 12 was struck by lightning during ascent, and only some quick thinking
saved the mission.

Apollo 13 suffered extreme vibration in the second stage center engine that
nearly tore the rocket apart. (This is unrelated to the more famous problem
Apollo 13 experienced later in the mission.) Fortunately the vibrations messed
with sensors which caused the engine to shut down, and the launch continued on
the remaining four.

STS-51-F lost an engine a few minutes after launch. It was still able to make
orbit on the remaining engines, but ended up in a lower orbit than planned.

------
ChuckMcM
Presumably this will push up the schedule for the live abort tests for the
SpaceX and Boeing systems. That would appear to be the "nut" in the schedule
before those systems become operational.

Of course there is still a Soyuz attached to the Space Station and it can
return the crew, but that that would leave the station unmanned. Not something
it is really designed for as I understand it. And even before that drastic
call is made we can still send supplies up so it isn't like they would be in
danger of running out of stuff.

Personally I'm very impressed with the reliability of the Soyuz system. Still
I would love to have Boeing and SpaceX get certified sooner rather than later.

~~~
wolf550e
Boeing decided years ago to certify their in-flight abort using simulation
only, and NASA let them.

SpaceX probably can't create a simulation in a few months to not need in-
flight abort test because developing a simulation that NASA would consider
"proof" probably takes years.

NASA has indicated today they are not going to rush commercial crew [1][3], to
not press SpaceX and Boeing into go-fever which NASA has learned is very
dangerous.

Because the timing of SpaceX DM-1 (uncrewed demo flight of crewed Dragon 2)
depends on ISS visiting vehicle schedule, it might move to the left if
visiting vehicle schedule gets reshuffled.

NASA has indicated in today's briefing that crew must be present on station to
oversee commercial crew tests [2], so if ISS is de-crewed in December, SpaceX
DM-1 can't go in January as scheduled.

3 -
[https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1050423979561824256](https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1050423979561824256)

1 -
[https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1050423063655768065](https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1050423063655768065)

2 -
[https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1050421610270752768](https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1050421610270752768)

~~~
ChuckMcM
So somebody stows-away aboard DM-1 and then claims ownership of the ISS by
right of possession. :-) That would make for an excellent young adult
adventure novel.

~~~
mpnordland
I'm pretty sure that's when the US Airforce launches the X-37b and claims
ownership by repossession.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Yeah but they can't have anyone on board the X-37b, how can the claim
possession? (just keeping the plot line interesting here)

~~~
mpnordland
I dunno, there's probably a cargo bay in it. Stuff an airman in there with a
couple of tanks of oxygen and a rifle.

------
avmich
I want to remind everybody that Soyuz spacecraft - including the one with the
famous drilled hole in the orbital module - is manufactured in Energiya,
Korolev - about an hour drive from Moscow. The Soyuz-FG rocket - the one used
and malfunctioned in today's launch - is manufactured by Progress in Samara, a
major industrial center on Volga river, about 17 hours by rail from Moscow.
Rocket design is traced back to Energiya historically, but Progress was making
them last 40+ years.

Soyuz-FG is planned to be replaced with modified version of the rocket,
Soyuz-2. Soyuz-2 is already used for launches of unmanned supply ship,
Progress. Yes, I know, a lot of similar names makes things confusing.

------
mikejb
It'll be interesting for how long this will ground the Soyuz fleet.

The next scheduled Soyuz launch is Progress 71P on October 31st. I'm curious
if that's going to happen, considering crewed and cargo use the same launch
vehicle.

There's also 3 more (unmanned) flights scheduled for Soyuz in November (MetOp
C, Glonass M and EgyptSat-A) - so there might be pressure to find/"solve" the
problem as quickly as possible.

The next human flight is scheduled for December 20th (ISS 57S).

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Seems like madness to me. The Soyuz is very well proven at this point. I'd
happily hop straight on board the next one even after this incident, which is
more than I can say for SpaceX - don't get me wrong, I have every faith in
them and am personally a big fan, but the numbers are heavily in Soyuz'
favour.

~~~
CompelTechnic
Even if the design is well-tested, there may be a new process issue in the
rocket's construction that is undiagnosed.

Maybe there is a new person on the assembly line that doesn't know not to
pinch o-rings when assembling fuel tubing? Maybe a swaging tool has worn out
to the point that it is causing leaks? Maybe the vendor who supplies body
panel rivets got a bad batch of aluminum? There are so may possible situations
that it is not worth risking launches or lives over until a root cause has
been found.

~~~
solarkraft
I do doubt those scenarios. The other capsules have all flown very well over
the years and this one's safety system worked perfectly well.

~~~
Latteland
First let me agree that spaceflight is hard, even the billions that NASA
spends has led to so many disasters.

The problem there is with manufacturing and quality control. They've had
endless problems with other recent rockets and it's natural to think their
qualty problems hit this time. Spaceflight is one of the few area where the us
and Russia are cooperating and I hope this isn't the end.
[https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2013/07/10/200775748...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2013/07/10/200775748/report-upside-down-sensors-toppled-russian-rocket)

------
r721
>Crew now in helicopters and heading back to the launch site, not Moscow. Nick
will be picked up by NASA and flown to the States.

[https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/10503432631636008...](https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1050343263163600896)

UPD Crew photos:

[https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1050351423022669825](https://twitter.com/roscosmos/status/1050351423022669825)

~~~
mikejb
It's sad to see them so disappointed! They were lucky as fuck considering that
the incident happened approximately when the escape tower gets jettisoned
(i.e. it wouldn't have been an option even if the booster RUDs), but I'd
probably disappointed as well when I'm planning on getting the most amazing
views possible for months, but get a short high-force roller coaster ride
instead.

~~~
dba7dba
They are indeed lucky and unlucky AF.

Lucky to be alive after such an incident.

Unlucky to have gotten on top of a Soyuz rocket system that failed, when it's
been proven to be so incredibly reliable all these years.

------
acoye
This video has the crew audio with a translator. It amazes me that the
telemetry is faked (all is good and well), yet the audio is legit.
[https://youtu.be/c0l5QBmqQoI?t=271](https://youtu.be/c0l5QBmqQoI?t=271)

~~~
mikejb
On one hand, it's indeed odd to hear that shit's on fire whilst the screen
shows an all happy scenario; On the other hand, it's the cheaper way of doing
things - instead of having to live-render the spacecraft and all telemetry
that you need to get from a probably isolated system, just play a video.
Trajectory and events are predetermined, so unless something goes wrong, the
video is fully sufficient.

I'm reminded a bit of the moment when I learned that the action movie heroes
are just actors.

~~~
acoye
I do agree on the cheap and pragmatic approach, yet they could display actual
telemetry over the 3d render. Speeds do not match reality in graphs. It is not
a movie but Science to me here.

I'd love to hear from a SpaceX engineer if their webcasts indeed shows live
telemetry (speed / altitude) or not. Also SpaceX's webcasts illustrations
looks like they run in a game engine which is both cheap and highly
customizable with input data.

~~~
mikejb
Yes, SpaceX puts a lot more effort into the webcasts. I don't know if their
telemetry is live or precomputed (though it is likely live, see below) - but
the fact that they show live feed of the rocket rather than a simulation
(except for Stage 2 coasting periods where they render the spacecrafts' orbit)
already gives the entire display a different feel. (At this point it's also
important to note that this live feed got them into trouble once [1]).

I also agree with your sentiment that the movie removes a bit of the
scientific aspect.

 _Insert here a good 30 minutes spent on watching launch footage and writing
down numbers_

Ok, at this point I'm deep in looking at launch footage, and I'm more
disappointed by the Soyuz launch footage. Whilst it's possible that they
followed the exact same launch trajectory (on paper and reality), it's
unlikely: MS-08 [2] and MS-09 [3] had the exact same speed, altitude and
downrange distance throughout the time telemetry was visible. In contrast,
SpaceX showed very different telemetry during launches to the ISS ([4], [5],
[6]). Also, it doesn't seem pre-computed: The telemetry during the CRS-7
webcast [7] at least doesn't just continue when the rocket explodes,
indicating that it doesn't just display pre-computed numbers.

In Soyuz' defense: They probably have a different (older?) system to get
telemetry, and it might bear additional challenges to feed them into a
publicly accessible live-stream.

[1] [https://www.space.com/40153-spacex-launch-video-noaa-
restric...](https://www.space.com/40153-spacex-launch-video-noaa-
restrictions.html)

[2] [https://youtu.be/iDebCdDHHpg?t=365](https://youtu.be/iDebCdDHHpg?t=365)

[3] [https://youtu.be/00uftjSjcnk?t=364](https://youtu.be/00uftjSjcnk?t=364)

[4] [https://youtu.be/C_Gmgj3N_Z0?t=1270](https://youtu.be/C_Gmgj3N_Z0?t=1270)

[5] [https://youtu.be/FCCyVCvN2bo?t=1179](https://youtu.be/FCCyVCvN2bo?t=1179)

[6] [https://youtu.be/rUDLxFUMC9c?t=1036](https://youtu.be/rUDLxFUMC9c?t=1036)

[7] [https://youtu.be/JYFLoTgO-xQ?t=1286](https://youtu.be/JYFLoTgO-xQ?t=1286)

~~~
orbital-decay
> They probably have a different (older?) system to get telemetry, and it
> might bear additional challenges to feed them into a publicly accessible
> live-stream.

That is correct. Proton-M launches, on the other hand, had a live stream with
probably the most detailed telemetry ever. That particular stream wasn't
public, but was available to anyone on request.

~~~
regnerba
Is there a recording available somewhere or an image of how it looked?

~~~
orbital-decay
Here's a screenshot of their lowres public telemetry stream dated back to 2009
(Eutelsat W7, if I remember correctly). [0] Unfortunately I don't have any
screenshots or recordings of the by-request one, but it had tons of info, down
to the bus voltages. The L2 section of nasaspaceflight.com might have
something available, but I'm not sure.

They seem to have closed it somewhere around 2014 or 2015, possibly to avoid
bad publicity or speculations.

[0] [https://i.imgur.com/2pzbGNV.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2pzbGNV.jpg)

~~~
regnerba
Thanks for the link and info. Will d some more looking later this evening.

------
Tossrock
First the mysterious hole and now this. Quality control at Energia is looking
really questionable. Commercial Crew can't get here soon enough.

~~~
nhoss2
The Soyuz-FG which has been used since 2001 has had a 100% success rate till
today. Seems pretty good to me.

~~~
Tossrock
I agree that the Soyuz has been very reliable historically, but two major
incidents involving it within a few weeks has the appearance of a trend.

~~~
zaarn
Soyuz is literally the most reliable launch vehicle and two datapoints are not
a trend. Any two datapoints form a line, ie a trend.

~~~
DanBC
> Any two datapoints form a line, ie a trend.

Two datapoints are not a trend.

People who use run charts (control charts,time series charts) talk about
trends being a set of five points all going the same way.
[http://www.qihub.scot.nhs.uk/media/529936/run%20chart%20rule...](http://www.qihub.scot.nhs.uk/media/529936/run%20chart%20rules.pdf)

~~~
zaarn
While I generally agree, I'm being more generic.

A single data point doesn't establish any direction or trend at all.

With two data points you can establish a trend and make a prediction about the
next data point. However, any two data points form a line, so any two results
can be used to make a trend, however wrong it may be.

Only when more points are used can you confirm the trend and reduce the
probability of being (un)lucky.

~~~
katrotz
Two in a row is a coincidence, three in a row might be a rule

------
freddier
Does this mean we're out of options to get humans to the ISS?

SLS is nowhere near, Dragon is coming next year. Soyuz has been extremely
reliable but with two incidents they'll surely ground flights for a while.

Is there any other option?

~~~
imdsm
Perhaps this means the priority of SpaceX manned flights will be pushed up. We
could end up seeing this much sooner.

~~~
rtkwe
They already said they won't rush anything because that's just as dangerous as
using the Soyuz again before figuring out the reason for the failure. That
said this does open up a visiting vehicle slot that Dragon could use for their
unmanned test flight. That'd only push it up about a month though compared to
their current estimate and would require SpaceX to be ready to launch earlier
than planned.

------
exDM69
This occured minutes ago.

This live stream coverage shows the failure in the end
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8d9CqS2cvc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8d9CqS2cvc)

NASA live stream last minutes have audio track (in russian and translated to
english) following the failure.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDcYgYQbHg8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDcYgYQbHg8)

Both streams were abruptly halted, but links work for now.

Crew survived.

~~~
modernerd
Timestamp of booster failure / eject seems to be 3:06:36.

[https://youtu.be/O8d9CqS2cvc?t=11194](https://youtu.be/O8d9CqS2cvc?t=11194)

~~~
bulatb
Between 3:06 and 3:07 they're reporting first stage separation was good and
the rocket is performing well.

3:07:15: The male Russian voice says "Booster failure, right? Two minutes,
forty-five seconds."

~~~
bulatb
Other sources are saying the problem happened at booster separation. Maybe
that was the initial cause and the actual failure developed some seconds
later?

Not sure how to reconcile that with this audio.

~~~
ygra
The telemetry will tell. Rockets send back heaps of data from dozens, if not
hundreds of sensors. All that is stored precisely so there's no guesswork
based on a ground camera and the real-time audio needed.

------
AdverseAffect
> There is already much discussion about the current state of Russian industry
> and its ability to maintain the standards of yesteryear. Whatever the
> outcome of the inquiry, this event will only heighten those concerns and
> will underline to the US in particular the need to bring online new rocket
> systems. These vehicles, produced by the Boeing and SpaceX companies, are
> set to make their debut next year.

Is it just me, or is this unnecessarily hostile writing? This is literally
rocket science, and the escape mechanisms seem to have worked perfectly. And
at least the Russians do have (had) a working way to get stuff to iss, so I
don't think these (uncited!) accusations are called for

~~~
sschueller
I agree, the writing seems quite hostile. Everything get politicized
immediately nowadays which is quite sad.

~~~
gameswithgo
Sir, there was nothing political about the quoted paragraph assuming that it
is accurate that the industry have been discussing russian space reliability.
In fact it would be you who has politicized it now.

~~~
AdverseAffect
I'm not following news about space, and was just going from what I read. he
article did not provide any context or sources for these claims. Now that HN
has filled in thw gaps, it does sound like Russia might have a problem with
their tech. But imo BBC should have quoted either other articles or experts on
the matter when making statements like this

------
supahfly_remix
It's amazing that the escape mechanisms worked, though we have yet to see the
crew's conditions. I thought these mechanisms were only put in place to put
people at ease but were never actually going to work (kind of like how the
seats in commercial jets serve as flotation devices but how likely are they to
be used in most flights).

~~~
maxxxxx
I think the escape towers have always been considered as workable. The Space
Shuttle had a few emergency modes that were considered as very questionable.
For example there was one where they would turn the Shuttle around and fly
back to the launch site which was considered as very difficult to say the
least.

~~~
mikeash
The commander of the first Shuttle flight said, “RTLS requires continuous
miracles interspersed with acts of God to be successful.”

~~~
annadane
John Young!

------
wiz21c
FTA :

>>> The crew had to return in "ballistic descent mode", Nasa tweeted, which it
explained was "a sharper angle of landing compared to normal".

is it me or is it a very diplomatic qay to sell : "fallen vertically" ?

~~~
FabHK
My understanding is that "ballistic" means without any form of propulsion
(except the initial one sending it on its way). In other words, like a
projectile (or a ball), just subject to the forces of gravity and air
resistance.

In other words: falling, yup.

(But note that one could "fall" upwards or sideways initially - not like
Arthur Dent [1], but like a bullet (or indeed rocket) fired upwards).

[1] The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy states: "There is an art to flying,
or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the
ground and miss. ... Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, that
presents the difficulties."

~~~
stult
I believe the Soyuz SAS has engine thrusters for the landing sequence. So
ballistic may mean the thrusters were not operable and they may have landed a
bit harder than normal (normal for an abort sequence at least). Meaning they
were still under canopy, just falling at a higher impact velocity than
intended. So maybe rather than a gentle landing at 5m/s it was more like a car
crash at 20 m/s. Beats blowing up with the rocket or hitting the ground at
terminal velocity, though, and presumably the reports of "good condition" mean
there are at most some concussions and broken bones.

~~~
FabHK
Wikipedia has some pertinent (and interesting) details:

> The Descent Module (Russian: Спуска́емый Аппара́т, tr. Spuskáyemy Apparát),
> also known as a reentry capsule, is used for launch and the journey back to
> Earth. Half of the Descent Module is covered by a heat-resistant covering to
> protect it during reentry; this half faces the Earth during re-entry. It is
> slowed initially by the atmosphere, then by a braking parachute, followed by
> the main parachute which slows the craft for landing. At one meter above the
> ground, solid-fuel braking engines mounted behind the heat shield are fired
> to give a soft landing. One of the design requirements for the Descent
> Module was for it to have the highest possible volumetric efficiency
> (internal volume divided by hull area). The best shape for this is a sphere
> — as the pioneering Vostok spacecraft's Descent Module used — but such a
> shape can provide no lift, which results in a purely ballistic reentry.
> Ballistic reentries are hard on the occupants due to high deceleration and
> cannot be steered beyond their initial deorbit burn. That is why it was
> decided to go with the "headlight" shape that the Soyuz uses—a hemispherical
> forward area joined by a barely angled (seven degrees) conical section to a
> classic spherical section heat shield. This shape allows a small amount of
> lift to be generated due to the unequal weight distribution.

So, maybe _ballistic_ refers to the fact that no lift was generated? (A glider
is not considered ballistic, even though it has no propulsion.)

An, and indeed, that's what Wiktionary says:

> _ballistic entry:_ when an entry vehicle has only drag with no apparent
> lift. An axisymmetric entry vehicle would have no apparent lift if its
> angle-of-attack time averaged out to zero, e.g. sinusoid angle-of-attack
> centered or trimmed about zero lift.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(spacecraft)#Descent_mod...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_\(spacecraft\)#Descent_module)

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary_of_atmosphe...](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary_of_atmospheric_reentry)

~~~
mcguire
Here's a diagram of the descent module, if you are having trouble with the
description:

[https://i.stack.imgur.com/BUYME.png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BUYME.png)

Edit: BUYME?

------
mxfh
NASA Twitter feed has near real time updates on the developing situation:
[https://twitter.com/NASA](https://twitter.com/NASA)

------
hacker_9
It says escape, as in past tense, in the title, but is there confirmation of
this? The article body seems to suggest they are still in the air?

~~~
DarkCow
NASA TV reports that the capsule is down and the S&R team is in contact with
the astronauts, who are in "good condition".

~~~
hacker_9
Phew, thankfully a good ending.

------
ithkuil
I was just reading Phillip P. Peterson's Paradox - On the Brink of Eternity,
which starts (mini spoiler alert) with an adventure with a Soyuz module, so
when I read this news for a moment I though I was still dreaming after having
fell asleep on the book.

------
ashelmire
Ballistic descent mode is an interesting euphemism for falling like a rock.

The US really needs to invest more in our own infrastructure and astronaut
delivery system.

~~~
zaarn
The crucial difference is that (IIRC) in ballistic descent you don't angle the
craft to gain altitude and prolong reentry.

Normally you'd slightly angle the craft downwards or upwards to alter the
trajectory in the air, during reentry this allows you to stay longer at high
altitudes and burn off more speed before you burn it at lower altitudes
(literally).

The shape of the craft not being a wing is largely irrelevant, with sufficient
speed even a brick can fly.

~~~
FabHK
Yes, _ballistic_ here apparently means without propulsion, and without
generating lift (only drag).

~~~
ddalex
Means like a _ball_ in the sense of 'cannonball'

------
Separo
It's worrying that there isn't an escape system on SpaceX BFR.

~~~
kitsunesoba
Escape on BFR will likely be similar to escape with Falcon 9/Crew Dragon: that
is, BFS itself has more than enough thrust to very quickly distance itself
from a failing BFB, and it would probably be able to land itself on a nearby
but safely distant emergency landing pad.

Now an argument can be made that BFS needs an escape pod or two, but those
would mostly be useful in circumstances other than failure during launch.

(For those unfamiliar, BFB = Big Falcon Booster, BFS = Big Falcon Ship. BFR is
both working in unison)

------
alberteinstein
The system with worst or no abort procedures is the Space Shuttle. Earlier
versions had ejection seats, but they got rid of that. Imagine if they had
Soyuz like capsule which can popped off. Both Challenger and Discovery crew
would have been ok. No wonder they discontinued that program.

------
mar77i
Long ago I watched this video that describes Soyuz reentry. I thought it was
cool at the time, and I think it really gives context to the occasion.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII)

~~~
Latteland
That's a great video. Around the 14 minute and 40 second point they discuss
briefly ballistic return but they don't really put any details. A few minutes
before that they do talk about the return. That's actually the best video I've
ever seen about the specifics of returning from space. Thank you so much.

------
larkeith
Does "ballistic descent mode" mean that the braking thrusters were inoperable,
or just that the launch escape system was not in use?

~~~
sathackr
It means that the angle of descent of the capsule was much greater, so they
encountered thicker atmosphere quicker than ideal, causing greater
decelleration forces on the capsule than they would normally experience.

------
wmblaettler
A little more footage from moments before the failure of the booster which
happens sometime between 3m39 and 4m39s in the video, listen to the Russian
comms:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0l5QBmqQoI&t=3m38s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0l5QBmqQoI&t=3m38s)

------
andyjohnson0
I've seen multiple reports that the crew's first indication of a problem was
that they felt weightless and that objects in the cabin were floating. Maybe
there was also an instrumentation-based warning for the crew or ground, but
it's odd that nobody is mentioning it.

------
TomK32
With the holed one docked to the ISS that no one is keen to de-orbit with and
this flight having one crew less they are getting into some situation now.

I guess they could send Soyuz MS-11 without crew so the current ISS crew has a
more reliable craft for their own return.

~~~
24gttghh
The hole in [the orbital module of] the docked Soyuz is on the part that is
jettisoned before re-entry.

"The orbital module is a spherical portion of the Soyuz that allows more gear
to go up with the spacecraft. Unlike the lower crew capsule, the orbital
module does not survive re-entry into Earth's atmosphere."[0]

[0][https://www.space.com/41738-soyuz-spacecraft-air-leak-
hole-o...](https://www.space.com/41738-soyuz-spacecraft-air-leak-hole-origin-
report.html)

------
latchkey
The footage inside: [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/inside-soyuz-
capsule_...](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/inside-soyuz-
capsule_uk_5bbf2083e4b0b27cf47adfe1)

------
PuffinBlue
This footage appears to show the the Launch Escape System striking the booster
as it separates:

[https://youtu.be/sE4BSAcQCfo](https://youtu.be/sE4BSAcQCfo)

~~~
cpv
Those might be the boosters separating. And probably a small explosion, or
just the gases from the separation.

Edit: the boosters separated, and due to failure it might activated the escape
capsule.

------
djohnston
"The malfunction became apparent about 90 seconds into the flight" _Shows 90
second video_ I am annoyed..

------
supergirl
everyone that thinks spacex will transport people soon is naive / drunk on
hype. they are at least 5 years away from flying humans in space. depends on
how many test flights they can do. you just can’t rush this. it is one domain
where “move fast break things” is a bad idea.

------
kolderman
Why is this a bad thing? A working abort system is a very good thing. Rockets
fail.

------
TickleSteve
"ballistic descent mode" == "falling".

------
sAbakumoff
Hmm...it's the 2nd emergency situation with Russian Soyuz happened within ±1
month. is there anything SpaceX can do to safely deliver austonauts in ISS?

~~~
imandride
Add an emergency escape system.

~~~
ceejayoz
SpaceX's crewed Dragon _is_ the escape system. It's built into the capsule,
and has been successfully tested.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8)

The BFR, to my knowledge, lacks one. Not sure if Musk has commented on that;
I'd imagine his likely argument is that airliners don't either.

------
magwa101
Why are we doing this with Russia?

------
SpikeDad
Didn't even make any news sources that I've seen. 8-(

------
mito88
Everytime an article mentions ISS my brain immediately parses ISIS...

:)

------
avaika
TIL: every start is blessed by Orthodox Priest (what? :) ). They claim that
only the capsules they didn't bless might crash. The very this capsule was
blessed [1]. So the Russian Church might have a hard time to explain how the
crash happened :)

[1]:
[https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1049897639393861632](https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1049897639393861632)

~~~
fapjacks
Hey, so... Orthodox priests bless literally everything. It's so common for
them to bless things like rifles, tanks, parachutes, liquor, et cetera, that
it's kind of an in-joke in Orthodox cultures and regions. But you go look
online and you'll see them blessing I mean literally everything.

~~~
gambiting
It's not just orthodox church either.....in Poland it's extremely common for
Roman Catholic priests to be invited to military and government events to
bless things too.

~~~
vectorEQ
this just makes me think of scene from life of brian :') blessed be the
cheesemakers

------
johndill
I'm gonna need a new spacesuit

------
vbezhenar
Looks like diversion from competitors.

------
interfixus
Some Gell-Mann amnesia urgently required. A local paper headlines that "*a
rocket with two astronauts has made emergency landing".

Same media house which some years ago told me that the Voyager spacecraft was
provided with "a radioactive fuel ensuring continual thrust".

