...and that Soviet Viva is less likely to randomly incinerate the occupants as opposed to the former shuttle.

Considering that the Space Shuttle Program lasted 30 yrs from 1981 to 2011, during which there were 133 successful launches (and two failures) [Wiki], and the intention was to build up to a launch a month, today's GREAT NEWS ITEM is a bit OLD HAT.

Having said that, all honour to Major Tim Peake, and I hope all goes well (you'll never get me up on one of those things !) :=

D.

Get your facts right 2-sin!:rolleyes:

OAP

Soviet Vauxhall Viva?

The Russians wisely adhere to the old saying -

"если он не сломался, то не исправить"

(If it ain't broke don't fix it).

So long, given the amount we pay them in aid, we don't then pay to send a Brit up in an Indian space vehicle...................

TTN,
The US Shuttle and the Soyuz fall into the broard group of systems with a worse than 1:100 chance of loss of crew (LOC), Soyuz about 1:50, Shuttle about 1:75.:hmm: Future manned systems have a desired target LOC of 1:1000 but, present new technology still will not meet that target.:uhoh:
I do not think I would accept even 1:1000 for a routine orbital flight.

OAP

Given the two Soyuz flights resulting in loss of crew were (according to Wikipedia) the 1st and 10th, and they've since flown 116 consecutive missions over 44 years (plus 2 in progress) with no fatalities, I think your assessment of 1:50 for the current hardware is a bit harsh.

The shuttle's 135 flights, with failures on flights 25 and 113, and arguably no real solution to the issue that led to the 2nd loss, paint a less encouraging picture.

Anyone wanting to know a bit (!) more about the auto and manual docking systems could have a read of this...

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/press/DA_Schlottke.pdf

Keep a day or so spare...

Pasta

Go find out yourself. Not my figures.

OAP

I would.


And for you I'd be willing to accept far worse odds!

Tourist

As usual, your flame post adds nothing to the topic.

OAP

There's more to Shuttle/Soyuz than those numbers and I'd have to agree with pasta on this...

The early Soyuz programme in the mid-60s was very politically driven - the project was going head to head with Apollo. The designers and cosmonauts knew that original machine in the shape of Soyuz 1 wasn't man ready but for the sake of the Motherland..and funding - the decision was made to fly and Komarov lost his life.... Move down the road and handful of years to the second fatal flight, Soyuz 11 in '71. Depressurisation during the re-entry burn exposes a second design weakness. Rectified, plus a decision made to the return to wearing pressure suits for launch/entry. Since 71 there have been zero Soyuz in-flight fatalities (and at least 1 save from the Launch Escape system, a system the Shuttle lacked after the first handful of flights).

OTOH whilst the Shuttle sure looked good, was certainly a triumph of engineering, and was no doubt a pilot's spacecraft, it was loaded right from the start with compromises which were difficult, if not down right impossible to engineer out (such as the ice damage/LE tile strength problem that did for Columbia). It was not really capable of evolving into the reliable workhorse NASA promised it was going to be.

wiggy

The figures are as NASA have calculated, not me! You have to factor the losses of same family booster non-human losses that have also occured. Likewise, Saturn V was not perfect just because it never had a LOC.;)
Anyway, the way forward must be with greater reliability and less risk, and that is my opinion.

OAP

They have had 2 launch failures with manned Soyuz flights, one was an off the pad abort with the LES, while the other was a third stage ignition at the correct time with the core stage still attached which resulted the whole stack tumbling until the crew manually aborted. There have been a number of very hairy Soyuz re-entries though some of which were almost fatal.

Again, I would disagree.


The modern fad that loss of life is unacceptable is crippling space flight.


If sailing to the new world, the moon landings, manned flight, parachuting, explosives, steam trains etc, (the list is endless) had been subjected to this requirement, then we would still be eating rocks.


Safety comes with time and repetition in all endeavours.


To require it at the beginning just stifles advancement.


An example is the fact that when NASA said they were going back to the moon, they gave themselves longer second time than the first time.
This despite quantum leaps in materials technology, drive technology and computing power.




Plenty are willing to take the risks, who are you to argue with them?


There is are reasons that China is going to rule the world, and chief among them is a appetite for risk.

MAINJAFAD

Yep, understood The Russian programme has a bit of a history of rough re-entries, right from the get go with Gagarin's flight. I believe according to some sources the one of the cosmonauts involved in the late non "LES" abort you mentioned sustained career ending injuries.

OAP

Agreed.

Didn't know about that, though I did know they didn't get their flight bonus because they didn't make orbit and had to fight all the way to the Politburo to get it.

Anyone else get the impression that if it was a crab up there, this thread would be rolling along totally different tracks :rolleyes:

Leon has a chip on his shoulder with a greater mass than that of the collective chips on shoulders of a hangar full of civi PPRuNe Rotorheads discussing ex-military pilots :ok:

Get over it.

No, I don't get that impression. Some people obviously look for offence because presumably they have the chip on their shoulders. It matters not to me that Tim Peake used to be a pongo, I think he's done fantastically well & I am very envious.

I hope all threads will be similarly largely positive when a certain RAF pilot attempts to break the land speed record in a rocket powered car.....

Oh I don't know..:hmm: I would imagine that Tim would find it quite amusing.