Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Bound to the ISS, this ship carried food, oxygen, and fuel for the ISS.

The ISS should have enough supplies to last till October, but damn, this was bad.

This is why NASA should have gotten more life...new designs wouldn't have gone boom most likely

Still, here's to all the crew on the ISS, I wish you the best of luck up there.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
08-25-2011, 01:10 AM
The Progress-M supply craft and the Soyuz rocket have had dozens of flights without an accident (this is the 44th to the ISS alone, and there were dozens to the Mir space station before that). Statistically, they are safer than the Shuttle ever was in terms of the ratio of launches to catastrophes.

Also, the possible failure (or long delay) of a Progress launch is accounted for in the supply tables--this is why the ISS keeps a full year's worth of supplies on hand whenever possible. Assuming that nothing further goes wrong, at worst Russia will have to play catch-up and launch an extra Progress next year to make up for the lost one.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
08-27-2011, 03:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChibiClari View Post
The Progress-M supply craft and the Soyuz rocket have had dozens of flights without an accident (this is the 44th to the ISS alone, and there were dozens to the Mir space station before that). Statistically, they are safer than the Shuttle ever was in terms of the ratio of launches to catastrophes.
Agreed. Westerners in general and Americans in particular may joke about the bad reputation of Russian industrial products (like automobiles and such), but in fact, Russian aerospace equipment has a very good record of reliability and durability. The fact that they're STILL using Soyuz and Progress craft after 40+ years isn't because they're clueless; it's because the designs were so reliable from the outset.

If I had the opportunity to go into space, I'd be much more comfortable going up on a Soyuz ship than whatever NASA fields next -- and I'm American.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
08-28-2011, 01:45 AM
It it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Soyuz is ideal for its purpose if your mission requirements include the following:

1: 3 or fewer crew members
2: 2 tons or less of cargo if manned or 5 tons or less if unmanned
3: an Earth orbital or Lunar mission with no more than 14 days of free-flying operation (i.e. not docked to an external power/life support source like a space station or extra service module)

It also has as much cabin space as the Apollo spacecraft for a fraction of the cost and barely half of the un-fueled launch mass (7100 kg vs Apollo's 13 tonnes).

Thus, for modest mission requirements, Soyuz is great. For hauling huge loads of people or cargo, it's not so great--that's what the Shuttle was for.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 AM.