Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Russian Space Agency Determines Cause of Soyuz Crash

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the launch-once-measure-twice dept.

ISS 102

An anonymous reader writes "The online version of the San Francisco Chronicle reports the cause of the loss of a Soyuz rocket in August. The Russian Space Agency, ROSCOSMOS says a manufacturing flaw led to the failure of a gas generator."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What took down that Russian hockey team? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37346900)

That jet full of Russian hockey players was probably taken down by the same shoddy workmanship that doomed the Soyuze.

Re:What took down that Russian hockey team? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347274)

Spoken like a true Anonymous Coward, you fucking moron. Would it be possible for you to pull your cracker-white shaved skinhead out of your smelly white trash ass?

Re:What took down that Russian hockey team? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347442)

bigoted nigger.

Re:What took down that Russian hockey team? (1)

Starfleet Command (936772) | more than 3 years ago | (#37348338)

Ironic and overly stupid post.

Well, This a Surprize (-1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 3 years ago | (#37346910)

I thought the Soyuz rocket impacted the planet because of gravity?! Let me double check my numbers.... The math shows a strong indication of to much gravity.

Operation bring back CmdrTaco Presents: Nullo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37346932)

Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda is a 29-year old white male with a stocky build and a goatee. He responded to my ad to be interviewed for this article wearing only leather pants, leather boots and a leather vest. I could see that both of his nipples were pierced with large-gauge silver rings.

Questioner: I hope you won't be offended if I ask you to prove to me that you're a nullo. Just so that my readers will know that this isn't a fake.

CmdrTaco: Sure, no problem. (stands and unbuckles pants and drops them to his ankles, revealing a smooth, shaven crotch with only a thin scar to show where his genitals once were).

Q: Thank you. That's a remarkable sight.

(laughs and pulls pants back up). Most people think so.

Q: What made you decide to become a nullo?

(pauses). Well, it really wasn't entirely my decision.

Q: Excuse me?

The idea wasn't mine. It was my lover's idea.

Q: Please explain what you mean.

Okay, it's a long story. You have to understand my relationship with Hemos before you'll know what happened.

Q: We have plenty of time. Please go on.

Both of us were into the leather lifestyle when we met through a personal ad. Hemos's ad was very specific: he was looking for someone to completely dominate and modify to his pleasure. In other word, a slave.

The ad intrigued me. I had been in a number of B&D scenes and also some S&M, but I found them unsatisfying because they were all temporary. After the fun was over, everybody went on with life as usual.

I was looking for a complete life change. I wanted to meet someone who would be part of my life forever. Someone who would control me and change me at his whim.

Q: In other words, you're a true masochist.

Oh yes, no doubt about that. I've always been totally passive in my sexual relationships.

Anyway, we met and there was instant chemistry. Hemos is about my age and is a complete loser. Our personalities meshed totally. He's very dominant.

I went back to his place after drinks and had the best sex of my life. That's when I knew I was going to be with Hemos for a long, long time.

Q: What sort of things did you two do?

It was very heavy right away. He restrained me and whipped me for quite awhile. He put clamps on my nipples and a ball gag in my mouth. And he hung a ball bag on my sack with some very heavy weights. That bag really bounced around when Hemos fucked me from behind.

Q: Ouch.

(laughs) Yeah, no kidding. At first I didn't think I could take the pain, but Hemos worked me through it and after awhile I was flying. I was sorry when it was over.

Hemos enjoyed it as much as I did. Afterwards he talked about what kind of a commitment I'd have to make if I wanted to stay with him.

Q: What did he say exactly?

Well, besides agreeing to be his slave in every way, I'd have to be ready to be modified. To have my body modified.

Q: Did he explain what he meant by that?

Not specifically, but I got the general idea. I guessed that something like castration might be part of it.

Q: How did that make you feel?

(laughs) I think it would make any guy a little hesitant.

Q: But it didn't stop you from agreeing to Hemos's terms?

No it didn't. I was totally hooked on this man. I knew that I was willing to pay any price to be with him.

Anyway, a few days later I moved in with Hemos. He gave me the rules right away: I'd have to be naked at all times while we were indoors, except for a leather dog collar that I could never take off. I had to keep my balls shaved. And I had to wear a butt plug except when I needed to take a shit or when we were having sex.

I had to sleep on the floor next to his bed. I ate all my food on the floor, too.

The next day he took me to a piercing parlor where he had my nipples done, and a Prince Albert put into the head of my cock.

Q: Heavy stuff.

Yeah, and it got heavier. He used me as a toilet, pissing in my mouth. I had to lick his asshole clean after he took a shit, too. It was all part of a process to break down any sense of individuality I had. After awhile, I wouldn't hesitate to do anything he asked.

Q: Did the sex get rougher?

Oh God, yeah. He started fisting me every time we had sex. But he really started concentrating on my cock and balls, working them over for hours at a time.

He put pins into the head of my cock and into my sack. He attached clothespins up and down my cock and around my sack. The pain was pretty bad. He had to gag me to keep me from screaming.

Q: When did the idea of nullification come up?

Well, it wasn't nullification at first. He started talking about how I needed to make a greater commitment to him, to do something to show that I was dedicated to him for life.

When I asked him what he meant, he said that he wanted to take my balls.

Q: How did you respond?

Not very well at first. I told him that I liked being a man and didn't want to become a eunuch. But he kept at me, and wore me down. He reminded me that I agreed to be modified according to his wishes, and this is what he wanted for me. Anything less would show that I wasn't really committed to the relationship. And besides, I was a total bottom and didn't really need my balls.

It took about a week before I agreed to be castrated. But I wasn't happy about it, believe me.

Q: How did he castrate you?

Hemos had a friend, Zonk, who was into the eunuch scene. One night he came over with his bag of toys, and Hemos told me that this was it. I was gonna lose my nuts then and there.

Q: Did you think of resisting?

I did for a minute, but deep down I knew there was no way. I just didn't want to lose Hemos. I'd rather lose my balls.

Zonk restrained me on the living room floor while Hemos videotaped us. He used an elastrator to put a band around my sack.

Q: That must have really hurt.

Hell yeah. It's liked getting kicked in the balls over and over again. I screamed for him to cut the band off, but he just kept on going, putting more bands on me. I had four bands around my sack when he finished.

I was rolling around on the floor screaming, while Hemos just videotaped me. Eventually, my sack got numb and the pain subsided. I looked between my legs and could see my sack was a dark purple. I knew my balls were dying inside.

Hemos and his friend left the room and turned out the light. I lay there for hours, crying because I was turning into a eunuch and there wasn't anything I could do about it.

Q: What happened then?

Eventually I fell asleep from exhaustion. Then the light switched on and I could see Hemos's friend kneeling between my legs, touching my sack. I heard him tell Hemos that my balls were dead.

Q: How did Hemos react?

Very pleased. He bent down and felt around my sack. He said that it felt cold.

Zonk told me that I needed to keep the bands on. He said that eventually my balls and sack would dry up and fall off. I just nodded. What else could I do at that point?

Q: Did it happen just like Zonk said?

Yeah, a week or so later my package just fell off. Hemos put it in a jar of alcohol to preserve it. It's on the table next to his bed.

Q: How did things go after that?

Hemos was really loving to me. He kept saying how proud he was of me, how grateful that I had made the commitment to him. He even let me sleep in his bed.

Q: What about the sex?

We waited awhile after my castration, and then took it easy until I was completely healed. At first I was able to get hard, but as the weeks went by my erections began to disappear.

That pleased Hemos. He liked fucking me and feeling my limp cock. It made his dominance over me even greater.

Q: When did he start talking about making you a nullo?

A couple of months after he took my nuts. Our sex had gotten to be just as rough as before the castration. He really got off on torturing my cock. Then he started saying stuff like, "Why do you even need this anymore?"

That freaked me out. I always thought that he might someday take my balls, but I never imagined that he'd go all the way. I told him that I wanted to keep my dick.

Q: How did he react to that?

At first he didn't say much. But he kept pushing. Hemos said I would look so nice being smooth between my legs. He said my dick was small and never got hard anymore, so what was the point of having it.

But I still resisted. I wanted to keep my cock. I felt like I wouldn't be a man anymore without it.

Q: So how did he get you to agree?

He didn't. He took it against my will.

Q: How did that happen?

We were having sex in the basement, and I was tied up and bent over this wooden bench as he fucked me. Then I heard the doorbell ring. Hemos answered it, and he brought this guy into the room.

At first I couldn't see anything because of the way I was tied. But then I felt these hands lift me up and put me on my back. And I could see it was Zonk, the guy who took my nuts.

Q: How did you react?

I started screaming and crying, but the guy just gagged me. The two of them dragged me to the other side of the room where they tied me spread eagled on the floor.

Zonk snaked a catheter up my dick, and gave me a shot to numb my crotch. I was grateful for that, at least. I remember how bad it hurt to lose my balls.

Q: What was Hemos doing at this time?

He was kneeling next to me talking quietly. He said I'd be happy that they were doing this. That it would make our relationship better. That kind of calmed me down. I thought, "Well, maybe it won't be so bad."

Q: How long did the penectomy take?

It took awhile. Some of the penis is inside the body, so he had to dig inside to get all of it. There was a lot of stitching up and stuff. He put my cock in the same jar with my balls. You can even see the Prince Albert sticking out of the head.

Then they made me a new pisshole. It's between my asshole and where my sack used to be. So now I have to squat to piss.

Q: What has life been like since you were nullified?

After I got over the surgery and my anger, things got better. When I healed up, I began to like my smooth look. Hemos brought friends over and they all admired it, saying how pretty I looked. It made me feel good that Hemos was proud of me.

Q: Do you have any sexual feeling anymore?

Yes, my prostate still responds when Hemos fucks me or uses the buttplug. And my nipples are quite sensitive. If Hemos plays with them while fucking me, I have a kind of orgasm. It's hard to describe, but it's definitely an orgasm.

Sometimes Hemos says he's gonna have my prostate and nipples removed, but he's just kidding around. He's happy with what he's done to me.

Q: So are you glad Hemos had you nullified?

Well, I wouldn't say I'm glad. If I could, I'd like to have my cock and balls back. But I know that I'm a nullo forever. So I'm making the best of it.

Hemos and I are very happy. I know that he'll take care of me and we'll be together always. I guess losing my manhood was worth it to make that happen for us.

Re:Operation bring back CmdrTaco Presents: Nullo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37346980)

Taco is a bit older than 29. And he was a fucking fucktard anyway. I'm glad his punk ass got the boot.

failure of a gas generator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37346936)

If I had only known, I could have sent my univ room mate for a few days.

There are no accidents (2)

rim_namor (2454342) | more than 3 years ago | (#37346968)

This is not an accident that there is a flaw in manufacturing procedure, it's the reality of current Russian political arena, where nobody really gives a s..t about anything and the only important question is - how do I make more money now?

Re:There are no accidents (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37346998)

Troo Dat. Not like here in America where we don't give a flying fuck about making money; we only care about making things of the very finest quality.

Re:There are no accidents (2)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347000)

They're learning capitalism and it sounds like they're good at it. Who knew?

Re:There are no accidents (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347132)

Yeah, because building exploding spacecraft is a surefire way to economic prosperity.

Re:There are no accidents (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347226)

Cheap or reliable. Pick one. Welcome to capitalism.

Re:There are no accidents (1, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347352)

Uh-huh. Because every other economic system produces highly reliable, cheap goods.

I think you mean "welcome to reality"

Re:There are no accidents (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347672)

Er, no it means: Capitalism often picks cheap over reliable. The AC alluded that other economic system favour reliability more than capitalism.

Re:There are no accidents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347988)

You want quality, order from Germany/Japan. You want cheap, order from China/Russia

Re:There are no accidents (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37348998)

You want neither, order from the USA.

Re:There are no accidents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37349734)

Eh, we'll dropship whatever you want for germany/japan OR china/russia...

Re:There are no accidents (1)

rednip (186217) | more than 3 years ago | (#37349946)

Despite the claims of reactionaries, we still do build good innovative stuff in America. However, the GOP is busy working against the American worker and small business owners by giving/keeping tax breaks that take jobs overseas.

Re:There are no accidents (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350594)

The GOP? You really want to blame a single party for that?

Here's a tip: they are ALL too busy fucking us to care.

Define "cheap" (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37348636)

Losing a whole rocket, and cargo therein is not cheap, at all. Capitalism picks the option that maximizes return (in general), choosing cheap parts for the Space Rocket is the opposite of that since you lose rockets, cargo and customers.

Instead it sounds a lot more like remnants of socialism at work, where your cousin Tedinski runs a motor factory and you are giving him the work over "Super Reliable Motors That Never Fail Inc" because you drink together every day that ends with a "y".

Re:Define "cheap" (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#37349014)

That may work in small owner-operated business. As soon as you get corporations with diffuse ownership structure and a leader that really has no stake in the company, the decision between price and quality tends to rest on the question whether the flaws of the cheaper model have a high enough chance to only become apparent after the CEO already jumped ship with his golden parachute.

Re:Define "cheap" (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 3 years ago | (#37356166)

"Capitalism" (companies and people that operate in capitalist economies) has come up with things like Lean Six Sigma and other trendy buzz-wordy type things to try to address these issues.

What happens is that people and companies "doing capitalism" for the first time haven't got there yet: they've got to the short-term cost-cutting and cheap-as-possible stage.

Up until very recently I worked for a company that did Lean Six Sigma very successfully. They've just sold us to an outsourcing company (to do the same work) that doesn't (they're from India). However, the outsourcing company's PHBs have waffled fantastic to our former employer's PHBs about their new and innovative culture and management techniques that can bring costs down etc.

We asked them about Lean and Six Sigma. They don't know what it is. But they did say, "We only do what the customer wants us to do." And "we're going to show you new and more efficient ways of working."

What they actually do is to hire cheap, enthusiastic, naive Indian graduates by the thousand, work them long hours ("empower" them) and encourage them to deliver quick, untested, badly designed (if at all) solutions.

This is not the environment I want to be working in. Been there, done that, got the migraines, seen the company go bust etc.

Re:There are no accidents (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 3 years ago | (#37349012)

Communism produces neither.

Re:There are no accidents (2)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350084)

Dude, please engage rational thought. Communism PRODUCED the Soyuz, which has been phenomenally reliable up to the point of this accident.

Re:There are no accidents (2, Insightful)

rim_namor (2454342) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350176)

Dude, Communism produced Soyuz, but where in the world did you get an idea that it was cheap? The entire country was put to work to push the space race forward, the only 'cheap' part of it was labor, which was actually free, as in - slave free labor.

Re:There are no accidents (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#37354746)

Shake head, have a coffee, and try to keep up. The assertion was "communism produced neither [reliable nor cheap goods]. All I have to show to disprove the assertion is that they produced EITHER reliable OR cheap. Check. Nice try, though.

As for your silly idea that Soyuz was designed and manufactured by "slave" labor (in 1960s through 1980s Soviet Union) ... guess what? Capitalism milks the fruits of the labor of wage slaves shackled to corporations.

Re:There are no accidents (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37353708)

Communism PRODUCED the Soyuz

Yea, in about the same way that capitalism produced cotton in America before the Civil War.

Re:There are no accidents (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#37355798)

the Soyuz, which has been phenomenally reliable up to the point of this accident.

Let's see.

Soyuz had two loss-of-crew accidents over 110 flights.

Shuttle had two loss-of-crew accidents over 135 flights.

Looks to me like it's been no more reliable than Shuttle, all in all.

Now, if you want to count the unmanned version of Soyuz, you get 134 flights (still one fewer than Shuttle), and at least SIX failures.

Depending on how you count failures, of course. It's hard to argue that ramming MIR doesn't count as a failure (2). Or failure to reach orbit (1). Or failure to dock (3). Several other failures to dock I didn't count as failures because they eventually succeeded....

So, where's the "phenomenally reliable"? Manned versions have a slightly higher failure rate than Shuttle, unmanned versions a much higher failure rate than Shuttle.

Re:There are no accidents (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347734)

No, it's cheap, reliable, or fast. Pick two. And it's relative to the thing being produced of course. Cheap or reliable is communism. Or rather, monopoly. Which, really, is all communism is.

Re:There are no accidents (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347322)

We made it to the moon with ones that burn on the launch pad. And I recall some shuttles exploding and/or disintegrating as well. And our economy was great back then. Maybe what we've been missing these last couple years is spacecraft going boom. Maybe we can just dynamite a decommissioned shuttle to fix the economy. Should be a cheap experiment.

Re:There are no accidents (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37348510)

We made it to the moon with ones that burn on the launch pad. And I recall some shuttles exploding and/or disintegrating as well. And our economy was great back then. Maybe what we've been missing these last couple years is spacecraft going boom. Maybe we can just dynamite a decommissioned shuttle to fix the economy. Should be a cheap experiment.

That's an interesting way to trigger an economic boom.

Re:There are no accidents (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347436)

First reaction (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37348646)

From the mission control specialists:

Hey, this really *is* Rocket Science!

Re:There are no accidents (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347822)

Yeah, because building exploding spacecraft is a surefire way to economic prosperity.

Sure, so long as you sell it before it explodes.

Re:There are no accidents (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347884)

And you never intend to sell another

Re:There are no accidents (1)

Shalcker (989572) | more than 3 years ago | (#37348780)

It's called "insurance". And exploding spacecrafts definitely have insurances.

Re:There are no accidents (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#37353052)

It is if you're in the arms dealing business.

Re:There are no accidents (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347324)

This might come as a surprise to a bunch of old communists, but as it turns out, you tend to lose money when it's a free market and your product has a tendency to explode.

Re:There are no accidents (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 3 years ago | (#37349034)

Tell that to Dyno Nobel.

Re:There are no accidents (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347358)

This is not an accident that there is a flaw in manufacturing procedure, it's the reality of current Russian political arena, where nobody really gives a s..t about anything and the only important question is - how do I make more money now?

You mean Russia is becoming Republican?

Re:There are no accidents (4, Insightful)

brillow (917507) | more than 3 years ago | (#37348448)

What are you talking about? The Soyuz rocket has the best track record of any launch vehicle. It's an incredibly well-designed rocket which has not been improved in over a decade.

Re:There are no accidents (4, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 3 years ago | (#37348840)

The Soyuz rocket has redundancy upon redundancy, to accomodate for just this kind of manufacturing error, and normally it works as evidenced by the incredible reliability of the rocket. Consider the fact that, when first introduced, it had to deal with 1960s Soviet quality control on its parts. Sometimes, of course, even the best precaution fails. You can't draw conclusions about the entire state of Russian society based on a single wonky gas generator...

Re:There are no accidents: JUST SAY IT (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350030)

You DO know you can say shit on slashdot, right? I mean fuck, man! There are no word police here.

Re:There are no accidents: JUST SAY IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350454)

Wanna bet? Sincerely The mod who modded you down

Re:There are no accidents: JUST SAY IT (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350918)

"The mod who modded you down" seems to have forgotten the myriad methods slashdot uses to undo moderations.

Whether you are logged in or not, using the same browser or not, slashdot (thankfully!) undoes mods from the same IP when a post is made subsequently. Meaning that unless you deliberately abuse Tor or some other anonymizer, your mod has been undone.

So, either, you're not so smug now, or you're admitting to being a Mod Troll; someone who abuses and / or games the Moderation system to push an agenda. I currently have a few of these, and in a fair and just society they'd all be banned for abusing that system...

Re:There are no accidents: JUST SAY IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37352576)

Actually you can post anonymously without undoing mods. As I'm doing right now.

This is good news. (5, Insightful)

conspirator23 (207097) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347036)

In fact it is better and faster news than many people feared. It suggests a by-the-numbers path to return the Soyuz to service. In turn, this dramatically lowers the risk that we will need to evacuate the ISS and suffer any negative consequences associated with that.

(We now return you to this thread's excessively random spew.)

Re:This is good news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347178)

(We now return you to this thread's excessively random spew.)

Random spew? I'd say the spew is quite predictable. :-)

Re:This is good news. (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#37348398)

Particularly fast. It's been barely two weeks since that launch failed, and already they figured out what happened. Impressive.

Re:This is good news. (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | more than 3 years ago | (#37351450)

in soviet russia investigation is over before it starts? ( +1 predictable spew)

But don't worry (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347080)

Even though we can't even manage 40 year old technology, we'll have no problems with space elevators! BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

That was not Soyuz, it was Progress - space truck. (1)

vsigal (2457260) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347246)

That was not Soyuz, it was Progress - space truck.

Re:That was not Soyuz, it was Progress - space tru (5, Informative)

clj (153252) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347328)

A Progress was the payload. The rocket is called Soyuz. (As are the payloads that carry humans.)

Re:That was not Soyuz, it was Progress - space tru (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37349816)

Re:That was not Soyuz, it was Progress - space tru (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350112)

The Shuttle was the pickup in the sky....

Gravity (2)

wesleyjconnor (1955870) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347326)

was the real problem

It was not the vodka (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347340)

We were surely not drinking too much when we launched the rocket and drank half the rocket fuel.

Let me be the first to say (0)

amightywind (691887) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347366)

In Soviet Russia the gas generates you! But seriously folks, 1 week is not long enough for a credible inquiry. At least not when the results put American lives at stake. Hard to see how this gets past NASA. But this is the level of engineering you get when spaceflight goes to the cheapest bidder. How do you all like newspace now?

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347402)

But this is the level of engineering you get when spaceflight goes to the cheapest bidder.

Because it's obviously so much better when the job goes to the highest bidder. Whenever you buy anything you always as much for it as you can, right?

Re:Let me be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347580)

But this is the level of engineering you get when spaceflight goes to the cheapest bidder.

Because it's obviously so much better when the job goes to the highest bidder. Whenever you buy anything you always as much for it as you can, right?

No, but one doesn't always opt for the bargain basement price either. For some things bargain basement price is fine, for other things it is not fine.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347914)

I dont think you understand how bidding works.

Typically, you would say "here are my requirements" (one of which is generally "will not catastrophically fail"), and ask for some kind of maintenance and / or guarantee, and then various vendors would bid for THAT.

And yes, you should absolutely take the cheapest vendor who can meet all of your requirements.

Re:Let me be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37348020)

yes but it isn't enought that they say that they can meet all of your requirements, they also have to be believable.

If the price is to low you could assume that they don't meet all of your requirements.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#37355216)

Um, Usually the bidder is obligated to meet the requirements the posted. Youd have to be retarded not to hold them to such a contract.

Re:Let me be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37348356)

How do you *know* they can? I bid 1$ with all kinds of believable data. Now what?

Re:Let me be the first to say (2)

RLaager (200280) | more than 3 years ago | (#37348566)

This isn't about spaceflight, so it isn't directly applicable here, but... I was always curious about a $1 bid, so I asked someone in the construction industry. He said that one of the requirements on every job is a "completion bond". This is a bond from an insurance company that will pay to have the project completed to the requirements if the bidder fails to do so themselves. So, if you get an insurance company to underwrite a bond on your $1 bid, the buyer doesn't care. If you don't build it, your insurance company will pay someone else to do so. Either way, they get what they requested for your bid of $1. If you don't get the bond, they'll never accept your bid in the first place.

How does the buyer ensure you're meeting the requirements? They have inspectors. As with any contract dispute, if you say you completed the project to requirements and the buyer says you didn't, ultimately a court will have to decide who's right.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#37355246)

We get you to sign a contract, we give you the $1, and when you dont follow through we meet you in the courts for breach of contract, fraud, and all the rest.

Care to see it in action? You should totally bid against Lockheed and Boeing for the next fighter, try your $1 bid.

Re:Let me be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347404)

Cause NASA has a perfect track record...

Re:Let me be the first to say (3, Insightful)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347522)

how are american lives more important than russian lives, or any other?

Re:Let me be the first to say (2)

alexmin (938677) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347586)

If you can't value a human life, ask life insurance professional. Short version: a human generates income stream. Value of someone's life is a sum of that income from present to death of the individual. So if GDP per capita today is 14K in Russia and 45K in America then average American life is three time as valuable.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | more than 3 years ago | (#37349568)

If you can't value a human life, ask life insurance professional. Short version: a human generates income stream. Value of someone's life is a sum of that income from present to death of the individual. So if GDP per capita today is 14K in Russia and 45K in America then average American life is three time as valuable.

Except that he said important instead of valuable. Many of the most important figures in history died destitute.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

gdy (708914) | more than 3 years ago | (#37349790)

I hope it's just from American life insurance professional's perspective

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#37351094)

I hope to see the day when people who think like that are rounded up and shot. If you are life insurance professional (sic, mocking the OP), I hope the last thing you hear is ...

"Die capitalist scum! No longer shall you be the boot on the face of man!"

<BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM!>

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347696)

how are american lives more important than russian lives, or any other?

The point that the poster appeared to be making was that NASA is responsible for American lives, not Russian lives, and NASA tends to be pretty darn rigorous about these sorts of things. So if it puts American lives at risk, NASA will have to sign off on this, and NASA won't do so unless it meets with their satisfaction.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

gdy (708914) | more than 3 years ago | (#37349802)

Just reread what he wrote

1 week is not long enough for a credible inquiry. At least not when the results put American lives at stake

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350078)

Right, as opposed to when cargo is at stake. No Russians were on board the rocket, so where are you getting the comparison to Russian lives?

Re:Let me be the first to say (3, Insightful)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350102)

Americans dying on an American rocket or Russians dying on a Russian rocket is a tragedy but Americans dying on a Russian rocket or vice versa is a political and diplomatic nightmare that would seriously damage this planets space efforts for generations.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347744)

If they were going to the cheapest bidder they'd already have launched with the Dragon capsule.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

Clsid (564627) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347800)

Yes, we need the level of engineering that kills human beings when a space shuttle explodes. I think I'll trust NASA's decision rather than share your opinion, you might look at them as stupid people but then again some people might think the same thing about you.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

gdy (708914) | more than 3 years ago | (#37349814)

1 week is not long enough for a credible inquiry. At least not when the results put American lives at stake

It would be more Ok when Übermensch's lives are at stake, right?

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

gdy (708914) | more than 3 years ago | (#37349820)

Err, Untermensch

Calling All Space Nutters! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37347732)

Quick, extrapolate wildly and invoke fantasy-levels of technology! Also predict doom and gloom for the human race in the form of mysterious asteroids that will destrooooooooy us! We also need a few "get off this ROCK!" and "get our asses to Mars!". There is entirely too little mental illness in this thread so far.

Boris (1)

vaene (1981644) | more than 3 years ago | (#37347882)

Was sure this fault of Moose or Squirrel... Must now carve new gas generator!

Loss of russian skilled workers to blame. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37348000)

Space Failures Raise Uneasy Questions [themoscowtimes.com] - The Russian Space Industry starved after the fall of the USSR. The workforce aged and retired and there was a lack of new hires due to non-competitive pay scales with industry. Now the agency faces a lack of skilled workers that will only worsen as corruption has devoured all capital investments. New engineers and technicians take years to become proficient, it's not like working at you're local 7-11 as some folks seem to think.
You can draw a direct parallel to the US human spaceflight program. Now that the shuttle program has ended the majority of laid-off contract workers (i.e. USA, BOEING, Rockwell) are dispersing out of Brevard County - Florida to other aerospace jobs across the United States. Any future US manned space program will spend much treasure and likely a few lives to restore the talent that was let go, APOLLO all over again.

Russian Space Agency (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37348286)

Hello. This is Russian Space Agency. My Name Peggy. You Have Problem With Our Rocket?

Re: (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350518)

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw back in the 70's about the Apollo-Soyuz rendezvous. It showed the two spacecraft, each with a "word-balloon", under the caption, "Checklist."

The Apollo word-balloon was filled with technical-sounding gibberish like, "Primary backup thrust inverters... Check! Docking-ring framulator extenders... Check!"

The Soyuz word-balloon said, "Anvil... Da! Hammer... Da!"

I wish I'd saved that one. ;-)

What manufacturing flaw? (2)

slinches (1540051) | more than 3 years ago | (#37348446)

In the second link it says that a defect led to a "clogged fuel supply pipe". They don't seem to specify which part was faulty or what the defect actually was. Did a valve stick or maybe a turbopump failed. The way it's worded somebody could have left their lunch in the fuel tank.

Anybody know where there's more specific information?

Re:What manufacturing flaw? (1)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 3 years ago | (#37348658)

All I know is I heard someone yell, "Young man you get your cock out of my Chrysler".

Re:What manufacturing flaw? (2)

damburger (981828) | more than 3 years ago | (#37348870)

They may be describing the same failure mode.

The gas generator is basically a turbine connected by a shaft to the fuel and oxidiser pumps. On most modern rockets, its turned by either fuel that has been heated by pumping it around the engine bell and combustion chamber (which has the added bonus of cooling it) or by pre-burning a small quantity of the propellants. Soyuz engines are unusual in that the turbine is powered by a supply of hydrogen peroxide separate from the fuel and oxidiser.

Saying that a gas generator failure and a fuel line blockage caused the accident suggests either a) when they said gas generator they meant turbupump, and a bit of the turbopump broke off and blocked the line or b) the failure of the gas generator triggered the failure of the fuel turbopump. On a shaft rotating at 50k RPM one end of the shaft turning to shrapnel is likely to cause problems at the other end.

Re:What manufacturing flaw? (1)

slinches (1540051) | more than 3 years ago | (#37353374)

Thanks. That information on the Soyuz is helpful. I was just trying to point out that the information that has been released is not very specific. I'm an aerospace engineer analyzing turbine engines, so I do understand what a gas generator is and the energy that these spinning disks contain. In fact, I've been involved in root cause investigations of turbine failures and know how difficult it can be to track down the true culprit even with all of the hardware in hand, let alone when the evidence is scattered across a foreign country. I was surprised to hear that they had found the cause in just a few weeks and wanted to hear how they found it. Was there a fault detection system that indicated what it was? Did they actually find the offending part, examine it and find witness of a manufacturing defect? This article, like most others in this type of scenario, doesn't specify.

I was hoping that there might be someone here would have a better source. Slashdot has quite a diverse group of technically minded people, maybe one would have some insights they'd be willing to share.

Re:What manufacturing flaw? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37348968)

Orders came down from the top (Medvedev, likely speaking for Putin) to find the problem. That means that a problem needs to be found and some sort of action taken. Now, it's entirely possible that the engineers looked over the data and were able to pinpoint the problem. However, it is also entirely possible that the engineers did not have enough data to figure out the problem in a reasonable timeframe, so "management" asked them to brainstorm a few hypotheses, picked something that sounded plausible and did not put blame on anyone, and presented that as the problem to the top brass. In either case, more specific information is unlikely. If the engineers actually identified the prlblem, you aren't likely to hear much because Russia doesn't like to publicize her failures, especially in something as high profile and high tech as the space program. If the engineers did not identify the problem, you will not hear any more details simply because there are no more details.

Re: ISS? (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350616)

Neither of TFAs said whether or not they expect to get back in service in time for the crew exchange in November. From the SFgate piece, it sounds like they're planning to go ahead, but one has to wonder if that's realistic.

Re:What manufacturing flaw? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#37352682)

They don't seem to specify which part was faulty or what the defect actually was. Did a valve stick or maybe a turbopump failed.

For some reason I read that as "turnip-pump", and it made perfect sense.

There was a test (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37349138)

There was an urgent full-cycle test of Soyuz rocket engine RD-0110 (from the same batch which include failed one) at the test range near russian city Voronezh right after Progress has crashed. Defect inspection after firing test showed no mistakes in manufacturing or defects in materials used, so decision-makers marked this Progress crash with "shit happens" bit, and allowed remaining engines form the batch to be used on purpose.

NASA requiring two successful launches (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#37351542)

before certifying Soyuz of US astronaut transport. That makes a pretty tight schedule for staffing the Space Station. The last Soyuz lifeboat on the ISS loses its safety rating in November. Soyuzes are given a 200 day safety lifetime mainly due to life-support supplies.

Re:NASA requiring two successful launches (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#37353198)

You know, the Russians can chose to send their own cosmonauts up to staff the ISS whenever the hell they want to. They don't have to send American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts up on the same flight. So, technically, they could send up their own cosmonauts to staff the ISS for two flights before even considering adding American astronauts into the mix.

Hamsters (1)

jweller13 (1148823) | more than 3 years ago | (#37353490)

Must have forgotten to feed the hamsters I bet

Production is a significant issue in Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37357638)

The Russian aerospace industry is suffering from a chronic labour shortage, and the major upheaval of a program of rapid re-tooling, retraining, and investment. It is very difficult for the Russian industry to meet the production targets imposed by the collapse of the US space program that resulted from the inevitable bankruptcy of the United States (worse has still to come), and the need to produce significantly more Soyuz systems than the production facilities are really safely capable of, in the midst of this significant change within the somewhat outdated manufacturing base.
In general most Russian aerospace manufacturers are suffering from similar problems - particularly a shortage of skilled labour, outdated and labour intensive production methods, and the lack of key personnel, particularly with experience of modern lean production techniques, and generally organising series production runs. The Russian industry also has structural problems. Most Russian manufacturers were fairly vertically integrated, and there has been some loss of expertise over the last decade. It will take time to organise supply chains, and move to a model that will involve a larger degree of outsourcing to specialist manufacturers. The capability seems to exist within the Russian system to achieve this. The question is, will the political will persist to complete re-structuring to a more efficient model of production? There are some fantastic designers in Russia - many significantly better than those available to the American aerospace industry, and a strong and very capable research base, albeit somewhat diminished from Soviet times, as a result of 'brain drain' to more profitable enterprises. The destruction of the Soviet system also lead to a complete collapse in the Russian machine tool industry, which was sadly outdated. Russian aeronautical producers are now in the midst of re-tooling with imported state of the art equipment, but it will take some time to meet modern quality standards, and realise modern lean production methodologies. The painful funding shortage of the 90's has passed, and once again there is now some investment. Hopefully recent incidents will serve as a wake up call that quality control can not be neglected in the midst of this kind of change. Russian designs are generally solid and dependable, but the best designs can be compromised by inferior production, and inexperienced personnel.
It is interesting to note the huge efficiency gains that have been realised on the Soyuz production line, by adopting modern production techniques for some significant components.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?