This could be a serious set-back for the ISS.
So, they're having to cut corners. I'm curious--when you cut corners on a rocket booster, exactly what does that mean, and how does that make it fail more often? You're using a cheaper brand of rocket fuel so it doesn't liftoff properly, or what? Skimping on inspection procedures?But Russia's space programme has been plagued by underfunding since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 and shortfalls in financing have been blamed for a series of Russian rocket explosions in the 1990s, Reuters says.
I would guess it's a combination of fewer safety inspections and poorer quality control during manufacturing. But that is only a guess. I'm just glad they didn't have anyone on this one.
Hmmm...think Lance Bass is having some second thoughts about trying to get back on one of those babies?
They cut corners by shaving little bits off the launch craft. Some off the fins, some off the nose, some off the rocket nozzle. The net effect is quite significant and useful.
As tragic as this is, I think its pretty important to note that this, compared to a lot of boosters in existance, is a pretty isolated incident for the Soyuz program. Heck, we want to point fingers at flaws, how many time has the shuttle been grounded or postponed due to mechanical flaws? No machine is ever perfect, nor are the people who build them. We here in the states have blown up and misfired as many rockets as they have down the line. So for me, this is a tragic loss of a life on the ground and a time to do some introspective reviews on QC, but hardly a reason to start the handwringing routine over the future of spaceflight. Soyuz will fly again.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doodler on 2002-10-17 16:26 ]</font>