Cosmonaut Crashed Into Earth 'Crying In Rage' [in 1967]
npr.org
npr.org
> There are still many people that don't understand that the crew of the Challenger didn't die until they hit the water. They were all strapped into their seats in a basically intact crew module; their hearts were still beating when they hit the water. People think they were blown to smithereens, but that's not what happened.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/thewrongstuff/archive/2010/...
It seems that NASA's been willing to accept a fair amount of it, given the tragedies that have bedeviled our space program.
NASA has been terrible on this. Not because of how much risk they're willing to accept, and not because they don't do the work to understand it. They always know what the probability of failure is. But, historically at least, they haven't been honest and forthright in taking to the public about it. In the early '80s, before the Challenger accident, they would say—and this is where I think they actually lied, I don't think that's too strong a word—they would say, "Flying the shuttle is like flying a 727 to Disney World."
That's absurd. Not only are you more likely to get killed in the shuttle than in an airplane; you're more likely to get killed going up once in the shuttle than if you had flown combat missions for two years in Vietnam. That's a statistical fact, but NASA doesn't make it clear. They might tell the House [of Representatives] that there's a 1.5 percent failure rate, but most Americans don't understand what that means. I mean, 1.5, what is that? Is that a lot? You have to relate it to something that means something to somebody. Otherwise, people have the perception that space flight is safe, and when there's an accident, they're shocked. It's like, "We gotta stop flying." If we want to add additional safeguards because now we're feeling emotional about it, okay, we can do that. But if we're still meeting our design specs for loss, why would we stop flying?
I like this approach.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/roger...
Engineers at Rocketdyne, the manufacturer, estimate the total probability [of catastrophic failure] as 1/10,000. Engineers at Marshal estimate it as 1/300, while NASA management, to whom these engineers report, claims it is 1/100,000. An independent engineer consulting for NASA thought 1 or 2 per 100 a reasonable estimate.
— Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle by R.P. Feynman
Empirical post script (as of STS-133 24 February 2011)
Total launches 132
Failures 2
Successes 130
Failure rate: 1.5%
Edit: add opinions:See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report#Role_o...
The reason for appalling and wildly inaccurate estimate of the failure probability is because the failure probability was a top-down "estimate." Someone Important apparently said "the space shuttle needs a reliability of 1/100,000". This mandate was pushed down on all the suppliers. The result was that the probability of failure was divided out onto all the systems, subsystems, subsubsystems... ad nausium all the way down to the bolts. The result was that all the subsystems had reliability numbers that could not be refuted (e.g. bolts at 1/10^12 IIRC), but could not be realistically substantiated either. Unfortunately, some of the probabilities of the major subsystems (SRB and ice damaging the heat shield tiles) were not accurate. The most accurate estimate was the engineer with a lot of experience in extremely complicated systems who gave an experience-based estimate, not a top-down (dictated) numerically derived estimate.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disast...
Source: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-8...
At least some of the Challener crew survived the blast, and died in panic.
What makes you think that's the case? In The Right Stuff, Tom Wolfe tells of test pilots in out-of-control aircraft who remained firmly in command of themselves, trying A, then B, then whatever they or the ground crew could think of, right up until impact.
"Another high-priority target for the signal chasers at Karamursel [Turkey] is the Soviet space program. On April 23, 1967, a number of analysts were routinely copying the return of Soyuz I, bringing Soviet cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov back from twenty-six hours in space, when problems suddenly developed on re-entry. Recalled one of the intercept operators:
'They couldn't get the chute that slowed his craft down in re-entry to work. They knew what the problem was for about two hours...and were fighting to correct it. It was all in Russian, of course, but we taped it and listened to it a couple of times afterward. Kosygin called him personally. They had a video-phone conversation. Kosygin was crying. He told him he was a hero and that he had made the greatest achievement in Russian history, that they were proud, and that he'd be remembered. The guy's wife got on too. They talked for a while. He told her how to handle their affairs and what to do with the kids. It was pretty awful. Toward the last few minutes he began falling apart, saying, "I don't want to die, you've got to do something." Then there was just a scream as he died. I guess he was incinerated.'"
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Palace-National-Intelligence-Or...
The audio is very fuzzy, but I think at the end he says something that roughly translates to "the former cosmonaut is dead"
Before that he says something about the people, I can't make out anything about heat or temperature. Apparently the people on the ground couldn't either, which is why you hear "mission control" asking him to repeat himself. I couldn't make out the word they asked him to repeat either.
the calm and proud voice repeats about Komarov making the way to Comminism for the whole mankind [edit: apparently Komarov himself in official radio appeal]. this is intersected with some voices that could not be understood.
the way to communism mantra is obviously copy-pasted several times, some times partially, just to make some russian soudns, like this: "Komarov prokladyvaet put k Kommunizmu!" - "phshphs-bla!-bla!" - "-mmunizmu!" - pshshsh!blabla! - "prokladyvaet put k Kommunizmu!"
imagine how Russians watch movies where Hollywood tries to show something Russian, labels or written names. mostly it is just a meaningless set of letters. this is also looks like a bullshit that some CIA guys presented to their local Brezhnevs to justify their work
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Soyuz1Land/Soyanaly.htm
by someone who doesn't seem like a tinfoil hat wearer. He seems to think intercepts of some of his other communication are likely but reports are 'embellished'.
I think I made out the entire thing, but I was fuzzy on the last word.
I hear: "K narodom nashe rodie, prakldavuyu chilvetchistvu put k Kommunizmu, bifshi cosmonaft umru?"
The first part translates roughly to: to the people of our homeland, I am laying the way for civilization to communism.
The last part to, this former cosmonaut is dead. But I could totally be mishearing that last bit (as the grammar doesn't really work if that is what he's saying).
'привет народам нашей родины, прокладывающей человечеству путь к коммунизму. летчик-космонавт Комаров'
'privet narodam nashey rodiny, prakladyvayushey chelavechestvu put k kamunizmu. lyotchik-kasmonavt Komarov'
which means 'greetings to the peoples of our motherland that makes the way to communism for the mankind. pilot-cosmonaut Komarov'
lyotchik-kosmonaut is russian cosmonauts' title.
well, first i thought it's some official radio speaker, now i admit that it's Komarov himself before or during the flight. nothing like crying.
and, this appeal is copy-pasted two times and one time pasted partially, '-munizmu', which indicates the fake.
the radio talk in between is illegible for me
I don't know if its fake, to me it almost sounds like the the people on the radio are repeating what he is saying or asking him to repeat something, but one can be fairly confident that the people writing the article misunderstood what was being said.
surely i know that it's impossible to 'parse' words out of the speech without talking to language speakers all the time. when English speak i understand a half! actually I (as many Russians) appreciate that you know Russian and tried to understand what he was saying. i guess it's seldom for a native English-speaker to learn a language out of the list of Spanish and French :) Russian is the hardest of the wide spread Indo-European languages, i think, due to all it's flexes and stems, which you know ('umru'='i will die', etc), so you're cool :)
> the people writing the article misunderstood what was being said.
AND there might be something in that illegible part of the compilation, deciphered with the special techniques. for the show it was complied with the clear part.
actually i dont know what would i cry in this situation, definitely wouldnt greet the nation etc :)
There are rumors that Vladimir Ilyushin, son of the airplane designer Ilyushin, was actually the first person to survive a space flight, but something went wrong in the landing (some say he landed in China which caused a political controversy). Some even go as far as saying that Yuri Gagarin knew of this and was killed because he knew too much. Go and figure.
The truth will probably never be uncovered. If the soviets had archives of what really happened, they might be lost and/or destroyed.
Wikipedia is pretty good starting point if you want to read about this. Put David Bowie's "Space Oddity" on the background with repeat.
Then the Berlin wall fell and it ceased to be an important pursuit to conquer the stars.
What makes you think that it's just Soviets?
Lots of folks have knowingly made one way trips to "new territory".
Heck, I'd do it given reasonable resources for "just wander around".
I don't have a hard time believing that either the USSR or the USA would have hidden space deaths if they or we could in order to build a national mythology.
At first it gives too much up to show how much detail one knows about the other side. Then one doesn't want to announce your own deaths because the other side hasn't and you don't want to appear to be losing/weaker/less capable.
If you leak the deaths on the other side then they'll leak yours (like a sort of mutually assured destruction) and possibly cause an end to space exploration programmes - neither side that knows enough wants to do that surely?
tl;dr seems reasonable to me that both sides may have had more deaths they all kept secret about
[1] - http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/1302/lost_in_s...
Look: explorers of all elements -- land, air, sea -- undertake their endeavors to accomplish a singular goal: the discovery of the unknown. An uncertainty of one's destination brings with it, therefore, an uncertainty of one's success and therefore of one's survival. And this is a risk that all explorers knowingly and willingly undertake -- it is a condition precedent to being such a brave traveller.
Accordingly, I think to shed so dark and negative a light on the several tragedies during mankind's nascent years of exploration is to miss the point and indeed forsake the very thing for which those pioneers lived: the furthering of our race, the advancement of our species.
Rather than mourn the loss of our fellow adventurers in their quest into the unknown, we should instead celebrate them, not only for their accomplishments in life, but additionally and especially in death.
After all, but for their risks, but for their selfless ability to consciously put their lives on the line both for their countries -- and indeed for our species as a whole -- and, certainly, to satisfy their thirst for knowledge and discovery, we would still be travelling the European continent on horseback.
As indecent as it may sound, I am certain our great explorers would be disappointed to see us saddened by their loss, and that they would far rather their memories be praised with all the pomp and circumstance worthy of their triumphant accomplishments, failures and successes alike.
But is it really that different to the early years of sea exploration? I mean let's face it: certain -- most? -- of the ships were known to be marginally seaworthy at best, and if it wasn't the ship that cost seamen their lives, it was surely the inadequate food, water, and supplies that precluded many from a safe return.
My point is that either way, many, many adventurers knowingly and willingly embarked on their journeys to an all but certain doom. That this particular and more recent seemingly forced excursion happend as recently as the 20th century and under the circumstances described of course renders it more palpably disturbing, I agree, but I would suggest it is different only in degree, not in kind.
Again- I'm in no way intending to minimize this tragedy or others like it.* I'm just suggesting that for the sake of these great explorers' memories, it is better to remember them fondly rather than wallow in melancholic nostalgia of their (indisputably) unjust loss.
* I understand this particular tragedy is unique in that the cosmonaut knew with virtual certainty that he was being sent to his death. My focus here is not whether he knew death was certain, but the greater context in which this certainty existed, i.e., the inherently dangerous activity of (space) exploration which is "inherently dangerous" precisely because such deaths are foreseeable and indeed statistically likely to occur, just or unjust alike.
Columbus sent across the ocean on a wood rotten ship just to make it right on time to the celebration of 50 years of Revolut... err.. coronation. I guess, Columbia would have some another name and it would be some other, not 1492, year of America discovery.
That's not exploration, that's murder on one hand and self-sacrifice on the other.
I'm sure some people disagree, but I would have left a vodka glass on this guy's grave. For sure! Spasibo!
[1] http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Soyuz1Land/Soyanaly.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Sojuz-Death-Komarov-During-Re-Entry/dp...
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2342986
Not sure how much they sensationalized their efforts but quite interesting look into the history nonetheless.
> This is on par with "Alien Autopsy" and 9/11 conspiracies.
What is it about this that is so unbelievable? That there was political pressure from the top that this flight 'had to happen no matter what?' > That said, it invokes the "crazy Russikies" stereotype,
> so it must be true.
What is the 'crazy Russikies [sic]' stereotype, and how does this invoke it?