This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Soyuz MS-10 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Soyuz MS-10 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 October 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I guess it won't stick long in the article, but kudos to Andrew came up with that one :) -- TomK32 ( talk) 10:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@ O'Dea: I simply don't see how the gallery can't simply be illustrated with text in the pose of the article with citations alone – especially when five of the seven images featured are poor quality screenshots form a YouTube stream with watermarks. What value do images of mission center in Johnson and Korolyov, where you can barely see anything happening from the thumbnail, add to the article? Why does there need to be multiple images of the same rocket launch when one in the lead image can suffice, especially when none of the images depict anything unique from eachother, such as the anomaly itself? Both File:Soyuz MS-10 launch on NASA TV-07, showing crew.jpg and File:RKA Mission Control Centre during aborted launch of Soyuz MS-10.jpg need to be checked for possible copyright violations, since they were obviously not shot with NASA cameras and were Roscosmos feeds. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 18:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Was this really a sub-orbital spaceflight? That is to say, did it reach the Kármán line altitude of 100 kilometres (328,000 ft) that is necessary for it to be considered a spaceflight? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Was the rocket's launch escape system actually activated? NASA's press release [2] only says that "Shortly after launch, there was an anomaly with the booster and the launch ascent was aborted, resulting in a ballistic landing of the spacecraft." I added a citation needed tag for now. 2601:644:1:B7CB:A5CC:B7E2:2499:B26E ( talk) 21:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Precise details of spacecraft separation and escape are hard to come by. During launch, the NASA commentator announced jettison of the escape tower before the anomaly occurred. I am not sure she was abreast of actual events because the escape system would be required to remove the spacecraft from the failed booster. Perhaps she was reading from a flight plan, and assumed it had happened when it had not. If the escape tower was jettisoned, how did the spacecraft separate from the booster? If anyone finds reliable coverage of these details, please post a link here, or add the details to the article. Here is a NASA recording of the launch, with American and Russian women describing the action in English, in their respective countries. (Ignore the pre-programmed flight graphics, as they did not portray events as they happened after first stage separation.) — O'Dea ( talk) 22:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
When I click on the image there is a text that says "Hague and Ovchinin will spend the next six months living and working aboard the International Space Station." I don't know how to edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.7.2 ( talk) 09:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Could someone write an explanation of what "ballistic trajectory" means in this case? There's a link to "ballistics", which doesn't really help. A lot of the news reports are also using this phrase without explaining it, and I don't think the reporters know what it means either.
In this case "ballistic trajectory" refers to the fact that they don't use aerodynamics to control the descent. During normal reentry they angle the capsule to generate lift and guide the capsule. This prolongs the time spent in the upper atmosphere where heating and G-forces are less of an issue and helps with getting to the desired landing spot. After the abort, the speed was too low to make significant use of aerodynamic forces to guide the capsule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel F Gomez ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
...returning to Earth in a ballistic trajectory, during which the crew experienced "about six to seven times Earth's gravity"...
A ballistic trajectory is the path of an object that is moving under the action of gravity only. How can you experience force when you are inside such an object?
213.127.107.210 (
talk)
08:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
How did the they land? Was it on earth or water? If on earth why did it not explode on contact? or did it have a landing system? Dstokar ( talk) 15:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)david stokar
The acceleration value is not very meaningful without some indication for the time that the "g-force" had to be endured. While even 50g can be survived if they happen for less than a millisecond an acceleration of 3g cannot be tolerated indefinitely. Pulling 7g in an aerobatic maneuver for some seconds is about the normal limit, depending on the direction of the load (black-out is much better than red-out) ... and so on. I write this because the reporting in the media sensationalizes the number while 7g's would be absolutely no problem if they only happened as peak values for a few milliseconds in that shudder visible in the video footage. Best might be to wait for the astronauts to comment on how severe they personally found the load. JB. -- 92.195.66.15 ( talk) 17:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The RT article on this from Oct 12, 2018, states the following: "What happened on Thursday was a third variant somewhere in between the 1975 and the 1983 incidents. By the time the Soyuz-MS-10 launch was aborted, its rocket already jettisoned the escape tower, but the fairing was still in place. So the capsule was pulled away by the backup thrusters mounted on the fairing. The crew members, Aleksey Ovchinin and NASA's Nick Hague, actually got away easy, having experienced a little spit to stabilize the capsule during descent and acceleration of just about 6g"
That should read "a little spin" not "spit" I guess.
The reference to the SAS (LES /info/en/?search=Launch_escape_system) is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yad1kl12cw in Russian..
Petr ivanovitch ( talk) 07:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Readers cannot discern what is happening in File:RKA Mission Control Centre during aborted launch of Soyuz MS-10.jpg or File:NASA Mission Control following Soyuz MS-10 launch on NASA TV-09.jpg, much less at a thumbnail level as it would appear in the article. In the previous discussion, O'Dea stated their opinion that the images "illustrate the tense waiting in two professional "nerve centres" in Russia and the United States." However, 1) how is it visually different from images of mission control when things are running normally, and 2) what part of the article are they meant to illustrate? There's nothing in the prose about the "tense waiting" of mission control personnel during the incident. When the images illustrate themselves rather than anything talked about in the article itself, then it becomes what O'Dea described as what images on Wikipedia shouldn't be – "the policy is to just not assemble an out-of-control, bloated image farm in a random fashion without the images making sense and without contributing meaning to an article." Seems self-defeating if you ask me. They don't seem to serve a useful, encyclopedic purpose in this article, and they should be removed. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 23:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I think a new approach could be as simple as the truth. Really reveling the real problem may create a person to process and analysis what needs to happen in order to move forward. UknowWh01 ( talk) 21:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
There are three photographs of the crew in the prose of the article. Do we really need a fourth one to bloat the infobox to a larger size than it already is? In addition, do we need to specify that there are two crew members with the crew_size
cell, when most people can easily count that there are two people named in the crew_members
list directly below it? – PhilipTerryGraham (
talk ·
articles ·
reviews)
22:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz-ms-10.html is excellent reading though I wish they had provided sources. I had been looking for a source to back up "The abort occurred at a velocity of roughly 1,800 m/s (6,500 km/h; 5,900 ft/s; 4,000 mph)" but was unable to find anything and so have removed that from the article. The text had been added by this edit. I'll ping that editor to if a source can be found. -- Marc Kupper| talk 07:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Roscosmos released a timeline from the events (that you can see here in English). Someone could make an table depicting the events? Erick Soares3 ( talk) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The intro states that it has been the first incident "at high altitude" since Soyuz 18-1. Well, what's WP's definition of a high altitude? The last manned Soyuz spaceflight accident was Soyuz T-10-1 which also climbed to a "high altitude" through its escape tower. Another incident was the hole in the Soyuz capsule on the ISS which also orbits at a "high altitude", not to mention several incidents during manned Soyuz-TMA-reentries. You see, such info is completely unscientific. Wouldn't it be much more valuable to mention Soyuz T-10-1 rather than Souyz 18-1 because Soyuz T-10-1 is comparable to the other two incidents? -- 212.186.15.191 ( talk) 09:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The article mentions an official state commission that worked on determining and analyzing the issue with the launch, however it is not listed itself, only through secondary sources. I located the press conference in video form and transcript excerpt form; perhaps we should include details from the official primary source in the Soyuz MS-10 § Aftermath section.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Soyuz MS-10 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Soyuz MS-10 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 October 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I guess it won't stick long in the article, but kudos to Andrew came up with that one :) -- TomK32 ( talk) 10:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@ O'Dea: I simply don't see how the gallery can't simply be illustrated with text in the pose of the article with citations alone – especially when five of the seven images featured are poor quality screenshots form a YouTube stream with watermarks. What value do images of mission center in Johnson and Korolyov, where you can barely see anything happening from the thumbnail, add to the article? Why does there need to be multiple images of the same rocket launch when one in the lead image can suffice, especially when none of the images depict anything unique from eachother, such as the anomaly itself? Both File:Soyuz MS-10 launch on NASA TV-07, showing crew.jpg and File:RKA Mission Control Centre during aborted launch of Soyuz MS-10.jpg need to be checked for possible copyright violations, since they were obviously not shot with NASA cameras and were Roscosmos feeds. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 18:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Was this really a sub-orbital spaceflight? That is to say, did it reach the Kármán line altitude of 100 kilometres (328,000 ft) that is necessary for it to be considered a spaceflight? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Was the rocket's launch escape system actually activated? NASA's press release [2] only says that "Shortly after launch, there was an anomaly with the booster and the launch ascent was aborted, resulting in a ballistic landing of the spacecraft." I added a citation needed tag for now. 2601:644:1:B7CB:A5CC:B7E2:2499:B26E ( talk) 21:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Precise details of spacecraft separation and escape are hard to come by. During launch, the NASA commentator announced jettison of the escape tower before the anomaly occurred. I am not sure she was abreast of actual events because the escape system would be required to remove the spacecraft from the failed booster. Perhaps she was reading from a flight plan, and assumed it had happened when it had not. If the escape tower was jettisoned, how did the spacecraft separate from the booster? If anyone finds reliable coverage of these details, please post a link here, or add the details to the article. Here is a NASA recording of the launch, with American and Russian women describing the action in English, in their respective countries. (Ignore the pre-programmed flight graphics, as they did not portray events as they happened after first stage separation.) — O'Dea ( talk) 22:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
When I click on the image there is a text that says "Hague and Ovchinin will spend the next six months living and working aboard the International Space Station." I don't know how to edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.7.2 ( talk) 09:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Could someone write an explanation of what "ballistic trajectory" means in this case? There's a link to "ballistics", which doesn't really help. A lot of the news reports are also using this phrase without explaining it, and I don't think the reporters know what it means either.
In this case "ballistic trajectory" refers to the fact that they don't use aerodynamics to control the descent. During normal reentry they angle the capsule to generate lift and guide the capsule. This prolongs the time spent in the upper atmosphere where heating and G-forces are less of an issue and helps with getting to the desired landing spot. After the abort, the speed was too low to make significant use of aerodynamic forces to guide the capsule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel F Gomez ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
...returning to Earth in a ballistic trajectory, during which the crew experienced "about six to seven times Earth's gravity"...
A ballistic trajectory is the path of an object that is moving under the action of gravity only. How can you experience force when you are inside such an object?
213.127.107.210 (
talk)
08:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
How did the they land? Was it on earth or water? If on earth why did it not explode on contact? or did it have a landing system? Dstokar ( talk) 15:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)david stokar
The acceleration value is not very meaningful without some indication for the time that the "g-force" had to be endured. While even 50g can be survived if they happen for less than a millisecond an acceleration of 3g cannot be tolerated indefinitely. Pulling 7g in an aerobatic maneuver for some seconds is about the normal limit, depending on the direction of the load (black-out is much better than red-out) ... and so on. I write this because the reporting in the media sensationalizes the number while 7g's would be absolutely no problem if they only happened as peak values for a few milliseconds in that shudder visible in the video footage. Best might be to wait for the astronauts to comment on how severe they personally found the load. JB. -- 92.195.66.15 ( talk) 17:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The RT article on this from Oct 12, 2018, states the following: "What happened on Thursday was a third variant somewhere in between the 1975 and the 1983 incidents. By the time the Soyuz-MS-10 launch was aborted, its rocket already jettisoned the escape tower, but the fairing was still in place. So the capsule was pulled away by the backup thrusters mounted on the fairing. The crew members, Aleksey Ovchinin and NASA's Nick Hague, actually got away easy, having experienced a little spit to stabilize the capsule during descent and acceleration of just about 6g"
That should read "a little spin" not "spit" I guess.
The reference to the SAS (LES /info/en/?search=Launch_escape_system) is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yad1kl12cw in Russian..
Petr ivanovitch ( talk) 07:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Readers cannot discern what is happening in File:RKA Mission Control Centre during aborted launch of Soyuz MS-10.jpg or File:NASA Mission Control following Soyuz MS-10 launch on NASA TV-09.jpg, much less at a thumbnail level as it would appear in the article. In the previous discussion, O'Dea stated their opinion that the images "illustrate the tense waiting in two professional "nerve centres" in Russia and the United States." However, 1) how is it visually different from images of mission control when things are running normally, and 2) what part of the article are they meant to illustrate? There's nothing in the prose about the "tense waiting" of mission control personnel during the incident. When the images illustrate themselves rather than anything talked about in the article itself, then it becomes what O'Dea described as what images on Wikipedia shouldn't be – "the policy is to just not assemble an out-of-control, bloated image farm in a random fashion without the images making sense and without contributing meaning to an article." Seems self-defeating if you ask me. They don't seem to serve a useful, encyclopedic purpose in this article, and they should be removed. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 23:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I think a new approach could be as simple as the truth. Really reveling the real problem may create a person to process and analysis what needs to happen in order to move forward. UknowWh01 ( talk) 21:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
There are three photographs of the crew in the prose of the article. Do we really need a fourth one to bloat the infobox to a larger size than it already is? In addition, do we need to specify that there are two crew members with the crew_size
cell, when most people can easily count that there are two people named in the crew_members
list directly below it? – PhilipTerryGraham (
talk ·
articles ·
reviews)
22:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz-ms-10.html is excellent reading though I wish they had provided sources. I had been looking for a source to back up "The abort occurred at a velocity of roughly 1,800 m/s (6,500 km/h; 5,900 ft/s; 4,000 mph)" but was unable to find anything and so have removed that from the article. The text had been added by this edit. I'll ping that editor to if a source can be found. -- Marc Kupper| talk 07:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Roscosmos released a timeline from the events (that you can see here in English). Someone could make an table depicting the events? Erick Soares3 ( talk) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The intro states that it has been the first incident "at high altitude" since Soyuz 18-1. Well, what's WP's definition of a high altitude? The last manned Soyuz spaceflight accident was Soyuz T-10-1 which also climbed to a "high altitude" through its escape tower. Another incident was the hole in the Soyuz capsule on the ISS which also orbits at a "high altitude", not to mention several incidents during manned Soyuz-TMA-reentries. You see, such info is completely unscientific. Wouldn't it be much more valuable to mention Soyuz T-10-1 rather than Souyz 18-1 because Soyuz T-10-1 is comparable to the other two incidents? -- 212.186.15.191 ( talk) 09:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The article mentions an official state commission that worked on determining and analyzing the issue with the launch, however it is not listed itself, only through secondary sources. I located the press conference in video form and transcript excerpt form; perhaps we should include details from the official primary source in the Soyuz MS-10 § Aftermath section.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)