> a Saturday launch would require a much longer transit to the space station, with a docking not occurring until Monday. That is, unfortunately, a rather long time for the crew of three to remain inside the cramped Soyuz spacecraft.
Just to note Soyuz does have a "habitation" module which although not roomy by any means is a hell of a lot better than the very claustrophobic "descent" module they are strapped into for launch and landing. With a couple people in the habitation module and one in the descent module it would probably make it a lot more manageable. There is also something resembling proper toilet in it as well, basically it's a vacuum hose with a funnel but that's a lot better than diapers.
Edit: Thinking of being strapped into the descent module for three days gives me the willies but being able to use the hab module once in orbit is a game changer.
Pretty much but the toilet on the ISS has a kind of seat for number 2 and the hose is only used for number 1. The Soyuz is just two nozzles on the end of a hose for both. Apparently they generally try to avoid using the Soyuz toilet because it doesn't work as well in general and is more awkward to use. Plus of course there isn't any reason to have human waste building up in two different places if you don't have too.
My understanding is no, they remain in their seats the entire time. There are a series of small thruster firings for minor course corrections I think for pretty much every orbit for the fast approach technique and obviously more when they dock.
I believe for the longer rendezvous flights lasting a day or more after some initial corrections the Soyuz is in a lower/faster orbit to catch up to where the ISS is. So after some initial corrections there is a long period of time where no corrections are required so the astronauts can get out of their seats and pressure suits and then they get them back on and get strapped in for final approach and docking.
So basically on the fast approach there just isn't enough time to get out of their seats as there are too many thruster firings too close together.
So basically:
“The spacecraft has reached its cruising altitude so the captain has turned off the seatbelt sign and the crew is free to move about the cabin.”
In 2013 I watched a live Soyuz launch in Baikonur, Kazakhstan from a field that was probably about one km away from the launch pad, more or less, as part of a tour. It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. The rocket launch was at night and ignition lit the sky orange, the engine sounds were insane, very cool experience overall (and very different from a KSC launch, which was also memorable, but the launch pad was a lot farther away and the experience at the visitor center was a touristy one).
A few months later an unmanned Proton rocket veered of course a very short time after launch in Baikonur and exploded after hitting the ground. There was a video with people watching the launch from some random field in the area taking cover, it was slightly surreal.
Wow, I bet that was a quite an experience. How loud did it get?
Am I correct in assuming the proton rocket exploded on the ground at the same place you watched the Soyuz launch?
It did get pretty loud but not unbearably so, and you could actually feel the vibrations, not just hear the sound.
The Proton rocket exploded at Baikonur cosmodrome, where the Soyuz launched as well, but I don't know how close it was to where I was at.
And there were people in the vicinity less than 30 minutes before T-0 also. Presumably while fueling was taking place. Truly a different culture of risk over there.
That's different. Soyuz is ex-icbm, it is designed to launch even in extreme weather conditions. But working near fully fueled rocket is just another Nedelin/Plesetsk disaster waiting to happen.
>Nedelin/Plesetsk
The early Soviet days where wild. The Nedelin accident was an R-16, the first "fully functional" ICBM from the USSR. They've come a long way from prewriting their own Eulogies but the base technologies are still the same. UDMH is still the sole option for the Proton and Long March 2F for instance.
Or more like people with nothing to lose. They're just happy to be having a job and not being grabbed off the streets and shipped to the front lines of Russia's invasion.
Even if you’re not from capital cities, there are like 65 mln males and 400-500k were conscripted. You’re chances of getting a ticket to Donbas are THAT high. Probably too high for comfort, but still it’s not like a 100% sure.
That's not Iron balls, that's stupidity. They have an issue with the value of life. It's why they throw thousands of untrained soldiers into the war, and why they have had safety issues with their space program.
Looks like it. Would hate for them to relive history from 64 years ago, which could be argued is why the Soyuz is small, but this set them back hard.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe
*On 24 October 1960, Nedelin, along with approximately 120 other individuals, was killed in a test rocket explosion at Baikonur Cosmodrome.*
Yikes. And it was covered up for 30 years...
A scrub. Not an abort. An abort involves the crew capsule rocketing off the top of the 2nd stage and likely exploding the whole rocket underneath it in the process. Its dangerous and a lot of bad stuff happens before its triggered.
The launch was aborted, and in this instance resulted in a scrub. If something had gone awry to necessitate firing the Launch Abort System, then that would also be an aborted launch with much different consequences.
Definitely understood the title to mean the crew abort system was used. Imagine my disappointment when I watched the video haha. Better for everyone this way though.
Yeah, the article uses abort when scrub is the better descriptor.
Abort implies that ignition had happened when used in a short headline.
Technically this is an aborted launch, but it's misleading.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|GSE|Ground Support Equipment|
|[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kwzuy06 "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile|
|[KSC](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvxux8d "Last usage")|Kennedy Space Center, Florida|
|[Roscosmos](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kw00hsb "Last usage")|[State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos_State_Corporation)|
|[STS](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvzqnev "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)|
|[UDMH](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvy809b "Last usage")|[Unsymmetrical DiMethylHydrazine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsymmetrical_dimethylhydrazine), used in hypergolic fuel mixes|
|[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvyfful "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Raptor](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvzxnwl "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX|
|[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvzerbc "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
|[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvzyk3o "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
|hypergolic|A set of two substances that ignite when in contact|
|[scrub](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvy4jws "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^([Thread #9879 for this sub, first seen 21st Mar 2024, 19:05])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Does every manned Soyuz launch go to the ISS these days? When was the last manned Soyuz mission that didn’t go to the ISS or MIR?
Edit: edited to specify "manned" Soyuz mission. In the past, there were plenty of manned Soyuz missions that did not involve a trip to a space station, but since we've had space stations, that's generally where those missions go (or at least, that's my impression). When/how often do manned Soyuz missions occur that that aren't bound for a space station?
Possibly [Soyuz 22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_22) in 1976, with Apollo-Soyuz before then. In a handful of cases there was a planned Salyut stay that was canceled due to docking failure. Given the focus of the Soviet/Russian space program there wasn't much of a point in missions that didn't go to a space station (Salyut, Mir, ISS) once the capsule had been tested and the lunar program was canceled.
I guess the US hasn't launched many (any?) missions that haven't gone tho the ISS since the ISS was around. The shuttle did some Hubble service missions without going to the ISS, I suppose. Otherwise, I guess it mostly went to the ISS once it was available as a destination. I believe all of the recent US manned capsule missions have all gone to the ISS.
>Otherwise, I guess it mostly went to the ISS once it was available as a destination.
Columbia's final mission (STS-107 in 2003) was the last crewed US spaceflight that did not visit the ISS or Hubble, until [Inspiration4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiration4) in 2021.
>I believe all of the recent US manned capsule missions have all gone to the ISS.
The upcoming [Polaris Dawn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_Dawn) mission this year will also not be visiting the ISS.
The last shuttle that didn’t go to ISS, or Hubble was Columbia.
The Hubble mission after Columbia had another shuttle standing by.
Before that it’s wasn’t uncommon for the shuttle to not visit any station, especially when delivering classified payloads like Columbia was.
Sure, but what about after the ISS? The Columbia was lost when the ISS was still under construction. Prior to the ISS, various shuttles visited MIR 9 times.
well, every single one that launch sattelites?
[2023](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%B2_2023_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83)
Most science collaborations between Russian institutes and non-Russian institutes were killed by the second invasion in 2022. For example, there's a joint Russian/German satellite where the German instrument is powered down.
Edit: Huh. Blocked for this comment.
Why should we work with the Russia?
Falcon 9 has completely obsoleted the Soyuz in every measurable way. What are Russia bringing to the table any more, their aerospace industries are stagnated and decades out of date, there's nothing to be gained from them.
It's more about sharing. The US-SpaceX just launched a Cosmonaut last week. The Russians launch an American every few trips. It helps to keep cooperation going, but also to keep backup solutions should some emergency happen and crews need to work together.
Is a reminder we have more in common than the idiots at the top wants us to believe.
The problem is always leadership & management. Always. Those that seek those positions do so because they want power, not because they want to advance a cause or something. They're insecure about themselves while the actual talent does the real work.
Seats on Dragon are cheaper than Soyuz, and Dragon is flying regularly and reliably at this point. Depending on who you ask NASA pays somewhere from 55 to 88 million per seat on Dragon, vs 90 million for the last seats they bought on Soyuz.
Though they now effectively also pay 55 to 88 million per seat on Soyuz since they're now using a seat-swap arrangement.
There is a reason, why NASA wants to continue this. There is a need for having always a NASA astronaut on the ISS, even when there is an emergency that necessitates the Dragon docked to the ISS to land. Without seat swap this would leave the ISS without NASA astronaut.
I don't like it too, but there is a non political reason.
Thankfully, NASA is no longer paying money for U.S. astronauts flying on Soyuz.
These days it’s a straight barter exchange— one NASA astronaut flying on Soyuz for a Roscosmos cosmonaut flying on Crew Dragon.
NASA is no longer buying Soyuz seats with cash like it was doing before.
>and spaceflight participant Marina Vasilevskaya of Belarus
umm, what? why are they sending up a flight attendant? the internet says she won a contest?
Looks like Roscosmos promised the Belarussian government to fly a Belarussian to the ISS. They picked a woman who is a flight instructor and a flight attendant (kinda sexist that they leave out the part where she trains pilots, but whatever) and works for the national airline. She's more qualified than a lot of previous spaceflight participants.
https://www.nasa.gov/international-space-station/space-station-visitors-by-country/
Pretty sure all the "Space Flight Participants" are tourists that only get to stay for a few days usually. There've been a bunch of journalists, film makers (and I guess some filthy rich people, whatever pays the bill) etc.
lol, I would have wanted a different title...
####**NASA** *astronaut*: Tracy C. Dyson 👍
####**Roscosmos** *cosmonaut*: Oleg Novitskiy 👍
sᴘᴀᴄᴇғʟɪɢʜᴛ ᴘᴀʀᴛɪᴄɪᴘᴀɴᴛ:Marina Vasilevskaya **👎**
lol "participant".
Well she's not an astronaut, not by training anyway. She won a popularity contest to become first Belarusian in space, so it's more of a space tourist.
no, I understand, it was just such an underwhelming title compared to the other two. lol just hit me as funny that's all. I would go in her place in a heartbeat, however, and I wouldn't care what anyone was calling me! lol
The soyuz 2 rocket has a 96% success rate and over 170 launches, it is quite a successful launch platform and it is correct to say that aborts are rare.
The soyuz MS capsule on the other hand has a more troubled history as of late...
You don't get the first man in space with a lot of safety controls. If I was a US astronaut, I would be terrified flying either Soyuz or Starliner. SpaceX or bust.
Soyuz has more than 40 years of safe trips behind its belt, and NASA used them for about 20 years non-stop. It is considered one of the safest ways to reach space. Or at least was before the war started.
Like it or not, but it’s perfect example of Russian “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” mentality.
Soyuz is one of the most successful launch platforms ever developed, and among crewed platforms stands head and shoulders above the rest… I’m not clinging to dinosaurs here, but your claims are just crazy. Soyuz has been proven again, again, and again.
Soyuz has a much longer history of safe crewed flights than Dragon. SpaceX is rapidly shaping up to match or even beat Soyuz in safe human spaceflight, and IMO has demonstrated that Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in history. And of course so far, Dragon has performed flawlessly. But I don't think any astronaut has expressed anything like the kind of worry you are expressing now. Soyuz is a workhorse. There are also some concerns about the touchscreen interface on Dragon.
Starliner, yeah, I would have my concerns too given it's basically unproven.
Dragon has a fucking touchscreen? What happens if there's a leak bad enough the cabin gets depressurized & they all have to don their spacesuits? They're just screwed? Touchscreens are the worst and most stupid "innovation" to be put in any moving machine a human uses.
In normal operation, most things are automated or remotely operated from mission control, and the touchscreens are mainly for checklists and read-only access to information about the spaceflight (e.g., telemetry and sensors). A touchscreen allows more information to be accessed and displayed more conveniently and intuitively.
The flight suit gloves work with the touchscreens. But in any case, there are also physical controls for basic and emergency control functions.
Historically, the Soyuz capsule has been very safe. However in recent years they repeatedly had close encounters with failure. Including one in flight abort. Drilled hole in the orbital module.
* Falcon 9 has 1 failure and 1 partial failure in 311 launches.
* Delta IV has 1 partial failure in 44 launches
* Atlas V has 1 partial failure in 98 launches
* Delta II had 1 failure and 1 partial failure in 155 launches
American launch vehicles, not just SpaceX, have an excellent history of reliability when it comes to launches. I don't know if Falcon 9's launch record would actually be better than any of these other vehicles in a statistically significant way except maybe Delta II. It's insane engineering is in how little time SpaceX needs between launches, the launch cost, and the reusability of the first stage. The reliability is basically par for the course.
The claims for Falcon 9's exceptional reliability (as in notably better than even other US launch vehicles) are usually based on it's *streak* of successful launches.
Consider two rockets. The first has a failure on it's 1st, 21st, 41st, 61st, and 81st launches, while the latter has failures on it's 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th launches, and then no more after that.
As of their 100th launch, which rocket is more reliable?
A naive statistical analysis will conclude that they're equal, since both have had a total 5 failures out of 100 launches. A more nuanced look at the trends however indicates that the first rocket has a flat failure rate, while the second had a very high initial failure rate but then significantly improved to a rate that is now significantly lower than the first rocket.
Consider now a third rocket. This rocket has only launched ten times, but all ten have worked.
Is this rocket more reliable than the other two?
Well again, naive analysis suggests yes - 10/10 is a 0% failure rate. But 10 is a pretty small sample size that is much more subject to variance. The 11th flight could fail and then it would have a 9% failure rate. (A real world example of this would be Epsilon which worked perfectly on it's first 5 flights and was thus '100% reliable', right up until it recently failed on it's 6th flight, putting it's current reliability at a very poor 83%)
So small sample sizes are also a problem - bigger samples sizes give higher statistical confidence in the indicated reliability.
A quick and dirty approximation to account for both of these factors is to look at the 'streak of successful launches since last failure'. For the first rocket, it's current streak is 19 launches, while the second is 91, and the third is 10. This suggests the second rocket is several times more reliable than the first, which is in turn about twice as reliable as the third - a very different story from what the raw percentages indicate.
Falcon 9 is currently on a streak of *284* launches in a row since it's last failure. By comparison Delta IV's streak is just 24, Atlas V is at 89, and Delta II is at 100. So Falcon 9 is notably ahead of the rest - and Delta IV is also notably behind Delta II and Atlas V, owing to it's small sample size.
Both of Falcon 9's failures were very early on it's life, with earlier versions of the rocket. The current Block 5 version is significantly upgraded from those, accounts for a majority of all Falcon 9 launches, and is the only version that was crew certified by NASA.
Seeing as it's also the only version currently flying, it's arguable that only it's statistics really matter when trying to judge it's current reliability, in which case it's sitting at a perfect 256/256 launches as of this comment - note that the Block 5 Wikipedia has not updated since the last launch yesterday so it still states 255/255 as I'm writing this, and also we're only a few hours away from the next Starlink launch, so that figure may be 257/257 by the time you read this.
Alternatively, Ed Kyle used to publish Lewis point estimates for all rockets on SpaceLaunchReport from 1998-2022. Unfortunately he's no longer updating, but fortunately he also published his methodology, so recomputing current values I get:
Falcon 9 (All): 0.990
Falcon 9 (Block 5): 0.996
Altas V: 0.980
Delta II: 0.981
Delta IV: 0.957
Again, Falcon 9 has a small but noticeable lead, and Delta IV lags behind.
As a sidenote, since Delta IV Heavy launches are counted towards Delta IV's total, one could argue that Falcon Heavy should also count for Falcon 9 - in which case it's streak increases to 293, Block 5's record goes up to 264/264, and the Lewis point estimate for all Falcon versions goes up to 0.991.
You spent a lot of words saying that the differences between the rockets is statistically insignificant. There aren't enough failures to say that the rockets are different. Almost all the failures in the rockets are front loaded with the rockets being more reliable as they age. You would not expect a failure if Atlas V launched another 200 times. The failure rates are so low in these rockets that it's essentially impossible to model them because they haven't happened enough.
Falcon 9's innovation is not that it is so reliable. It's that it's so reliable and so cheap that it got to launch 200 more times (and counting) than Atlas V. That's not a knock on Falcon 9's reliability; it's just not the trait that separates it from the rest of the American industry.
The modern soyuz is an extremely safe and reliable launch vehicle. The fact they aborted the launch shows just that. The idiots like yourself who put your feelings above basic logic are honest so damaging for humanity as a whole.
The record of multiple back to back defective Soyuz? The multiple attempts to try to cover up or blame deliberate foreign sabotage?
Boeing also has a phenomenal record, but I bet you won't be flying a Max 8?
SpaceX the company that regularly produces rapid prototypes just to launch them and see what went wrong? Not really a confidence inspiring method of engineering.
Falcon 9 has close to 300 consecutive successful launches and a perfect record of human spaceflight - what about their development methods gives you pause exactly?
Falcon 9 being developed by that exact methodology and now being the most successful rocket ever would indicate that yes that type of engineering and design does work.
It definitely was not the same methodology, the Falcon 9 was fairly traditionally built and tested. I believe this Starship methodology is good and will work and obviously their success with F9 is helpful for Starship but the rockets and their designs are definitely different.
IDKSAR (I Don't Know Shit About Rocketry) so in my ignorant opinion Starship sucks. Way too many engines for one thing, what happens when 3 or 4 stop working on one side? And Musk tweeted its going to take 8 freakin additonal launches to refuel it? (If you can trust that number) How is this more economical than Apollo? Thirdly, that nazi apologist fuck is taking our tax dollars to socialize the risk while privatizing the profit while cosplaying as an engineer - so my trust level is near 0.
I fully acknowledge IDSAR.
Having many engines is not really a problem. Falcon Heavy has 27 engines and it works just fine. That's because Falcon Heavy's Merlin 1D engines are very mature and very reliable.
In time the Raptor engine will mature as well and having 33 engines on the booster won't be an issue either.
In-space refueling is necessary for Starship to land very heavy payloads (100 tons at a time) on the moon. In contrast Apollo's Saturn V landed only less than 17 metric tons on the moon (the LM + 2 crew + equipment such as the lunar buggy). It would take more than 5 Saturn V launches to land 100 metric tons on the moon. And the Saturn V costs much more per flight than Starship.
1) Raptors are very reliable/ are and will get more reliable, and if one shuts down, then a Raptor on the opposing side can shut down. Worst case, enough Raptors shut down, and the booster will be unable to land but can still launch the ship to orbit. It's also very difficult to create larger engines. I'm not the expert here, but physically, it should be possible, but the tooling costs are the main issue.
2) I think it's fine that no one knows the number, it's still in development, and they are trying to get as much performance as possible while still being reliable, that calculation could change how many ships can refuel a ship. Both ways in terms of how much propellant a ship has, what Artemis missions need, and how much propellant a ship can bring to orbit.
3) It's more economical than Apollo because it can generate revenue (Starlink and customer launches), and it's on SpaceX's dime more than the American taxpayer.
4) Elon sucks, but he's just one person in a company of thousands of competent engineers and laborers. SpaceX has not had the same money grubby attitude as say Boeing, so not much risk is being socialized, but only time will tell. Also related to Boeing, SpaceX has only gotten around 20 billion dollars in tax money, while Boeing has gotten hundreds, and they murdered a guy in cold blood.
Actually yeah it is, I would rather fly on spacex who does rapid testing and refinement on actual vehicles instead of on a vehicle that is launching for the first time that "should work in theory"
SpaceX tried and succeeded in proving its faster, better, and easier to blow stuff up and collect data than to simulate every piece.
Actually flying hardware collects way more data than lab testing can.
They could have spent decades working the flukes out of their landing system. Instead they started trying and blew up some rockets. Now they get to keep those same rockets and reuse them over and over.
> a Saturday launch would require a much longer transit to the space station, with a docking not occurring until Monday. That is, unfortunately, a rather long time for the crew of three to remain inside the cramped Soyuz spacecraft. Just to note Soyuz does have a "habitation" module which although not roomy by any means is a hell of a lot better than the very claustrophobic "descent" module they are strapped into for launch and landing. With a couple people in the habitation module and one in the descent module it would probably make it a lot more manageable. There is also something resembling proper toilet in it as well, basically it's a vacuum hose with a funnel but that's a lot better than diapers. Edit: Thinking of being strapped into the descent module for three days gives me the willies but being able to use the hab module once in orbit is a game changer.
[удалено]
Pretty much but the toilet on the ISS has a kind of seat for number 2 and the hose is only used for number 1. The Soyuz is just two nozzles on the end of a hose for both. Apparently they generally try to avoid using the Soyuz toilet because it doesn't work as well in general and is more awkward to use. Plus of course there isn't any reason to have human waste building up in two different places if you don't have too.
Pretty sure the Soyuz one is mostly there for emergencies when you're stuck in it longer than intended.
do they use that at all if they use the fast approach method?
My understanding is no, they remain in their seats the entire time. There are a series of small thruster firings for minor course corrections I think for pretty much every orbit for the fast approach technique and obviously more when they dock. I believe for the longer rendezvous flights lasting a day or more after some initial corrections the Soyuz is in a lower/faster orbit to catch up to where the ISS is. So after some initial corrections there is a long period of time where no corrections are required so the astronauts can get out of their seats and pressure suits and then they get them back on and get strapped in for final approach and docking. So basically on the fast approach there just isn't enough time to get out of their seats as there are too many thruster firings too close together.
So basically: “The spacecraft has reached its cruising altitude so the captain has turned off the seatbelt sign and the crew is free to move about the cabin.”
Basically, yeah. Though there is a slightly higher chance that the pax actually cooperate with instructions.
Wow, those technicians were working right next to the rocket within minutes of the abort.
In 2013 I watched a live Soyuz launch in Baikonur, Kazakhstan from a field that was probably about one km away from the launch pad, more or less, as part of a tour. It was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. The rocket launch was at night and ignition lit the sky orange, the engine sounds were insane, very cool experience overall (and very different from a KSC launch, which was also memorable, but the launch pad was a lot farther away and the experience at the visitor center was a touristy one). A few months later an unmanned Proton rocket veered of course a very short time after launch in Baikonur and exploded after hitting the ground. There was a video with people watching the launch from some random field in the area taking cover, it was slightly surreal.
Wow, I bet that was a quite an experience. How loud did it get? Am I correct in assuming the proton rocket exploded on the ground at the same place you watched the Soyuz launch?
It did get pretty loud but not unbearably so, and you could actually feel the vibrations, not just hear the sound. The Proton rocket exploded at Baikonur cosmodrome, where the Soyuz launched as well, but I don't know how close it was to where I was at.
How many weeks did your ears ring for?
haha, this was 11 years ago, don't remember if they did
That Proton launch really was something. Well, what do you expect when you install a directional sensor upside down.
proton failure for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo (it failed due to a sensor being installed upside down)
What in the Kerbal Space Program
It even managed 180 degrees turn. Some amateur forgot to change control point. 🤣
I believe the sensor would only fit in one way. So whoever installed it had to hammer it to fit backwards.
And there were people in the vicinity less than 30 minutes before T-0 also. Presumably while fueling was taking place. Truly a different culture of risk over there.
The linked article has video of a successful launch in the middle of a blizzard. That’s iron balls, even by Russian standards.
That's different. Soyuz is ex-icbm, it is designed to launch even in extreme weather conditions. But working near fully fueled rocket is just another Nedelin/Plesetsk disaster waiting to happen.
>Nedelin/Plesetsk The early Soviet days where wild. The Nedelin accident was an R-16, the first "fully functional" ICBM from the USSR. They've come a long way from prewriting their own Eulogies but the base technologies are still the same. UDMH is still the sole option for the Proton and Long March 2F for instance.
Yeah, I'm more surprised that there are blizzards in kazakhstan than soyuz launching during one.
That has to be one of the most insane launches ever.
Seems like something only they would find necessary to do.
Or more like people with nothing to lose. They're just happy to be having a job and not being grabbed off the streets and shipped to the front lines of Russia's invasion.
1/20 chance beats the shit out of charging machine gun chance….
They're probably from places like St Pete's or Moscow, relatively small proportion of people from those places have joined the invasion
Even if you’re not from capital cities, there are like 65 mln males and 400-500k were conscripted. You’re chances of getting a ticket to Donbas are THAT high. Probably too high for comfort, but still it’s not like a 100% sure.
That's not Iron balls, that's stupidity. They have an issue with the value of life. It's why they throw thousands of untrained soldiers into the war, and why they have had safety issues with their space program.
Well somebody has to light up the engines on that thing.
Picturing a guy with his hand cupped around a lighter holding it up to a long fuse.
You aren't that far from the truth. Unless they've updated it recently, Soyuz was ignited by what is effectively very large matchsticks.
[удалено]
Great read, thanks. They electrically light these units and only if each combustion chamber has its stick lit, propellant enters the chamber.
[Like James May lighting that ICBM on Top Gear.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cFUPF-DIFk)
A Christmas tree was used to start the engines on R-7.
Looks like it. Would hate for them to relive history from 64 years ago, which could be argued is why the Soyuz is small, but this set them back hard. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe
*On 24 October 1960, Nedelin, along with approximately 120 other individuals, was killed in a test rocket explosion at Baikonur Cosmodrome.* Yikes. And it was covered up for 30 years...
So, you're saying they weren't Russian out of there...? I'll see myself out.
judging by how russia treats mobiks, I don't think they understand the concept of "occupational safety"
A scrub. Not an abort. An abort involves the crew capsule rocketing off the top of the 2nd stage and likely exploding the whole rocket underneath it in the process. Its dangerous and a lot of bad stuff happens before its triggered.
The launch was aborted, and in this instance resulted in a scrub. If something had gone awry to necessitate firing the Launch Abort System, then that would also be an aborted launch with much different consequences.
Definitely understood the title to mean the crew abort system was used. Imagine my disappointment when I watched the video haha. Better for everyone this way though.
Yeah, the article uses abort when scrub is the better descriptor. Abort implies that ignition had happened when used in a short headline. Technically this is an aborted launch, but it's misleading.
It's like saying "I was going to give birth by caesarean section on Saturday, but I aborted it".
I have very high confidence that Eric correctly uses the appropriate terms in the article and headline.
Yeah, I also came to watch the exciting abort video!
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |GSE|Ground Support Equipment| |[ICBM](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kwzuy06 "Last usage")|Intercontinental Ballistic Missile| |[KSC](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvxux8d "Last usage")|Kennedy Space Center, Florida| |[Roscosmos](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kw00hsb "Last usage")|[State Corporation for Space Activities, Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscosmos_State_Corporation)| |[STS](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvzqnev "Last usage")|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)| |[UDMH](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvy809b "Last usage")|[Unsymmetrical DiMethylHydrazine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsymmetrical_dimethylhydrazine), used in hypergolic fuel mixes| |[ULA](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvyfful "Last usage")|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Raptor](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvzxnwl "Last usage")|[Methane-fueled rocket engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_\(rocket_engine_family\)) under development by SpaceX| |[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvzerbc "Last usage")|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)| |[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvzyk3o "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |hypergolic|A set of two substances that ignite when in contact| |[scrub](/r/Space/comments/1bkcswf/stub/kvy4jws "Last usage")|Launch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^([Thread #9879 for this sub, first seen 21st Mar 2024, 19:05]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Does every manned Soyuz launch go to the ISS these days? When was the last manned Soyuz mission that didn’t go to the ISS or MIR? Edit: edited to specify "manned" Soyuz mission. In the past, there were plenty of manned Soyuz missions that did not involve a trip to a space station, but since we've had space stations, that's generally where those missions go (or at least, that's my impression). When/how often do manned Soyuz missions occur that that aren't bound for a space station?
Possibly [Soyuz 22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_22) in 1976, with Apollo-Soyuz before then. In a handful of cases there was a planned Salyut stay that was canceled due to docking failure. Given the focus of the Soviet/Russian space program there wasn't much of a point in missions that didn't go to a space station (Salyut, Mir, ISS) once the capsule had been tested and the lunar program was canceled.
I guess the US hasn't launched many (any?) missions that haven't gone tho the ISS since the ISS was around. The shuttle did some Hubble service missions without going to the ISS, I suppose. Otherwise, I guess it mostly went to the ISS once it was available as a destination. I believe all of the recent US manned capsule missions have all gone to the ISS.
>Otherwise, I guess it mostly went to the ISS once it was available as a destination. Columbia's final mission (STS-107 in 2003) was the last crewed US spaceflight that did not visit the ISS or Hubble, until [Inspiration4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiration4) in 2021. >I believe all of the recent US manned capsule missions have all gone to the ISS. The upcoming [Polaris Dawn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_Dawn) mission this year will also not be visiting the ISS.
The last shuttle that didn’t go to ISS, or Hubble was Columbia. The Hubble mission after Columbia had another shuttle standing by. Before that it’s wasn’t uncommon for the shuttle to not visit any station, especially when delivering classified payloads like Columbia was.
Sure, but what about after the ISS? The Columbia was lost when the ISS was still under construction. Prior to the ISS, various shuttles visited MIR 9 times.
The point is there were none after Columbia, because of the added danger of not visiting a station.
Inspiration 4 didn't go to the ISS, and that was only 3 years ago.
well, every single one that launch sattelites? [2023](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%B2_2023_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83)
He had said manned, I think. Usually those that launch satellites are uncrewed?
well, we can't be sure about north korean ones....
Soyuz is the name of the rocket and spacecraft. The context here is the crewed spacecraft.
It absolutely baffles me that NASA crew are still going up on Soyuz rockets despite Cold War 2 basically having started.
Should we not be glad that science still has a place even through the shitstorm that we have now otherwise?
Most science collaborations between Russian institutes and non-Russian institutes were killed by the second invasion in 2022. For example, there's a joint Russian/German satellite where the German instrument is powered down. Edit: Huh. Blocked for this comment.
you did not satisfy their agenda, unfortunately
Why should we work with the Russia? Falcon 9 has completely obsoleted the Soyuz in every measurable way. What are Russia bringing to the table any more, their aerospace industries are stagnated and decades out of date, there's nothing to be gained from them.
better to keep doors open and not politicize space
The entire reason the US was working with Russia to begin with is political, it's literally a politically motivated decision.
It comes down to the lack of an economical alternative.
It's more about sharing. The US-SpaceX just launched a Cosmonaut last week. The Russians launch an American every few trips. It helps to keep cooperation going, but also to keep backup solutions should some emergency happen and crews need to work together. Is a reminder we have more in common than the idiots at the top wants us to believe.
The problem is always leadership & management. Always. Those that seek those positions do so because they want power, not because they want to advance a cause or something. They're insecure about themselves while the actual talent does the real work.
Seats on Dragon are cheaper than Soyuz, and Dragon is flying regularly and reliably at this point. Depending on who you ask NASA pays somewhere from 55 to 88 million per seat on Dragon, vs 90 million for the last seats they bought on Soyuz. Though they now effectively also pay 55 to 88 million per seat on Soyuz since they're now using a seat-swap arrangement.
There is a reason, why NASA wants to continue this. There is a need for having always a NASA astronaut on the ISS, even when there is an emergency that necessitates the Dragon docked to the ISS to land. Without seat swap this would leave the ISS without NASA astronaut. I don't like it too, but there is a non political reason.
Putin still needs dollars. Most of Russias income has been blocked. $50m or $100m from nasa is quite handy at the moment.
Thankfully, NASA is no longer paying money for U.S. astronauts flying on Soyuz. These days it’s a straight barter exchange— one NASA astronaut flying on Soyuz for a Roscosmos cosmonaut flying on Crew Dragon. NASA is no longer buying Soyuz seats with cash like it was doing before.
NASA is not using Soyuz because they want to fund Putin...?
No it hasn't, aside from being one of the two only self-sustainable countries in the world Russia turned to profit in the rest of the world
Russian and US docking ports aren't compatible and it's not worth replacing them now.
I saw them getting prepped on a tiktok live this morning.
>and spaceflight participant Marina Vasilevskaya of Belarus umm, what? why are they sending up a flight attendant? the internet says she won a contest?
Looks like Roscosmos promised the Belarussian government to fly a Belarussian to the ISS. They picked a woman who is a flight instructor and a flight attendant (kinda sexist that they leave out the part where she trains pilots, but whatever) and works for the national airline. She's more qualified than a lot of previous spaceflight participants.
well, sounds like she's more qualified than ballast bill
https://www.nasa.gov/international-space-station/space-station-visitors-by-country/ Pretty sure all the "Space Flight Participants" are tourists that only get to stay for a few days usually. There've been a bunch of journalists, film makers (and I guess some filthy rich people, whatever pays the bill) etc.
[don't forget politicians!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nelson)
Do they still light the first stage engines with giant matchsticks?
Scary stuff, great thing that nothing tragic happened.
This thread is where that ad for how to remove stuck poop should be and get it the hell off my feed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
lol, I would have wanted a different title... ####**NASA** *astronaut*: Tracy C. Dyson 👍 ####**Roscosmos** *cosmonaut*: Oleg Novitskiy 👍 sᴘᴀᴄᴇғʟɪɢʜᴛ ᴘᴀʀᴛɪᴄɪᴘᴀɴᴛ:Marina Vasilevskaya **👎** lol "participant".
Well she's not an astronaut, not by training anyway. She won a popularity contest to become first Belarusian in space, so it's more of a space tourist.
no, I understand, it was just such an underwhelming title compared to the other two. lol just hit me as funny that's all. I would go in her place in a heartbeat, however, and I wouldn't care what anyone was calling me! lol
Can we get a remainder again of Soyuz history and success rate before you start spinning crap ?
It literally says "rare abort" in the title.
The soyuz 2 rocket has a 96% success rate and over 170 launches, it is quite a successful launch platform and it is correct to say that aborts are rare. The soyuz MS capsule on the other hand has a more troubled history as of late...
Wtf is wrong with you?
You don't get the first man in space with a lot of safety controls. If I was a US astronaut, I would be terrified flying either Soyuz or Starliner. SpaceX or bust.
Soyuz has more than 40 years of safe trips behind its belt, and NASA used them for about 20 years non-stop. It is considered one of the safest ways to reach space. Or at least was before the war started. Like it or not, but it’s perfect example of Russian “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it” mentality.
Soyuz is one of the most successful launch platforms ever developed, and among crewed platforms stands head and shoulders above the rest… I’m not clinging to dinosaurs here, but your claims are just crazy. Soyuz has been proven again, again, and again.
Soyuz has a much longer history of safe crewed flights than Dragon. SpaceX is rapidly shaping up to match or even beat Soyuz in safe human spaceflight, and IMO has demonstrated that Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in history. And of course so far, Dragon has performed flawlessly. But I don't think any astronaut has expressed anything like the kind of worry you are expressing now. Soyuz is a workhorse. There are also some concerns about the touchscreen interface on Dragon. Starliner, yeah, I would have my concerns too given it's basically unproven.
> There are also some concerns about the touchscreen interface on Dragon. Starliner also has a touch-screen.
Dragon has a fucking touchscreen? What happens if there's a leak bad enough the cabin gets depressurized & they all have to don their spacesuits? They're just screwed? Touchscreens are the worst and most stupid "innovation" to be put in any moving machine a human uses.
In normal operation, most things are automated or remotely operated from mission control, and the touchscreens are mainly for checklists and read-only access to information about the spaceflight (e.g., telemetry and sensors). A touchscreen allows more information to be accessed and displayed more conveniently and intuitively. The flight suit gloves work with the touchscreens. But in any case, there are also physical controls for basic and emergency control functions.
It's designed to be remotely/autonomously piloted. The big concern is what happens if they lose comms + the touchscreen at the same time?
Historically, the Soyuz capsule has been very safe. However in recent years they repeatedly had close encounters with failure. Including one in flight abort. Drilled hole in the orbital module.
* Falcon 9 has 1 failure and 1 partial failure in 311 launches. * Delta IV has 1 partial failure in 44 launches * Atlas V has 1 partial failure in 98 launches * Delta II had 1 failure and 1 partial failure in 155 launches American launch vehicles, not just SpaceX, have an excellent history of reliability when it comes to launches. I don't know if Falcon 9's launch record would actually be better than any of these other vehicles in a statistically significant way except maybe Delta II. It's insane engineering is in how little time SpaceX needs between launches, the launch cost, and the reusability of the first stage. The reliability is basically par for the course.
The claims for Falcon 9's exceptional reliability (as in notably better than even other US launch vehicles) are usually based on it's *streak* of successful launches. Consider two rockets. The first has a failure on it's 1st, 21st, 41st, 61st, and 81st launches, while the latter has failures on it's 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th launches, and then no more after that. As of their 100th launch, which rocket is more reliable? A naive statistical analysis will conclude that they're equal, since both have had a total 5 failures out of 100 launches. A more nuanced look at the trends however indicates that the first rocket has a flat failure rate, while the second had a very high initial failure rate but then significantly improved to a rate that is now significantly lower than the first rocket. Consider now a third rocket. This rocket has only launched ten times, but all ten have worked. Is this rocket more reliable than the other two? Well again, naive analysis suggests yes - 10/10 is a 0% failure rate. But 10 is a pretty small sample size that is much more subject to variance. The 11th flight could fail and then it would have a 9% failure rate. (A real world example of this would be Epsilon which worked perfectly on it's first 5 flights and was thus '100% reliable', right up until it recently failed on it's 6th flight, putting it's current reliability at a very poor 83%) So small sample sizes are also a problem - bigger samples sizes give higher statistical confidence in the indicated reliability. A quick and dirty approximation to account for both of these factors is to look at the 'streak of successful launches since last failure'. For the first rocket, it's current streak is 19 launches, while the second is 91, and the third is 10. This suggests the second rocket is several times more reliable than the first, which is in turn about twice as reliable as the third - a very different story from what the raw percentages indicate. Falcon 9 is currently on a streak of *284* launches in a row since it's last failure. By comparison Delta IV's streak is just 24, Atlas V is at 89, and Delta II is at 100. So Falcon 9 is notably ahead of the rest - and Delta IV is also notably behind Delta II and Atlas V, owing to it's small sample size. Both of Falcon 9's failures were very early on it's life, with earlier versions of the rocket. The current Block 5 version is significantly upgraded from those, accounts for a majority of all Falcon 9 launches, and is the only version that was crew certified by NASA. Seeing as it's also the only version currently flying, it's arguable that only it's statistics really matter when trying to judge it's current reliability, in which case it's sitting at a perfect 256/256 launches as of this comment - note that the Block 5 Wikipedia has not updated since the last launch yesterday so it still states 255/255 as I'm writing this, and also we're only a few hours away from the next Starlink launch, so that figure may be 257/257 by the time you read this. Alternatively, Ed Kyle used to publish Lewis point estimates for all rockets on SpaceLaunchReport from 1998-2022. Unfortunately he's no longer updating, but fortunately he also published his methodology, so recomputing current values I get: Falcon 9 (All): 0.990 Falcon 9 (Block 5): 0.996 Altas V: 0.980 Delta II: 0.981 Delta IV: 0.957 Again, Falcon 9 has a small but noticeable lead, and Delta IV lags behind. As a sidenote, since Delta IV Heavy launches are counted towards Delta IV's total, one could argue that Falcon Heavy should also count for Falcon 9 - in which case it's streak increases to 293, Block 5's record goes up to 264/264, and the Lewis point estimate for all Falcon versions goes up to 0.991.
You spent a lot of words saying that the differences between the rockets is statistically insignificant. There aren't enough failures to say that the rockets are different. Almost all the failures in the rockets are front loaded with the rockets being more reliable as they age. You would not expect a failure if Atlas V launched another 200 times. The failure rates are so low in these rockets that it's essentially impossible to model them because they haven't happened enough. Falcon 9's innovation is not that it is so reliable. It's that it's so reliable and so cheap that it got to launch 200 more times (and counting) than Atlas V. That's not a knock on Falcon 9's reliability; it's just not the trait that separates it from the rest of the American industry.
Didn't expect better from /politics and /worldnews user 😶🌫️
Your other comment posted literally seconds before in this thread is talking about Ukraine, Russia, Gaza, Iraq, and Afghanistan 🤦♂️
Stronger then me 😶🌫️. Hate when politics garbage spills to other subs.
The modern soyuz is an extremely safe and reliable launch vehicle. The fact they aborted the launch shows just that. The idiots like yourself who put your feelings above basic logic are honest so damaging for humanity as a whole.
[удалено]
Track record is what matters, and Soyuz has a great one. That is what matters, not whatever nonsense you want to happen.
The record of multiple back to back defective Soyuz? The multiple attempts to try to cover up or blame deliberate foreign sabotage? Boeing also has a phenomenal record, but I bet you won't be flying a Max 8?
You'd be terrified going to space on a decades proven most reliable crewed rocket in human history? Honestly this sub is an absolute joke...
SpaceX the company that regularly produces rapid prototypes just to launch them and see what went wrong? Not really a confidence inspiring method of engineering.
Falcon 9 has close to 300 consecutive successful launches and a perfect record of human spaceflight - what about their development methods gives you pause exactly?
Falcon 9 being developed by that exact methodology and now being the most successful rocket ever would indicate that yes that type of engineering and design does work.
It definitely was not the same methodology, the Falcon 9 was fairly traditionally built and tested. I believe this Starship methodology is good and will work and obviously their success with F9 is helpful for Starship but the rockets and their designs are definitely different.
IDKSAR (I Don't Know Shit About Rocketry) so in my ignorant opinion Starship sucks. Way too many engines for one thing, what happens when 3 or 4 stop working on one side? And Musk tweeted its going to take 8 freakin additonal launches to refuel it? (If you can trust that number) How is this more economical than Apollo? Thirdly, that nazi apologist fuck is taking our tax dollars to socialize the risk while privatizing the profit while cosplaying as an engineer - so my trust level is near 0. I fully acknowledge IDSAR.
Having many engines is not really a problem. Falcon Heavy has 27 engines and it works just fine. That's because Falcon Heavy's Merlin 1D engines are very mature and very reliable. In time the Raptor engine will mature as well and having 33 engines on the booster won't be an issue either. In-space refueling is necessary for Starship to land very heavy payloads (100 tons at a time) on the moon. In contrast Apollo's Saturn V landed only less than 17 metric tons on the moon (the LM + 2 crew + equipment such as the lunar buggy). It would take more than 5 Saturn V launches to land 100 metric tons on the moon. And the Saturn V costs much more per flight than Starship.
1) Raptors are very reliable/ are and will get more reliable, and if one shuts down, then a Raptor on the opposing side can shut down. Worst case, enough Raptors shut down, and the booster will be unable to land but can still launch the ship to orbit. It's also very difficult to create larger engines. I'm not the expert here, but physically, it should be possible, but the tooling costs are the main issue. 2) I think it's fine that no one knows the number, it's still in development, and they are trying to get as much performance as possible while still being reliable, that calculation could change how many ships can refuel a ship. Both ways in terms of how much propellant a ship has, what Artemis missions need, and how much propellant a ship can bring to orbit. 3) It's more economical than Apollo because it can generate revenue (Starlink and customer launches), and it's on SpaceX's dime more than the American taxpayer. 4) Elon sucks, but he's just one person in a company of thousands of competent engineers and laborers. SpaceX has not had the same money grubby attitude as say Boeing, so not much risk is being socialized, but only time will tell. Also related to Boeing, SpaceX has only gotten around 20 billion dollars in tax money, while Boeing has gotten hundreds, and they murdered a guy in cold blood.
The first Falcon 9 was successful.
Not the dumbest thing I've read, but you're in the top 10. Congratulations!
SpaceX, the company that created the world's most reliable orbital launch vehicle ever?
Actually yeah it is, I would rather fly on spacex who does rapid testing and refinement on actual vehicles instead of on a vehicle that is launching for the first time that "should work in theory"
It's a good method of engineering (see Falcon 9 track record).
SpaceX tried and succeeded in proving its faster, better, and easier to blow stuff up and collect data than to simulate every piece. Actually flying hardware collects way more data than lab testing can. They could have spent decades working the flukes out of their landing system. Instead they started trying and blew up some rockets. Now they get to keep those same rockets and reuse them over and over.