Articles

Author of this "article" should work in Hollywood where he will write wonderful dramatizations or Sci-Fi stories.
This so called "technical article" full of exaggeration, inaccuracies and author personal opinion (agenda?) with one idea - make strong negative impression on public nerves...
However real life much more dry & boring...

I don't know if it merits a Carnegie medal/reward, but I hope those herdsmen received something for their help.

Re: Roman Tunkel's comment:

What are the "exaggeration, inaccuracies and author personal opinion"? Examples and evidence please!

Great article; interesting, informative, and technical; INTEREST = shows human bravery, ingenuity and concern for cosmonauts by local folk. INFORM = explains trajectories, alternative's G effect, and automation of auto-pilot to choose between the two; details fires; I suspect the spots of fire were from debree still attached to the craft. It melted or burned off during the high speed decent. This degree could have damaged the parachute on one side which may have caused the side-ways motion instead of a vertical landing. This theory may be SUPPORTED by the drawing of the descent trajectories. It shows the service modules landing up-range of the crew. These two would be much closer if they stayed attached longer than desired.

"...turned into a heart-stopping drama for ground controllers..." - typical Hollywood's gimmick;

"...craft had disappeared during the descent..." - craft did not disappeared. Looks like typical Hollywood's gimmick;

"...space officials at mission control in Moscow and at the recovery site seriously worried for at least half an hour—and some even believed, briefly, that the crew had been killed..."- typical Hollywood's gimmick;

"...Total disaster was avoided not by any real-time actions of the crew or ground teams but instead by the ingenious design and robust construction of the spacecraft..." - absolutely FALSE statement because ALL steps in landing are FULLY automated. Another typical Hollywood's gimmick;

"...the aft section did tear free, probably because of the mounting aerodynamic torques and heating..." - absolutely not. Separation finally happened, because it was designed such way that pyrobolts went off after the temperature is reached the certain point.

"...This may have been no mere lucky break..." - typical Hollywood - attempt to create impression that everything which working - is just struck of luck.

"...Russia suffered a series of near disasters early in its program..." - another dirty trick - the space exploration is and will be a dangerous business and ANY country especially in earlier years suffered the same fate.

"...So Russian engineers apparently modified module-to-module connectors to tear loose, if needed, under such entry stresses, even if the separation system fails entirely. If that modification was indeed made..." - speculation, which is wrong in every word.

"...may have been the first time this fail-safe system was flight-tested...." - whatever you call it... What is wrong with having fail-safe systems? In my mind it is much much much better then loose 14 astronauts because they spacecraft had no safety devices at all.

"...communication with the ground was badly garbled, perhaps by the spacecraft turning out of its planned orientation..." - wrong explanation.

"...Nothing was subsequently heard from the crew or any of the spacecraft radio beacons for an hour..." ~ 40 minutes

"...nothing showed up on ground radar..." - what or whose radar????

"...Local herdsmen were milling around the downed vehicle, but there were no signs of the three crew members. Rescuers feared the worst..."
- incorrect. Again dramatization in Hollywood's style...The herdsmen had arrived AFTER cosmonauts open hatch and got out.

"...Then the crew commander phoned home (all spacecraft communications systems had failed) by using a reserve satellite phone installed for just such an emergency..." - dramatization - not "all", some.

"...The herdsmen had quickly arrived and eagerly helped the crew out of the singed, sideways-leaning cabin. The unofficial rescuers had lain the three exhausted, weakened fliers in the shade of the spacecraft and had gone back inside to retrieve the satellite phone for them...." - incorrect. Again dramatization in Hollywood's style...The cosmonauts get out of capsule themselves. Besides, nobody is allowed to get into capsule without special PPE and special training.

"...Comparison with detailed photographs of earlier missions suggests that the scorching was within normal ranges..." - if so, why all this panic???

"... thruster could have been lost as a consequence of a vain attempt to steer the much-heavier-than-expected combined vehicle through the initial buffeting...." - incorrect and false statement. Thermo-protection was damaged during period of wrong orientation from overheating and brocken by following landing, with recoil of capsule from the ground.

"...Some reports say the Soyuz hit 11 g's for a few seconds, and one of the Soyuz astronauts, Peggy Whitson, recalls at one point seeing 8.4 on the craft's g-meter...." - incorrect, exaggeration, dramatization, the maximum was 8.2 g's with duration around 3-4 seconds.

"...sucked in smells of external scorching..." - "...Comparison with detailed photographs of earlier missions suggests that the scorching was within normal ranges..." - contradiction with only one explanation left - dramatization intent.

"...final ground impact was not vertical but sideways..." - it was happened before and will happened again. Depends on wind.

"...causing many heavy baggage .... to break free from restraints...." - there is no such things. Technical documentation only.

"....The ground fire also remains unexplained...."- by whom????. Again looks like dramatization intent, with explanation below: "...were indeed somehow caused by the landing. ... the separation pyros on the parachute lines..."

Shall we continue?

Yeah, man! Tell multy-billion-budget nursing home DO NOT try to take over MGM bussiness !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!