Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=E2=80=9CDid_nobody_stop_to_think_what_might_happen?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_in_an_emergency_in_space=3F=E2=80=9D?=
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 15:03:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vanvq5$3jlj6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vaaphl$11duc$1@dont-email.me>
 <4ovrcjtbirqdtfdim85fbrpvfj2du3p0ro@4ax.com> <CcozO.4620$Ko9b.1897@fx41.iad>
 <vals46$36b8u$1@dont-email.me> <van57g$3fkvn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 22:03:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d284a67c36fa678aa8d665706baae296";
	logging-data="3790438"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zxZf9wgCKoMbxWbDxM8dkq3aSOf7liVw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:E1ySlHPI65p87w/VXwtPVp78PkM=
In-Reply-To: <van57g$3fkvn$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3672

On 8/28/2024 7:29 AM, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:
> Cryptoengineer  <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/27/2024 1:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:34:21 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> The still use Soviet Soyuz boosters.
>>>>>
>>>>> One might note that Putin desires the return of the Sovyetky Soyuz.
>>>>
>>>> They may use them (and lose them) but do they understand them well
>>>> enough to pair their spacecraft with ours?
>>>
>>> They routinely dock with the international space station, so the
>>> answer is yes.
>>
>> The US and the USSR jointly agreed to use a compatible docking
>> port over 50 years ago - remember Apollo-Soyuz in 1975? Its still
>> in use.
>>
>> The Soyuz launcher, btw, is one of the most reliable rockets ever
>> built. There have been over 1700 launches.
> 
> It kind of varies depending on variant. Soyuz-FG was pretty good, 70
> launches with just one failure but Soyuz-U was less so, a whopping 786
> launches but also 22 failures (that they acknowledge!).
> 
> And the record for the current version, Soyuz 2, is worse than U...
> One source gives: 160 orbital plus 1 suborbital, with 4 full failures
> and 2 partial.
> Another say: 178 total launches, with 7 full or partial failures,
> sources differ.
> 
> The corresponding statistics for the current version of Falcon 9,
> Block 5 is: 311 orbital launches, 1 failure (Starlink 9-3), no partial
> failures. That's a failure rate more than an order of magnitude lower
> than Soyuz 2's record! and until very recently it 300+ launches with NO
> failures.
> 
> And if we take the entire programs (all Soyuz vs all Falcon 9 & Falcon
> Heavy) it's a convincing "win" for SpaceX (by a factor of roughly 2 to
> 3). But yes, the Soyuz as a whole it probably deserves the "one of"
> even if the Soyuz 2 doesn't, though mostly through sheer numbers
> launched during the Soviet era.
> 
> Which is why even before Russias invasion of Ukraine the insurance
> premium for Falcon 9 was noticeably lower than that for Soyuz, whether
> launched from Russia (lots of recent failures) or by ESA (no faiures
> but only got up to 9 launches AFAIK).

I am surprised that Musk would insure any of his space rockets.  Now his 
customers, yes.

Lynn