| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - History Forum » Very badly written Soyuz TM-11 article by local...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| M... |
 Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 3:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A real howler here:
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080502_tj_whitson.c0f41cbc.html
First, the writer implies that an off nominal ballistic Soyuz reentry
features an upside down reentry module.
My understanding is a ballistic reentry uses the normal orientation of
having rear heat shield toward the velocity vector.
Second the article states "...the last two Soyuz landings have had the
same trouble."
The previous reentry, although ballistic, did not feature a hatch
rearward attitude, and the service module separated normally.
Again I assert that I have no faith in the second estate. When the
media reports in error on a topic that I am well versed in, it brings
into question the accuracy of topics that I am not an expert in.
It is as though this article was written for elementary school
readers, it is so simplistic. ANd they probably read it verbatim on
the air, too!
sigh..... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| M... |
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 4:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 4, 4:38 pm, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
Quote: M wrote:
Second the article states "...the last two Soyuz landings have had the
same trouble."
The previous reentry, although ballistic, did not feature a hatch
rearward attitude, and the service module separated normally.
Again I assert that I have no faith in the second estate. When the
media reports in error on a topic that I am well versed in,
You may need a little more versing; Soyuz TMA-10 also had a problem
with the separation of its service module; the Russians neglected to
mention that malfunction until after TMA-11 had its problem.
James Oberg mentions that fact in his article:http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080502_tj_whitson.c0f41cbc...
Pat
The URL you show takes me back to the Jeremy Desel / 11 News article
that I mentioned in my original post. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 6:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
M wrote:
Quote: Second the article states "...the last two Soyuz landings have had the
same trouble."
The previous reentry, although ballistic, did not feature a hatch
rearward attitude, and the service module separated normally.
Again I assert that I have no faith in the second estate. When the
media reports in error on a topic that I am well versed in,
You may need a little more versing; Soyuz TMA-10 also had a problem
with the separation of its service module; the Russians neglected to
mention that malfunction until after TMA-11 had its problem.
James Oberg mentions that fact in his article:
http://www.khou.com/topstories/stories/khou080502_tj_whitson.c0f41cbc.html
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 10:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:54 am
|
|
