Jump to content

Talk:Nedelin catastrophe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fuels

[edit]

Nitric acid is not an oxidant so it surpised me to see it listed with "fuels" (the combination needs fuel and a reactive agent). UDMH is normally used with the oxidant Nitrogen Tetroxide, however I do not have record of what they were using on this ocassion

Nitric acid is not an oxidant..
It is, for sure. And it is one of the strongest oxidants (cp. WFNA or RFNA), it starts reaction on contact with a lot of reductants under normal conditions (in most of fuel combination it is hypergolic). Even pure Oxygen will not do this without the needed activation energy (ignition). --2A02:8109:8A00:24D4:D997:F91C:ADEF:1AF3 (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Site Source Question

[edit]

The aftermath section has a sentence that reads "A memorial to the dead technicians was erected near Baikonur and is still visited by RKA officals before any manned launch."

Is it true that RKA officials visit before any manned launch? What's the citation for this?

Cheers,Barce 18 July 2005 23:29:43 PDT

I don't know, that particular tidbit was inserted by 217.207.146.218 a little while ago. Given his other contributions, I'm inclined to believe it's true, but you're right, a citation/reference would be good. -Lommer | talk 21:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can either of you cite a published referance disputing the posted info? You may think that "posts that are disputed,or likely to be have to cite a published referance" means any dispute posted by any jackass on the planet. No. The policy of wikipedia is all posts have to comply with wiki policy. First assume good faith means the info posted is assumed to be posted in good faith not requiring tasking the poster unless it's disputed, or likely to be disputed by published sources. Otherwise we have citation lists that are longer than the articls. All because every ignorant attention seeking jerk on the planet disputes everything. That means that most "citation required" posts are in bad faith. Neither of you have any citable source to dispute that post. You're pulling "citation required" out of your hat. 98.164.64.68 (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Complete misreading of Wikipedia policy. Everything must be cited. If not, it can be removed.104.169.21.247 (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, wow, 98.164.64.68, that’s a bit fierce, right? In particular, U argue from an apparent contrast between understandings of Wikipolicy on citation, and on when it’s needed, and U conclude tht “most “citation required” posts are in bad faith”! Too often they’re unnecessary, intrusive, obstructive and/or irritating, right enough maybe. But *intended* as such? - U would need an industrial-strength mind-reader to be sure of that, surely??
On the underlying issue, when / whether citations are needed, I’m kind of in the middle. U’re entirely right in quoting the policy, and right to conclude tht these citation-needed tags get chucked in much too freely. They’re far too often obtruded where there’s no prospect of substantial dispute.
But for me, there are ‘startle’ cases. What I mean by that: cases where as reader I’m surprised / startled by what I’ve just seen, and I’m wondering how far to trust it. Would I simply repeat it, as fact, in ordinary conversation? or would I add a cautious “according to someone on Wikipedia”? The policy limits itself to cases of likely dispute. In my view it should also include startle cases. And, to me, this is a clear startle case. So I agree with contributors saying a citation would be valuable here.
So to some extent I’m on Ur side. But in this case, even in the absence of dispute, I’d very much welcome a citation. So on the specifics in this case I’m not. And I really regret Ur questioning people’s good faith. AGF is a pretty important policy. Frankly, I feel U’re in breach of it, in what U’ve said.
- SquisherDa (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Both the "R-12" and "R-14" references, which should point at other launchers, point at refrigerant entries instead.

Kurt Brandon 16 September 2005 22:22:00

Discrepancy

[edit]

Just happened to notice, 1960 says 91 people died in the disaster while October 24 gives a figure of 165 people. I don't know what the real death toll is, but at least I know a contradiction when I see one. Someone should probably fix it and then add the accurate number to the Nedelin catastrophe article. - green_meklar

The RussianSpaceWeb article gives an official figure of 92 dead and 49 injured, but adding up the numbers (84 soldiers buried on site, multiple soldiers buried elsewhere, and at least 18 civilians) indicates at least 104 deaths. The Aerospaceweb page says 122 dead. The videocosmos one says 126 were killed instantly, but its description of the explosion is inconsistent with the others, and IMO a little sensationalist. I think the best we can do is to stick with 'over 100'. --Townmouse 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

126 victims, including those who died in the hospitals. Source: B.E.Chertok. Missiles and People. Fili-Podlipki-Tyuratam. 212.188.108.195 08:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need better sourcing for these numbers, I was just noticing that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it... the old Soviet government did a lot of covering up on that disaster. To tell the truth, the world might never know the true number, so I'm afraid that this estimating is the best that anyone can do. BiggKwell 01:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but we're not supposed to make our own estimates, so we need precisely sourced ones. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed at the bottom of the article in the external links, all give different estimates. You will not be able to come up with a figure that has any certainty to it; the article will need a casualty figure couched in terms such as "The official deathtoll was 90 but estimates are as high as 200, with c.120 being the generally accepted figure." (See http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0179.shtml, where we read: "However, the true casualty list has always remained a mystery. More recent investigations have estimated the death toll as high as 200. The best estimate, however, appears to be around 122 fatalities. This value includes 74 killed in the blast and 48 who died over subsequent weeks from injuries due to burns or exposure to toxic chemicals." This article http://www.russianspaceweb.com/r16_disaster.html which is also an external link at the bottom of the article, only gives the official figure and does not voice any doubt about them. Possibly they are following the lead of Ogonyok, but I no longer have any back issues of it handy to check. There is, after all, the possibility that the official deathtoll was accurate, isn't there? Hi There 08:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect example of where info disputed or likely to be should have a published citations. The disputes are published and should be in the article not only for accuracy in what will always be an unreliable history but also because the notorious unreliability of published soviet info and the published disputes of soviet info are part of this story as the history of this story.

98.164.64.68 (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Location Discrepancy

[edit]

The coordinates listed at the top of the article direct to a pad located two pads to the west of that which is listed in the Wikipedia article on the Baikonur Cosmodrome, as well as Russian edits of the same site in Wikimapia. MVD (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Upon further review of the area, it may be that Site 41 encompasses a larger perimeter than initially interpreted. The exact location directed to by the listed coordinates may suffice, but further review may also be warranted. MVD (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MI Nedelin 02.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:MI Nedelin 02.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A short circuit in the replaced main sequencer

[edit]

According to Boris Chertok in Rockets and People, this was a design flaw, not a short circuit, in the control system. The operators in resolving launch problems bypassed at least two safety systems; when the control system was reset to the correct initial condition, due to this design flaw, second stage ignition was ordered. Partridgefoot (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short circuit seems to be unlikely.[1]
In this atmosphere, a device called PTR (or Programming Current Distributor in English), which activates the systems onboard the rocket in a certain sequence, was left in a post-launch position after a series of tests. By the time the personnel in the command bunker discovered that the switch of the PTR was not in the proper configuration, the electrical batteries on both stages of the rocket were already powered up. One source explained the early activation of the batteries by the concern about their operation in the cold weather. (85) Moreover, the membranes on the fuel and oxidizer lines of the second stage had been activated as well, so, the components of the self-igniting propellant were only one valve away from the combustion chamber of the engine. (62) In his memoirs, Sergei Khrushchev quotes a witness in the command bunker who reportedly overheard someone to ask: "So should I move PTR to zero?" and someone else to reply: "Go ahead." (87) On its way to a "zero" position, the PTR switch activated an electrically-driven pneumatic valve EPK VO-8, controlling the ignition of the engine on the second stage of the rocket. This command was intended as a back up to the primary system, which normally would ignite the engine of the second stage in flight. (62)
On the way to zero the PTR switch passed a position that triggers manual ignition of the second stage. That switch was never supposed to be reset to zero with the rocket fully prepared for launch with everything powered on. --217.18.181.18 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nedelin catastrophe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nedelin catastrophe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'* Intelsat 708 - 1996 launch failure which killed 6 people, in the worst space launch disaster since Nedelin.'

[edit]

Is this an error? Challenger killed 7 people on launch. Devgirl (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guessing, I’d say tht NASA probably considered this a climb accident - tht launch is complete when the craft clears the tower (and so is safe from being blown against it by surface wind). Can anyone confirm that?  –SquisherDa (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One problem is that China's official death toll for the Intelsat 708 failure is only 6 people. The circumstances of the disaster and how China handled it make a larger death toll likely but impossible to verify. However, also compare Intelsat 708 with the 1980 Plesetsk launch pad disaster listed just above it. That Intelsat 708 killed more than 6 seems very likely, but that it killed more than 48 is a stronger claim more open to dispute. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Alcântara VLS accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLS-1_V03

A similar accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.126.211.193 (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nedelin_catastrophe&oldid=1209365818"