I have a dim recollection that the launch abort was not widely reported at the time, and first was reported as a rumor, not a news item.
QuoteIt does have an inert one!It doesn't now.However point taken.I didn't realise that the original Progress used the same launch shroud as the Soyuz but with an inert escape tower purely for aerodynamic reasonsHowever since 1989 when Progress M flew that was changed and a new shroud fitted - minus the tower.Keith
It does have an inert one!
It would be fair also to mention a Soyuz 18a (crew Lazarev and Makarov) anomaly during second staging event in April of 1975. Third staged ignited when second stage was not separated and abort had been performed by Soyuz spacecraft own propulsion engine. This event had been revealed in open media only in 1983, while NASA got an official Soviet report two days after aborted launch.
These might be after that accident, but it does not look like a lot of damage. The newspapers are fake, however.
The documentary is quick to add that the Americans failed to draw the necessary lessons from the accident by not equipping the Space Shuttle with a crew escape system...
Quote from: B. Hendrickx on 02/13/2014 09:45 pm<snip>3-The documentary is quick to add that the Americans failed to draw the necessary lessons from the accident by not equipping the Space Shuttle with a crew escape system...3-That's an ignorant statement on their part. It was not possible to equip shuttle with such a system at this point (1983) without completely redesigning the vehicle and sacrificing most of its performance.
<snip>3-The documentary is quick to add that the Americans failed to draw the necessary lessons from the accident by not equipping the Space Shuttle with a crew escape system...
This was ironically a few weeks after the Soviet media made light of the SRB damage sustained during the launch of STS-8, saying it was proof that the US space program was negligent of crew safety.What Soyuz T-10-1 does prove is the Soviet program's less-than-advanced safety features particularly the LES that couldn't be activated except with a lengthy ground control sequence. They also do not seem to have had any fire suppressant system since the booster debris burned out of control for hours and resulted in huge damage to the pad. If you see footage of Atlas, Titan, etc pad explosions, the area quickly gets doused by water from the fire suppressant system, resulting in much less damage to the facilities.
Image apparently showing the Soyuz T-10a descent module not far from the launch pad, showing damage from the fire and explosion of the launch vehicle... New to me and cannot find a source.https://mobile.twitter.com/HomemDoEspacoBr/status/1458179172308815882