Scott, the tower was indeed jettisoned, what pulled the crew out to safety was the shroud, it has thrusters and can do it and it has being reported by NASA astronaut Mark Vande Hei that that's what exactly has happened. The tower is jettisoned BEFORE booster sep, so by the time of the failiure the tower was already out and indeed there is other footage that shows the tower releasing from the rocket as expected and then a few seconds later the failiure happens at booster sep.
Thanks, info has been fluid and I’m glad we got confirmation of this. The timeline on NASA's page put the tower & shroud Jettison as 42 seconds after staging, but clearly the tower was supposed to be gone 10 seconds after staging. The shroud has rockets which can be used for separation and those were used in this case. www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/soyuz/timeline_ascent.html
@@scottmanley BTW, I've seen pictures coming from Alexander Gerst (ISS Commander) of the launch seen from there and I think he actually captured the moment in which the LES kicks in and puts the capsule away from the rocket.
Can you please tell us what the shroud is, as opposed to the LES tower? Also, what G-force results from use of the shroud? I know the main LES has wicked G-forces, have seen 17g given. Apparently much less with the shroud, but - how much?
I speak Russian and was watching the incident live. As the fault happened, there was only one communication from the Space Crew, saying ДЕРЬМО. Roughly translated " SSHHHHIIIIITTTTTTTTTT"
John Toas not astronauts. They’re probably the most expensive single part of a rocket. Consider that, apart from a few exceptions, all rockets are single use. They would have to replace the rocket anyway. Replacing the crew much harder.
That is my standard operating mode in career. I only fly crew on certified lift vehicles though, that have made at least 1 good flight with a similar weight. I don't have random parts-failure enabled though, so I generally don't need an escape system.
Nothing is proven if you suddenly start building failing rockets and rockets with holes in them. Or if the previous corrupt and delusional head of roscosmos gets replaced in 2020 by someone whose qualification is "Putler likes me".
At least 4 aust died in space, with >150 ppl on the ground during the "program". And that's just official soviet numbers. Decades proven record my ass.
If Russia had Tim Hortons they'd probably serve vodka at the drive thru. "Hi I'd like to have a large double double vodka" "Hey you're back I thought you were going to space" "yeah... make that TWO extra large vodkas"
4:30 I love the fact that the cosmonauts had the presence of mind to turn off the recording system before they started swearing. Now that's some self-control :-)
I remember that you said on another video that this was a great month for astronomy, that was before Kepler ran dry, Hubble got trouble and now this. That month turned quickly on us, you might want to rethink that comment.
Scott Manley it just seemed a funny phrase to me, but then I see things in a simple light. And thank you for the very informative videos, everyday is a school day.
5:21 - "In the US Dragon and Starliner are still months away from being ready to fly." This is really funny to watch five years later while the first Starliner Demo finally docked to the ISS just a couple of hours ago :D
actually yes it is terrifying if you spin 2wise a second at 5000km/hr i can also understand also it came in a nightmare once and i was TERRIFYED didnt sleep that night and had to skip school that day while sleeping
This was a thinly veiled jab at the Space Shuttle, but hey man, there's not much law around these here Internet parts, so you drive this cart to wherever you want. ;}
A few fun facts about the crew that escaped the burning Soyuz on ground using the tower : - When the tower was activated, the capsule underwent an acceleration of *FIFTEEN* Gs for 5 seconds - During these five seconds, it broke the sound barrier *twice* - After it landed 4 kilometers away from the launch pad, the Russian crew was recovered safely, and the first question they asked was "So, when do we go back ?"
In America, space rocket failure means the astronauts go for swim. In Soviet Russia, space rocket failure means the cosmonauts spend night in hotel. =)
Correction - In America Space Launcher failure = Death (in the only case it has actually happened). This is the first case of an American surviving a launch failure which lifted off and didn't make orbit in the history of NASA.
Both sides have had more than their fair share of close shaves. Yes the Russians have lost more launchers...But they have launched a hell of a lot more boosters than the USA have, therefore the statics (I.e. Facts!!!) are in their favour. They have only launched two manned flights without an escape system (both managed to land with the occupants alive) and have only lost 4 people in actual flight. USA have lost 14.
Impressive that the abort worked so safely. Glad these guys are OK - spaceflight is such an important venture and we need to get better at doing it safely. Props to the engineers!
4:34 .. "they turned the cockpit recorders off" ... damn that could have been one of the most well deserved "Cyka Blyat" tirades ever recorded. I dare to say this could have been meme-worthy material.
No, Russians have used the same technology over the decades. They have perfected what they have. Russians (especially under the Soviet Union) put less concern on the safety of the "passengers".
@@tetornow Are you crazy? Americans put less concern on the safety of passengers. Space shuttle had no rescue system. Americans: "Who cares". Technicians said that it is too cold for SRB sealing system on Space schuttle Chalenger. NASA bosses: "Who cares, POTUS Reagan is waiting for the launch too long". And astronauts died. Astronauts critically complained that Apollo 1 is a danger shit full of danger materials. NASA bosses: "Who cares, POTUS Kennedy wants us quickly on the Moon". And astronauts died. Cosmonauts died in Soyuz 11, when they landed without space suits. Americans in Apollo landed without space suits all the time. Even after the Soyuz 11 tragedy in Apollo 15, 16, 17 .
@@mareksykora5197, as a culture for decades, Russians under the Soviet Union were property of the state and very disposable. To a lesser extent under the Czars but still second class. America did not kill 10's of thousands of its own citizens, Russia did. America did not kill 300 or so workers in a launch pad explosion, Russia did. Yes, we lost three Apollo I astronauts. But Russia can not hide the fact that they lost several more in their first attempts to put men (and a woman) in space.
@@tetornow Those 300 death workers on the launchpad where a bad accident. People under the Czar were the same "property" as all english people under queen Victoria in old England, or french people under Napoleon Bonaparte in France. Sorry, but America killed much more cosmonauts than the Russians. Thanks to incredibly safe Soyuz system.
@@mareksykora5197, the launch pad accident was the result of intentionally overlooking safety protocol, the topic was the American and Russian space programs and cultures not other aristocracies and cultures, and yes there were about seven or so people on each shuttle mission.
This was an extremely rare anomaly ... The Soyuz has proven to be a safe and reliable method to the ISS for a long time - Just remember, every flight is a test flight. 🚀
I believe the Soyuz is a superbly reliable launch vehicle. Almost a thousand have been launched, and most of the failures happened early on, in the late 1960's. In recent decades the Soyuz has worked with the reliability of a Swiss watch.
Im russian and i can say only one thing - shit happens. Meanwhile in our news sayed that something going wrong with connections between stages. Anyway it's the second Soyuz fail in history. Glad to see alive astronauts.
Absolutely crazy! So glad they're safe! Col. Nick Hague's wife was my Air Force studies professor my freshman year of college! Hope he gets another opportunity to go to space!
Saw this live. Was so intense. Those search and rescue guys are stellar. I’m pretty sure the LES had jettisoned already, as is normal for the Soyuz launch sequence - that and if they got up to a maximum of 6.7Gs, there’s no way the LES pulled them.
The LES tower jettisoned, but the shroud was still over the entire vehicle. It used the RDG motors, which are part of the shroud and used in a tower launch abort sequence, to escape from the vehicle.
The voice of Ovchinin over the radio really was quite something. I am so grateful that they escaped unscathed, because as they were left weightless and in a roll shortly after the incident, I am pretty sure that for a moment at least even they feared the worst. Maybe i am just projecting, but that is how it seemed to me at the time.
The LES was not jettisoned, it was the tower which is not the only component of the LES. The shroud pulled away te capsule automatically after the sensors felt something was wrong, that's why the crew was shaked at that point in the video. If you look back, you can see they "relax" after what should be "booster sep", which is normal. HOWEVER the booster sep didn't go well so rapidly after that the LES kicked in and they were shaking due to that
The "6 to 7 g" was about the deceleration as they hit the atmosphere on the way down, being that high due to the ballistic trajectory. Nothing to do with how the orbiter/capsule got away from the rocket.
Most (if not all) of the early news agency reports on this today were awful. Lots of use of the words "bail out" and "7G" as if that was barely survivable, and "4,970 MPH" shows up as if it's significant, instead of just the speed the core was going when things went south. "Ballistic re-entry" always showed up in quotes , as if it's some kind of intentional maneuver the spacecraft makes ("Engage ballistic re-entry!"), instead of just falling back to earth. Then I came here, and all was made clear!
@@catguta That was not the same as a critical failure of the rocket resulting in a compromised hull/explosion. The lightning caused fixable electronic issues which could have posed a major issue, but wasn't per say an in-flight launch failure.
Transcription: - got the side blocks(boosters) engines shutdown, got the separation of side blocks - got the first stage separation - 150 - second stage engine operating normally - 160 *BANG* - here, launch vehicle fail. yes? - 2 min 45 sec - 170
It was like that: The timing is as before. Groud: launch vehicle fail Souze: Yes? Groud: 2.45 launch vehicle fail Souze: Well, we got back quickly. Then it is just action taking on separation and re entry
5:42 ISS has been occupied since November 2, 2000. There was a 15 month gap in between MIR being occupied (Sept. 8, 1989 to Aug. 28, 1999) and the ISS that reset the timer.
@@Rhapbus1 he means human presence in space has had a 15 month gap between MIR last expedition and ISS first expedition when there was no human in space for 15 months
4:35 "the launch escape system did save the crew who of course immediately turned off the cockpit recorders so that they could scream obscenities without going on the record" LMAO
I'm pretty sure they turned the recorder of because back then, you could get in trouble for swearing the wrong way. If you for example said something along the lines of "fuck those who put me in this thing", expect more then a simple paycut.
what is the staging you are refering to, young man because if i may say so "this shit darn fukken lit" these lads literaly fell out of a rocket and live to tell the tale.
its wild that starliner was "months away" in this video and its managed to only just (as a few days ago) make it up into space with crew and even then they had numerous issues with control when attempting to doc with the station
Fairly reliable? For a huge barrel filled with extremely flammable fuel powered by an controlled explosion its extremely reliable, you can count it failures with just one hand and in all of these cases the crew survived. The Soyuz is a space Lada.
Needed more boosters and MUCH more struts, the strongest form of construction. When in doubt, strut it up, everyone knows that, use mirroring for easier strutting.
Here is the difference between the Space Shuttle system and the Soyuz system. In one you are doomed during almost all of stages of the flight and in the other you are safe during ALL the stages! Korolev and his teem were geniuses! Never over-engineer where safety is concern. Hope it will be the lesson for SpaceX, Boeing and Lockheed and their future capsules.
Yeh. If state capitalist get it right in any area it's that they can often figure out what really needs doing and then doing; as Eisenhower (or some other president) remarked when advised that the USSR was spending 5% of their Gdp on Defense " Remember that they have no one working in marketing" .
First, you cannot really compare the Shuttle with Soyuz. No Soyuz can transport 7 people, put a satellite on orbit or bring it back and also act as a mobile orbital laboratory. Second, do you remember Buran? Yeah, the russian shuttle which was enough over-engineered to be able to get unmanned into orbit and back. Also, I woudn't place in the same basket the russian safety principles, with a long history of rather lacking of, with the, as you said, genius and managerial capability of Korolev, a former convict for anti-Soviet activities. In a sense, both the Americans and the Russians politics interfered with engineers creativity with disastrous results.
Milutzu K you can very much compare them in terms of safety, reliability, punctuality and cost as vehicles for orbital spaceflight (for cargo both the USSR/Russia and the US had/have different rockets). and this comparison is devastatingly unfavorable for the US. the Soyuz is extremely safe and has not had a casualty in almost 50 years, while being basically THE workhorse of manned spaceflight for the whole time until today. www.upl.co/uploads/czREOoV3iKjq1Z3bDRv6c4Xyh1eUj9W5Xd0CTpMm46MCWfaHT10xdsHIpcKkOdq8qKOgmvpjQa0l7p7Jo2lGOs2S7xIpwlw2ONCTsYS6I1539300062.png speaks volumes (and that's just since 2001). while the Shuttle program was a complete disaster, with 2 total losses and 14 deaths, Columbia in 2003 basically leading to the termination of the whole program (along with wildly climbing costs and delays). the Buran, by the way, flew its whole mission on autopilot to orbit and back, something the Shuttles were never able to do (not that I encourage the whole idea of reusable space vehicles on chemical engines).
Of course, you can always compare apples with melons or grapes on some properties. You can also compare chimps with humans. But if you want to design a spacecraft you'll use a human as engineer. The same human can teach his children, sing, paint, etc. The human is more versatile and the evolutionary price is that the human is more... squashy. Of course the Shuttle was a disaster, but... 1. There were 14 deaths because of the bigger transport capacity. With Soyuz's 3 people capacity it would have been 6 deaths. And with dropping the big cargo capabilities and adding safe extract, maybe it would have been none. If you really want to compare apples to grapes, you have to scale accordingly. 2. the much higher complexity of the Shuttle increased the risks, which was statistically expected. 3. I brought the Buran-Energia as a counter-example for over-enginnering on the Russian part. With only 1 orbital flight (compared with 135 of the STS) is hard to make any statistics regarding the reliability of the Russian Shuttle. So I wouldn't say the STS was a "complete" disaster unless I want to forget or deny everything else it has done. Let's now switch the perspective. The Russians used the golden KISS principle, they had a linear development of their (manned) space program: Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz and I'll add as branches Salyut and Mir. US had Mercury, Gemini and STS, STS being a big departure from the "tradition". I'll put Skylab as a branch (and not the ISS which was an international project). And there's the Apollo project, another big departure from the "tradition" of a capsule on the top of a rocket. So, you see, we cannot REALLY compare the STS with Soyuz unless we REALLY want to be unfair.
@ Akin Khoo I don't want to get into conspiracy theories because I don't have hard facts. But it's true that in the STS project entered some political (and financial) interests. About the civilian interests of Soviets in the space, if I remember well, the Buran was intended to be a match for the STS capabilities because the Russians were afraid that the Space Shuttle can "steal" their satellites directly from the orbit. It was purely a political and military decision. And please don't argue with me about the Soviets, I know them pretty well, basically I'm next door to them. I know how the communist mentality works from my own experience (you care about safety only if you care about loosing your face, the lives doesn't really count). More, as far as I know, only the Russians destroyed, as a test, a satellite on the orbit leaving a lot of junk flying around, but I may be mistaken. Buran-Energia, safer than STS? Not much data to get a statistical meaningful comparison (1 versus 135 launches?). Yes, Buran could have been a "STS destroyer", it was a more modern design, more clever in several aspects, but from an operational cost point of view it could have been even more expensive.
LOL So many is how many? As many as astronauts in Columbia and Challenger accidents? Soyuz flew for 50 years without fatalities, and as for the shuttle idea, whether Soviet or American designs, - sure it looked great, but designing something without an escape tower or parachutes in the event of an accident is not the most safe idea out there. Personally I would prefer crammed Soyuz, because if one doesn't make it to space, one at least has a very good chance of returning to Earth in one piece.
There was a grand total of 4 cosmonauts death, 0 during launch procedure. Compare that to the 14 death of the US Space shuttle. 7 of which died on the STS-51 few seconds after launch.
I mean, weren't the Russians the first people to the moon? Just merica has been the "first" to make it there, and back alive, the Russian crew plummeted into the moon or something fatal like that atleast. So id say thats a pretty good reason to make things that fail not to be fatal lmao
Arnaud MERET I guess the NASA engineers skipped that class... because there were so many single points of failure on the Space Shuttle-two of which cost the lives of 14 astronauts and destroyed two orbiters.
I was watching the stream live and all of a sudden the Russian translator started dropping the word "failure". Not something you want to hear on a manned mission.
It was pretty funny though how the NASA commentator continued to read the script how everything is fine and the "telemetry" showed a normal launch when the engines had already stopped.
Yep, had the stream reminder on all day to then watch and know something was wrong when the the word failure and frantic morse code like sounds were being broadcast. Glad they are safe and abort procedures worked.
One thing that stuck out to me and my fellow students at Cal Poly was the appearance of a significant yaw of the rocket following the failed booster separation. It appears that the entire rocket yawed significantly to the left, with the rocket body appearing from behind the exhaust plume. This seems to correspond to the capsule feed video where the astronaut and cosmonaut are violently jarred to the right of the capsule (consistent with a heavy yaw moment).
ok im not far off reality then cause that what i seen the "yaw" you called it. I am not rocket scientist yet I seen an event that was not matching the narrative. Thank you
Usually when you hear "There was a failure with a rocket..." it's usually followed by "...and there were no survivors." Good that this case is different.
Usually when you hear "There was a failure with a rocket..." it's usually followed by "and there was noone harmed". Because a huge majority of rocket launches don't carry crew. In fact, the last time we had humans die on a rocket was in 2003, and before that in 1986. So I'm really not sure where what you are talking about.
Soyuz is so awesome, it has a very long service record, it's like the AK-47 of spaceships. I'm so glad that those men survived. Soyuz maybe didn't get them to space but certainly saved their lives that day.
SpaceX is actually ready to do the unmanned Dragon 2 test flight, they've been standing by mostly because of the busy ISS schedule. NASA could greenlight the mission to happen now, and then speed up the crewed mission schedule. I'm sure SpaceX would rise to the challenge. In chess they call this tactic Accelerated Dragon.
A Cosmonaut and an Astronaut walk into a bar. The bartender recognizes the Cosmonaut and says " aren't you supposed to launch today"? The Cosmonaut replies " Shut up and start pouring".
This is why we need CST-100 Starliner, SpaceX Dragon, AND SNC's Dream Chaser. Backups launch vehicles and spacecraft for the backup systems' backup systems. And I wouldn't turn down including the Chinese, Japanese and ESA either.
ESA scrapped the whole Hermes system... Funding mostly but at the same time both the US-at the time-offered ESA Astronauts rides on the shuttle and Sojuz systems. Had ESA known the Shuttle program was going to be defunded the Hermes Shuttle would probably had been given the green light. The Ariane rocket is a champ and could easily lift the Hermes with crew and cargo. Sad really. Can't understand why Saab Space in coop with Saab defence in Sweden doesn't make a reusable spaceplane. Talk to Airbus (Ariane) and get things moving! Or involve Boeing now that Saab and Boeing won the bid for the new US TX Trainer jet. That shows they can work together..
Here's your translation from spaceflightnow.com, совпадает с расшифровкой. “Failure of the booster,” a translator called out, presumably relaying a report from Ovchinin to Russian mission control near Moscow. “Failure of the booster.” Moments later, he confirmed the Soyuz had separated from the rocket’s upper stage, saying “we are in weightlessness.” Moments after that, as the spacecraft plunged back into the thick lower atmosphere, it rapidly decelerated, subjected the crew to nearly seven times the normal force of gravity at one point. “We are getting ready for the G loads,” Ovchinin reported. “G load is 6.7.” “Copy,” a Russian flight controller replied. “We are feeling rotation, the G load is going down,” the cosmonaut reported. “G load is 2.72 and going down.” “Tighten the straps” for landing, the flight controller called. Actually, there was more talks, but this is the most relevant part of them.
OsakaRose you could change it out to the more favored Windows 7. I’m getting a new laptop pretty soon to replace my aging 2009 HP Pavilion but I’m gonna have the OS swapped for Windows 7. Windows 7 still should be supported until at least the mid 2020’s I think. Even after there are still ways to keep an older OS in check with 3rd party workarounds & support. Having to upgrade to Windows 10 is a total myth perpetuated by Microsoft.
SpaceX unmanned demo flight was planned for November/December 2018, BUT moved to January - due to ISS cargo vehicle and Soyuz logistics. SpaceX started, last week, they would be ready for original time schedule.
The current opportunity is before the astronauts have to come home, or many more months away. We just have to wait right now to see if Soyuz will go before the station hast to be uncrewed. No unnecessary risks will be taken
No - and I'll give you props for even mentioning it. Maybe *you* should be on the investigation committee, and slap some ethics into the corrupt ruskys ;D
Alexey was calm and professional during the incident. The canned video had me confused during the replay I watched at 5:30 EST (9:30 UTC). After seeing the crew tossed like that, I was thinking - that is abnormal. Then I heard the translator saying, "Booster" and "Abort" while the NASA commenter was saying "Nominal" at 2:11 into flight. Then the "Weightless" translation. It was a scary moment for sure, but that is what training is all about. I am glad the crew is safe.
There was a joke by louis CK about astronauts. "If you ever listen to black box recording pilots are calm right to the last second, astronauts are the very best of them". Im paraphrasing and probably butchered his bit but you get the idea, nothing is gained by panicking, all panicking will do is cause you to make further mistakes, dont panic and you have at least some chance
I was waiting for this! I was hoping for context and an explanation on a level that I could understand. You hit the sweet spot for the right amount of detail. Thank you Scott!
My first reaction also was that the Soyuz has been so reliable that even with this accident I would be comfortable boarding one tomorrow, but then I was considering possible causes and remembering that the cause identified for the Falcon 9 failure in flight was the supplier of a small part of the rocket. It could be that a supplier for a critical part has let some faulty workmanship through their quality control, so while it is incredibly unlikely that there's anything sub-par about the rocket design and assembly, there are some other factors that could affect multiple rockets, and would like to hear what an investigation reveals.
or the russian government is trying to sow more disarray into the world, wouldn't put it past them considering the ISS hole, their meddling in different elections worldwide and the annexation of Crimea. not saying that's what happened as so many things can go wrong in spaceflight, but I wouldn't rule it out either.
Reading up there have been a significant number of failures in unmanned launches using much of the same system. 8 in the last 10-11 years and that is has finally happened on a manned mission probably wasn't a surprise to those who kept track of all this. Fair few people saying that with the generation switch over, the guys who built these things from the 50s till 2000 retiring, a lot of skill and knowledge has been lost on top of the regularly expected reduction in funding, fraud and dodgy dealings that can hit any large project in any country.
If its malicious, (with two issues so close together you wonder) supply chain attacks are the new hotness for criminals to use and for security to worry about. Significant ratio of companies recently that have been hacked/had breaches were due to problems with their suppliers (or their software/processes not considering security appropriately)
The Soyuz capsule is in unplanned descent once you hear "AN" repeated in morse code { di-dah, dah-dit } - this is transmitted on 121.5MHz, AM, during descent. (audible on the video) I think (but am not sure) it changes to the standard distress "chirp" or "pheewip" tone once the chutes are deployed for homing purposes. The AN code is to warn homing stations that a spacecraft is in descent mode as the event could take place anywhere on the planet at little or no notice. Astronaut voice transmissions on 121.5 override both these automatic transmissions, presumably with a manual control so they can receive and chat with rescuersfor coordinating exit from the capsule. Once upon a time this information was promulgated via Russian diplomatic missions overseas to international Rescue Coordination Centres, who then decided if they should promulgate them further or simple "be aware" in case an emergency occured. I'm not sure what happens nowadays though.
An incredible escape. Reading others comments, who know Russian tongue, and were watching, they were very fortunate indeed. Supercharged re entry, " hold on to your joy joysticks , chaps ", and hoping for the best. Great upload, thanks.
Before the incident, it looked like the exhaust trail was showing an oscillation in the rocket. I watched the MS07 launch and just before the booster separation the trail behind the rocket was very smooth. The MS10 launch had some noticeable back and forth visible.
I saw the trail 'wobbling' but thought it was something like high-altitude winds (you see the same thing sometimes in SpceX launches). Then something clearly went pear-shaped.
I saw that too. It seemed like the 1st stage motors were gimbaling a lot to compensate for something, and that may have created the opportunity for one of the boosters to slam into the 2nd stage. I haven't seen enough "normal" flights to know if that kind of motion has happened in the past.
only problem is that they dont gimbal. each booster has two angled smaller thrust nozzles that are throttled up and down to do attitude control. I think something got pinched or pulled on the stage 1 and stage 2 junction from all that flexing.... although i have been watching a lot of earlier launches, and there are quite a few that do indeed rock like this... no pun intended! the other idea i had was that it seemed that there was some un-smoothness on the main nozzle ignitions after the 17 second engine turbo pump spooling up. and maybe this caused fuel balance problems instead of shaking damage.. if one hard started (too much bang) and damaged something, it might have burned fule too quickly and ran out in a non synchronized way, or maybe a valve was damaged open or closed so booster seperation was under partial throttle on one of the 4 boosters. telemetry should have indicated something, maybe they already know and arent saying! i would assume they could terminate launch even miliseconds before actuall lift off if someting measured bad. then again... russia!
I think this is evidence for how reliable Soyuz rocket. It's designers should be proud. I am just disappointed and surprised that ISS program was reliable on a single launch system for such a long time.
I was one of the confused people watching. Something looked wrong. But then I was also tired and went to sleep before I found out what happened. Great video!!
It seems that there is a begining of an explanation (from russianspaceweb) : one of the side booster failed to separate properly, a valve which was supposed to push it away from the rocket didn't opened in time, resulting in the colision between the booster and the rocket (which could explain the cloud at the time of the separation). And as said in some comments, the escape tower allready separated a few seconds before the accident, the crew module was extracted from the rocket by engines on the fairing.
Really appreciate the speed at which you respond to space news. This channel has become my first stop right up there with The Everyday Astronaut! Glad to have such excellent content to draw space news!
The good thing is that the Astronauts can give good feedback as to what they knew or didn't know about - both important for creating an interface in the rocket for everyone to be able to see important information.
You could clearly see the two bursts of exhaust but there did appear to be a couple small waves in the rocket's trajectory as well. And even with the video breaking up, it looked like the astronauts had a few good jolts as well with their knees and heads bouncing around. And real quick, that was quite a story about that capsule tumbling down a hill and only being saved from falling off a cliff by the parachute getting caught on trees. That was one of those "thank God" moments, for sure!!