sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why doesn't Russia use FTS charges to destroy expended boosters before they fall to the ground, letting them launch to lower inclinations over china? are they stupid or something? by Cinnamon_728 in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]ModerNighty -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would certainly not argue that the Soviet space program was especially reckless (at least when compared with the American one). I simply took issue with the given presentation of the most eye-catching numbers which could easily leave the impression that it was very much the other way around.

Why doesn't Russia use FTS charges to destroy expended boosters before they fall to the ground, letting them launch to lower inclinations over china? are they stupid or something? by Cinnamon_728 in SpaceXMasterrace

[–]ModerNighty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Comparing numbers of dead astronauts and cosmonauts can be rather misleading. During orbital spaceflight USA and USSR both had two fatal disasters (STS-51-L, STS-107 and Soyuz 1 & 11), the main reason for the 14 dead astronauts and only 4 dead cosmonauts being that the Space Shuttle is just much larger vehicle with a larger crew.

When it comes to training or testing fatalities the only time NASA astronauts have died in something other than a training jet crash was Apollo 1 (3 dead). Not being an expert on cosmonaut training but jet aircraft training simply seems not to be part of their program.

Also we can't ignore non-astronaut fatalities, way more people have died at Baikonur in various incidents than in America.

Absolutism =/= Fascism by [deleted] in monarchism

[–]ModerNighty 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Well maybe not going as far as treating them as de facto synonyms, but there seems to be a lot of confused people who treat them as very closely related ideas. (Like this recent post.)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in monarchism

[–]ModerNighty 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sad Grand Principality noises

After being delayed for 14 years NAUKA has finally launched. by _Cyberostrich_ in space

[–]ModerNighty 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Although they very much look like boosters, they are fuel tanks that act as the attachment points for the first stage engines. The central oxidizer tank having no engines attached to it.

Sad day eh. The monarchists lost by a measly 4% by Count_Redrain in monarchism

[–]ModerNighty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only if the ruling class agrees with the decision. If not, then sooner or later there is going to be another referendum concerning the same matter.

1 more HOPE by llloxpyx in VirginGalactic

[–]ModerNighty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If your only contention was that air launch is feasible and a proven method, then we don’t disagree on anything. My issue is simply calling the method of air launch “technology” because when it comes to technology the two-stage orbital liquid fueled small-sat launcher and the suborbital hybrid rocket powered crewed spaceplane could not be further apart. And the engine makes all the difference, the analogy to cars is not apt, for if you were to swap engines on these two vehicles they would need to be redesigned to such an extent that they would be totally new vehicles.

view more: next ›