Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Well you won't get to cry when there's an American Territory on Mars in the early 22nd century (if you're around that is).
    Will be just a pointless then as it would be now. More likely to happen with Chinese though - they still got something to "prove" to the world and economy to match that.

    And if they'll plan for it it'll probably happen with our nuclear tug - after all it is already fully planned on reactor side and all that it needed is to actually build it.

    Jamestown and Early British Colonies gave the United States its distinctive Anglo foundation just as Spanish and Portuguese colonies did the same in Latin America.

    Human civilization elsewhere in the Solar System over the next few hundred years will similarly be dictated by whoever sets the foundation in the century ahead. I'm very inclined to see that it has an American character.
    Columbus was financed by Spanish; current dominant American entity is offshoot of English empire though.

    First-mover advantage is pretty low, and everyone had their robots there already anyway.

    It'll be the height of irony if in the early 22nd century Russia, if it is around, is still up to mischief in Ukraine and its near abroad, much like the prior 300 years, while America is building up a territory on Mars.

    Unapologetically, I do want the US to annex Mars one day. 100% not joking.
    It is most likely that early 22nd Century Russia will be working on Arctic and resources there. We'll probably be solidifying our nuclear advantage with closed nuclear cycle by then, and possibly some fusion.

    Go ahead with Mars.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2018-10-12 at 05:45 PM.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    @Skroe

    Is it possible that ISS would be de-orbited earlier if Soyuz is deemed too unreliable to continue with, and SpaceX and ULA would face delays in getting their manned vehicles to launch?
    Not likely.

    The Soyuz is used as an escape and crew return vehicle. Their onboard batteries and systems are certified for six months in orbit (in reality, they probably could go longer but they aren't certified). The current crew of three on the ISS were planned to return on the Soyuz that is parked there in December, as its six month limit hits in January.

    If Russia is unable to sort the problem to send a crew up by December, The ISS partners would be faced with either sending up an unmanned Soyuz to replace the one that "expires" in January, or have the crew come down and operate the ISS remotely from Control (in Houston and in Russia). Most likely they would chose the unmanned option, because if there is any kind of failure on the ISS that requires a person there to fix (which given its complexity, happens semi regularly, but because a person is there, not an emergency), it would likely mean a loss of the station.

    As a matter of principle, this illustrates the problem with relying on one vehicle for access to space. After Columbia, the "second option" was Soyuz. It also illustrates the wisdom of NASA's commercial crew approach. Should Falcon 9 or Dragon suffer a failure, there is CST-100 Starliner and Atlas V to get to space in.

    The Falcon 9 + Dragon are actually ready to fly about now. What's actually at work here is that NASA requires SpaceX to show a (ridiculous) 7 successful launches of the improved Falcon 9 before it certifies it for manned launch. This is a requirement beyond any other space vehicle it's launched up to this point.

    So no, there is not any likelyhood of the ISS being deorbited earlier. There are a bunch of emergency options. But big picture, it shows that the Crew Return Vehicle never should have been canceled.





    X-38 was unilaterally canceled as a cost cutting measure, despite the fact that it was a very mature program nearing completion, and the space-ready prototype was 90% complete.

    Save pocket change.


    7 Astronauts could travel in it. It was very mature.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Will be just a pointless then as it would be now. More likely to happen with Chinese though - they still got something to "prove" to the world and economy to match that.
    Their technology is vastly inferior to ours. And they've never landed anything on Mars. So no, not likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    And if they'll plan for it it'll probably happen with our nuclear tug - after all it is already fully planned on reactor side and all that it needed is to actually build it.
    Another empty Russian Space promise as opposed to actually fixing the real issues that are causing actually proven space vehicles to suddenly fail like no other rocket on Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Columbus was financed by Spanish; current dominant American entity is offshoot of English empire though.
    That's why I said the United States. Columbus and the early Spanish explorers focused on Latin America, where the population was larger and there was gold, in order to bring that Gold home. It was explotation-centric for the entirety of the 16th century. When the British arrived and colonized the largely neglected North America, which had little Gold and wealth in it (and less technologically advanced Natives), it was a century after Cortes, and was for the purpose of colonization.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    First-mover advantage is pretty low, and everyone had their robots there already anyway.
    No. The US has their "robots" there. Many of them. And many orbiters.
    The ESA had two failed landers and three orbiters.
    Russia did some orbital stuff in the 1960s and 1970s with the Mars program, but the landers never successfully landed and operated. It's done nothing since Fobos-Grunt failed after launch, and nothing successfully since the 1970s before that (Fobos 1 and 2 failed in 1988, as did Mars 96 in 1996).

    So no. Not everybody. Mostly just the US.



    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    It is most likely that early 22nd Century Russia will be working on Arctic and resources there. We'll probably be solidifying our nuclear advantage with closed nuclear cycle by then, and possibly some fusion.

    Go ahead with Mars.
    I highly doubt it, and Fusion in its current form will never be cost effective to make it worth building over anything else, including plain old Fission reactors. Cost effective fusion in the real world will require an entirely different approach.

    And yes, we gladly will.

  3. #43
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    At issue isn't the Soyuz's historical successes. Only a fool would argue that (see above re: "American Soyuz"). At issue is that Russia's industrial decline
    Lol?

    and the looting of the program by Putin's lackeys
    Did you swap brains with Hubcap?

    making it so that TODAYS Soyuzes are built by undertrained, inexperienced people and subject to poorer quality controls that have lead to a directly measurable increased rate of failure that has no comparison in the west.
    I don't think you know much at all about their people to even form an opinion and as for comparison in the west, Russia sends people to space, you do not. There is no comparison because there is nothing to compare to. Let us know in x amount of years when you have a functional program up n running with x amount of launches before you can even come here n talk.

    Am I done? No. Not nearly. But you shouldn't be concerned about me. You should be concerned about whatever poor Russian soul is strapped to the next Soyuz built under the current management regime when Russian officials paper over the root of the problem yet again.
    I would have been worried if this was the 90's n this guy was in charge.



    But it isn't and he's not.

    Another dumb Skroe thread "the sky is falling over Russia! doom n gloom!"

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Well you won't get to cry when there's an American Territory on Mars in the early 22nd century (if you're around that is).
    The irony...you won't be, half your country is becoming northern mexico.

    Meanwhile Russia rightly re-inforces its culture n heritage.

  4. #44
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post


    X-38 was unilaterally canceled as a cost cutting measure, despite the fact that it was a very mature program nearing completion, and the space-ready prototype was 90% complete.

    Save pocket change.

    7 Astronauts could travel in it. It was very mature.
    I am reading all the material here, just no comments yet - and thanks again for all the info. I do have one question though - in three separate crew rated vehicles, both actualized and in development, the number 7 for max crew has popped up. Is there any particular reason it's 7? And not 6 or 8?

    IIRC, and please correct me here, it was the Dragon, the Shuttle, and the X-38 above. Just curious is all.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    I highly doubt it, and Fusion in its current form will never be cost effective to make it worth building over anything else, including plain old Fission reactors. Cost effective fusion in the real world will require an entirely different approach.
    Why though?

    Unlike with Space, Nuclear provides quite clear benefits to Russia - it keeps nuclear deterrent up, it produces energy, it keeps scientists busy, it occasionally produces novel concepts (like that nuclear-powered subsonic missile, underwater nuclear drones, or nuclear space engine), and it future-proofs Russia for the moment when oil and gas either run out or become obsolete. And it pays for itself, being actually profitable.

    There is nothing inherently impossible about reaching closed nuclear cycle. It is just a lot of work that requires base level not many achieved yet (and "non-proliferation" efforts mean many never will); base level that we inherited from USSR, and, unlike with Space, actually kept and improved upon.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2018-10-12 at 07:54 PM.

  6. #46
    What does your title "it finally happened" supposed to mean? Are you happy about it? Been waiting for it?

    Sad.
    Quote Originally Posted by munkeyinorbit View Post
    Blizzard do what the players want all the time.

  7. #47
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    8,527
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Had you read it, you'd know that no rocks were thrown, just an objective analysis of events facts and what the future holds for Russian space flight.
    No he's right, the whole OP was essentially an emotive essay bashing Russia. The analysis of events was biased not objective and the facts/context were manipulated to fit the agenda.

  8. #48
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    No he's right, the whole OP was essentially an emotive essay bashing Russia. The analysis of events was biased not objective and the facts/context were manipulated to fit the agenda.
    Lol, no, he's not right. The "whole OP" was an objective analysis of what happens when a country that was the preeminent space launch site loses both talent and funding. Btw, in case words matter to you, explaining why Russia is now failing at something they once led isn't bashing, it's pointing out the facts.

    Feel free to contradict what was posted by Skroe, but you better cite you shit, because he sure as hell does.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Trumpcat View Post
    What does your title "it finally happened" supposed to mean? Are you happy about it? Been waiting for it?

    Sad.
    I sure wish he'd explained what he meant in a long, well thought out post.

  9. #49
    Warchief vsb's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mongoloid
    Posts
    2,166
    So Elon Musk made a sabotage. It's clear. I'm expecting an asymmetrical answer from Mr. Putin. Something like nuclear rocket intercepting some SpaceX rocket, with fallout over US territory. Just a coincidence, you know, LoL.

  10. #50
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    8,527
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    First-mover advantage is pretty low, and everyone had their robots there already anyway.
    Yeah, you guys got the first rover up and running over there IIRC, only cost a few billion, returned half an image xD

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Trumpcat View Post
    What does your title "it finally happened" supposed to mean? Are you happy about it? Been waiting for it?
    Yup, he derailed the thread about the hold in a Soyuz orbital module the other month so he could go on about how the Russian space program is collapsing, he must have jumped for joy when he heard that something had gone wrong with a Russian launch as it gives him an angle to try and beat that drum

  11. #51
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    Yup, he derailed the thread about the hold in a Soyuz orbital module the other month so he could go on about how the Russian space program is collapsing, he must have jumped for joy when he heard that something had gone wrong with a Russian launch as it gives him an angle to try and beat that drum
    You mean the well thought out, analyzed, and cited "drum"? Another word for that is reality.

    But again, feel free to refute the points - I see so far all you have is BS and feels to throw around.

  12. #52
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    8,527
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    explaining why Russia is now failing at something they once led isn't bashing, it's pointing out the facts.
    One failed launch doesn equal failing.

    This was the 65th launch of the rocket and it was the first failure, the escape system operated flawlessly and no lives were lost, it was the first failure of this type in 43 years. This results in a (still) well above average record and a great reflection on the safety system, questions have to be asked yes (and apparently are being hence the Russians grounded the rockets pending an investigation) but trying to spin it into the death of the Russian space program is just silly.

  13. #53
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    One failed launch doesn equal failing.

    This was the 65th launch of the rocket and it was the first failure, the escape system operated flawlessly and no lives were lost, it was the first failure of this type in 43 years. This results in a (still) well above average record and a great reflection on the safety system, questions have to be asked yes (and apparently are being hence the Russians grounded the rockets pending an investigation) but trying to spin it into the death of the Russian space program is just silly.
    Didn't the OP point out that the unmanned rockets, which are similar to manned Soyuz but farther down the broken industrial manufacturing line, are failing at a much higher rate? And that this first is just what everyone has been waiting for?

    Why aren't you quoting him and arguing the facts? Why are you just posting feels without any teeth?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    One failed launch doesn equal failing.

    This was the 65th launch of the rocket and it was the first failure, the escape system operated flawlessly and no lives were lost, it was the first failure of this type in 43 years. This results in a (still) well above average record and a great reflection on the safety system, questions have to be asked yes (and apparently are being hence the Russians grounded the rockets pending an investigation) but trying to spin it into the death of the Russian space program is just silly.
    Also, you're being vague in your claims. I'm not questioning them (yet), but how can there be a "first failure" of this rocket, and "the first failure of this type in 43 years"? I'm not really questioning your point, just asking for a tightening up on your facts. Were there failures 44 years ago? Different types of rockets that did fail more?

  14. #54
    Skroe.
    Do you realise that by making these text walls with pretentious thread tittles you have become exactly the same thing that Russian internet trolls are? Only difference is allegiance to USA, not Russia, the core is the same.
    You have a problem. Stop waving it around.
    P.S.
    And word "finally" makes it sound really morbid.

  15. #55
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    Skroe.
    Do you realise that by making these text walls with pretentious thread tittles you have become exactly the same thing that Russian internet trolls are? Only difference is allegiance to USA, not Russia, the core is the same.
    You have a problem. Stop waving it around.
    P.S.
    And word "finally" makes it sound really morbid.
    Do you realize posting "feels" based rhetoric just makes you look like an ignorant russian shrill (yes shrill, not shill)? THAT is what a Russian internet troll sounds like - you doing this little "I don't read facts I just post hate" dance.

    You certainly do have a problem. It's not likely to get better anytime soon.

    p.s. not understanding how "finally" fits into the overall point just makes you that much worse.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Do you realize posting "feels" based rhetoric just makes you look like an ignorant russian shrill (yes shrill, not shill)? THAT is what a Russian internet troll sounds like - you doing this little "I don't read facts I just post hate" dance.

    You certainly do have a problem. It's not likely to get better anytime soon.

    p.s. not understanding how "finally" fits into the overall point just makes you that much worse.
    I guess all my arguing with the likes of Shalcker is just a distraction, yes? xD
    It seems Skroe has his fans, but hey, you can keep missing my point as long as you wish.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Well you won't get to cry when there's an American Territory on Mars in the early 22nd century (if you're around that is).

    Jamestown and Early British Colonies gave the United States its distinctive Anglo foundation just as Spanish and Portuguese colonies did the same in Latin America.

    Human civilization elsewhere in the Solar System over the next few hundred years will similarly be dictated by whoever sets the foundation in the century ahead. I'm very inclined to see that it has an American character.

    It'll be the height of irony if in the early 22nd century Russia, if it is around, is still up to mischief in Ukraine and its near abroad, much like the prior 300 years, while America is building up a territory on Mars.

    Unapologetically, I do want the US to annex Mars one day. 100% not joking.
    To bad no country can lay a claim to any territory not on planet Earth. You'd make a good addition to Trumps team, though. Also, aren't you guys on a good course to be mischievous again in, what was it this time, Iran? A new invasion of a souvereign nation every decae or so, wasn't it?
    Last edited by Skulltaker; 2018-10-12 at 09:47 PM.

  18. #58
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    I guess all my arguing with the likes of Shalcker is just a distraction, yes? xD
    Obviously a Putin-infused ruse to keep us guessing! j/k


    It seems Skroe has his fans, but hey, you can keep missing my point as long as you wish.
    Fans are earned, and Skroe puts up good data and solid analysis. My area is law and I do ok with science stuff, but love hearing from experts. You responded with a paragraph of feels and a misunderstanding of a pretty simple word. I call them like I see them.

    Your response above makes you seem like you might be smarter than you're acting. If you have legit concerns about the issues put forth here, quote em, argue em, and cite your reasoning. It's what you would expect of others, right?

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Trumpcat View Post
    What does your title "it finally happened" supposed to mean? Are you happy about it? Been waiting for it?

    Sad.
    If you actually read Scroe's posts you would understand. Simply put the workers building the Soyuz rockets now are not as experienced when it comes to the little tricks of building the rocket. You also have the quality checks not being as high, thus you have this moment. Now go actually read his posts because he sure as hell does a better job of explaining it than I do in two sentences.

  20. #60
    Elemental Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Posts
    8,527
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    how can there be a "first failure" of this rocket, and "the first failure of this type in 43 years"?
    This type of rocket has had 65 launches, this is the first aborted/failed launch. It's been 43 years since the last high altitude booster failure of a manned rocket (Soyuz 18a in 1975, the escape mechanism again saved the crew).

    These things are extremely rare but they do happen, and not just to Russia/USSR, IIRC the most notable example of it happening to NASA was the launch of Apollo 13, but due to that being a moon mission it had a higher abort criteria so they gambled to proceed on the remaining boosters.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •