View Single Post
  #45  
Old October 18th 18, 05:33 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Soyuz Rocket Launch Failure Forces Emergency Landing of Soyuz!

JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 17 Oct 2018
16:09:13 -0400:

On 2018-10-17 07:00, Jeff Findley wrote:

Bull****. Not the same at all. With Soyuz, you could likely take a
Soyuz 2 back in time to the 1960s, sit it on the pad, hook it up (with a
little Russian ingenuity), and get it to fly.


Someone had argued Soyuz-2 was the first new rocket Russia built. I
argued that Syouz 2 was an upgrade of Soyuz. I realize it is hard for
you to agree with me, but there is no need for "bull****" insults.


If you don't like your output being called 'bull****', perhaps you
should stop putting out so much bull**** (which I notice you
'cleverly' elided).



Really, Soyuz 2 has way more in common with the original R-7 than your
**** poor Cadillac analogy.


New engines, new control systems. Keeps the same overall style. And
continues to be a "Soyuz". Note that one major change at the pad is that
they will no longer need to rotate pad because the new Soyuz will have a
"roll program" after launch to orient to right orbital inclination
before accelerating.


Do you have a point in there? By your 'logic' one could claim that a
modern Cadillac car is just an 'evolution' of the original Cadillac
horse drawn carriages.



A modern Cadillac has absolutely nothing to
do with a 1960s Cadillac except for the name.


Core design remains unchange with 4 wheels, front mounted engine,
transmission and real wheel drive. And a certain style that is well
known even if they changed it.


Bull****. Find a single part on a modern Cadillac that can be traced
back to a 1967 model.


Your argument about modern Cadillac could equally apply to Soyuz since
today's Soyuz is an evolution from the original, while keeping many core
designs the same.


Bull****. Many of the parts on even a Soyuz 2 are IDENTICAL to the
parts on an R7. NOTHING is interchangeable between a 1967 Cadillac
and a current Cadillac model.


So it is wring to stated the Syuz is 1960s technooogy
today. The same way it is wriong to state the 737 is 1960s technooogy
today, even if Boeing has had to keep many 1960s concepts to reduce
regulatory costs (such as mechanical linkages between cockpit and
control surfaces instead of fly by wire)


Bull****.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn