|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Rubbing our liberty-loving noses in it!
They say:
quote For thirty years, shuttles provide not only access to space for humans, but the overall delivery to orbit payloads, without which large-scale construction of the International Space Station is unlikely it would be possible. Mankind has paid tribute to the role of U.S. ships in space exploration. end quote That's quite fair from them. The cold war is over Pat, just understand that they see themselves vindicated somehow, that their "old" Soyuz goes on flying. I would bet the U.S. would do the same in a similar situation. How many bad jokes I have heard about the russians here? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Rubbing our liberty-loving noses in it!
The dirty Ruskies couldn't wait for the Shuttle to touch down, to begin
denigrating it compared to the "reliable" Soyuz. A translation of the Roskosmos article about it: http://tinyurl.com/448ct5r "Beginning of an era "Soyuz" July 21, 2011 ended with the last flight of the program "Space Shuttle". At 13.57 Moscow time the shuttle "Atlantis" with NASA astronauts, Christopher Ferguson, Sandra Magnus, Rex Uolheymom and Douglas Hurley has landed on the runway spaceport them. Kennedy at Cape Canaveral. At a time when the ship touched the chassis of the Earth, ending the era shuttles. Flying away from the ISS, the astronauts 'Atlantis' left aboard the station a reminder of this era - a small copy of a winged American spaceship. This was announced today in his blog cosmonaut Alexander Samokutyaev Space Agency. On Earth, U.S. cruise the spacecraft will now be seen only in museums, the United States. "Discovery" transferred to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington. "Endeavour" to complement the exhibition park, located near the California Research Center. "Atlantis" will be on display at the Kennedy Space Center, NASA. The test sample "Enterprise" does not make any of the flight deck will be located on an aircraft carrier-museum "Intrepid" in New York. Today's landing of the American "Atlantis" was certainly one of the most significant milestones in the history of space exploration. For Russia, this new phase of work on the ISS program, in which a "Soyuz" No stunt doubles. At least until 2016, astronauts partner agencies will fly into orbit on the Russian "Soyuz". For thirty years, shuttles provide not only access to space for humans, but the overall delivery to orbit payloads, without which large-scale construction of the International Space Station is unlikely it would be possible. Mankind has paid tribute to the role of U.S. ships in space exploration. But why is comfortable and beautiful "birds" go, but the "old Russian" Soyuz ", as they are called foreign media are? The answer is simple - reliability, not to mention profitable. The definition of "old" has nothing to do with reality. "Unions" are constantly being upgraded. Starting next year, the ISS will be flying ships new versions are equipped with digital systems. At present, the second "Union" series "TMA-M" is flight-design tests. Furthermore, even if in the coming years will be an alternative to the Russian manned "Soyuz", it will take a long time before it is proven that the new ship will be able to provide the necessary level of safety for manned space flights. From now on in the world manned space begins the era of "Unions" - the era of reliability. Press Service of the Russian Space Agency" I think we all know what's next - FLUORIDATED WATER ONLY ON THE ISS! THEN OVER THE WHOLE CHASSIS OF THE EARTH! ;-) Pat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Rubbing our liberty-loving noses in it!
On Jul 22, 10:53*am, jacob navia wrote:
The cold war is over Pat, just understand that they see themselves vindicated somehow, that their "old" Soyuz goes on flying. I would bet the U.S. would do the same in a similar situation. But the U.S. *wouldn't* do the same thing as the Russians. Can you imagine NASA being satisfied with using the same Apollo design (with evolutionary upgrades) for over 4 decades? I can't. NASA would've pushed for a bleeding-edge technology (and more costly) replacement. If not the Shuttle, then something else. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Rubbing our liberty-loving noses in it!
On 7/22/2011 9:53 AM, jacob navia wrote:
How many bad jokes I have heard about the russians here? Not half enough! But let us see "Putin's Army" and their hooligan stripper ways: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG2XV2n9efc These little straw-sucking sluts, these tyrant-toasting teases, have already made impotent, or even killed, many men - due to prostate cancer - as Pravda warned us: http://english.pravda.ru/society/sex...2-impotence-0/ Pravda! Still "The Thinking Communist's" choice after all these years! ;-) Patsky (Secret Party Name: Zinc) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Rubbing our liberty-loving noses in it!
Pat Flannery wrote:
But yeah, you're right...we would still have built something new after that, probably the same Shuttle. If I've understood s.s.h correctly over the years, what really screwed shuttle was the cross-range capability demanded by the military and then not used. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Rubbing our liberty-loving noses in it!
On 7/22/2011 1:37 PM, wrote:
Can you imagine NASA being satisfied with using the same Apollo design (with evolutionary upgrades) for over 4 decades? I can't. NASA would've pushed for a bleeding-edge technology (and more costly) replacement. If not the Shuttle, then something else. At least if we'd gone with the General Electric design, it would have been a lot more versatile than the Apollo CSM, and might well have been in service longer: http://web.archive.org/web/200901050...t/apollod2.htm But yeah, you're right...we would still have built something new after that, probably the same Shuttle. Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Rubbing our liberty-loving noses in it!
On 7/22/2011 4:55 PM, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote: But yeah, you're right...we would still have built something new after that, probably the same Shuttle. If I've understood s.s.h correctly over the years, what really screwed shuttle was the cross-range capability demanded by the military and then not used. That and the huge cargo bay to house photo-reconnaissance satelites, which needed wide mirrors and long focal length to get the desired resolution of targets on the Earth's surface. The Air Force got dragged into the program despite not wanting any part of it, preferring to keep using their Titan III rockets for reconsat launches. But by having them involved, the high R&D costs of the Shuttle could be partially offset by using both NASA and AF funds. But the AF demanded the delta wings for cross range on "once around" polar satellite launches, and the big cargo bay for their satellite as the price for them of getting involved; the "once around" missions (get up there, dump off the satellite, and land all in one orbit) were because the Soviets thought the Shuttle might be used as a bomber for a surprise attack on them, and were making threatening noises about shooting it down with a ABM if it ever flew over their territory. The Air Force figured out a launch trajectory southwards from Vandenberg AFB that would get the satellite in the desired high inclination orbit without passing over the USSR, but it meant as the Earth rotated the Shuttle would have to enter the atmosphere to the west of its launch site, and needed the cross range to get back home as it maneuvered during reentry. Pat |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Rubbing our liberty-loving noses in it!
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Rubbing our liberty-loving noses in it!
On 7/23/2011 3:15 PM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
writes: Can you imagine NASA being satisfied with using the same Apollo design (with evolutionary upgrades) for over 4 decades? Because Apollo would've been totally wrong for that role. Soyuz, on the other hand, is perfect for what it did (and still does) all that time. And was designed to do all sorts of different missions right from the outset, even serve as a space fighter with the reentry module on the front, joined to a living/weapons module behind it via a hatch in the heatshield. Pat |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Rubbing our liberty-loving noses in it!
On Jul 22, 11:53*am, jacob navia wrote:
The cold war is over The old cold war is over. Putin and Medvedev invaded Georgia, and decided to start a new one. John Savard |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IF Pseudos' Noses Would Glow | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 1 | December 17th 05 05:18 PM |
IF Pseudos' Noses Would Glow ... -------------- | Ed Conrad | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | December 17th 05 04:15 PM |
IF Pseudos' Noses Would Glow. ... | Ed Conrad | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | December 17th 05 04:06 PM |
Rubbing for Fire | Misty | Astronomy Misc | 3 | January 18th 04 08:51 AM |