3 ms·

> it doesn't matter whose hardware gets us off the ground and out toward the stars. On this, I disagree. Flying in an even older device (Soyuz) provided at a r

by lhnn 15y ago

> it doesn't matter whose hardware gets us off the ground and out toward the stars. On this, I disagree. Flying in an even older device (Soyuz) provided at a ridiculous rate from a "business partner" (calling Russia an ally is not quite accurate) is not the way we should be letting ourselves get into space. I know the shuttle is far from perfect, but we should have had the Dragon or Orion capsule ready before shuttle retirement. Turn off some air conditioners and get out of a few wars, and we could have easily kept going strong.

ugh 15y ago
At least Soyuz is more reliable than the Space Shuttle.
- chrisjsmith 15y ago
  As far as we know. The Russians weren't always that honest about who they blew up by accident.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Aha, and what’s your evidence for that? Soyuz 1 (1967) and Soyuz 11 (1971) both ended with fatalities. Four cosmonauts died. The Soviet Union did not hide those fatalities. Here is what best illustrates that: All their names are on the Fallen Astronaut memorial on the Moon, put there during Apollo 15, only a month after Soyuz 11 ended in disaster. There have been no fatalities on Soyuz flights since Soyuz 11, all fatalities occurred early on. That’s forty years without fatalities, and that’s mostly why Soyuz is so safe and reliable. Sure, more astronauts died during Space Shuttle missions but the Space Shuttle also brought many more astronauts into space than Soyuz. If you look at the percentage of fatalities Soyuz is only doing marginally better – one more dead cosmonaut and the percentages would be about the same. It’s not so much the raw numbers, it’s the forty years. Soyuz is a mature spacecraft, all the kinks have been worked out, the Space Shuttle was always too complicated to ever really work out the kinks, to ever really be considered safe.
brudgers 15y ago
>"not the way we should be letting ourselves get into space." It would be interesting to see some rationale for this position besides the implied jingoism.

by lhnn 15y ago

ugh 15y ago

At least Soyuz is more reliable than the Space Shuttle.

chrisjsmith 15y ago
As far as we know. The Russians weren't always that honest about who they blew up by accident.
- ugh 15y ago
  Aha, and what’s your evidence for that? Soyuz 1 (1967) and Soyuz 11 (1971) both ended with fatalities. Four cosmonauts died. The Soviet Union did not hide those fatalities. Here is what best illustrates that: All their names are on the Fallen Astronaut memorial on the Moon, put there during Apollo 15, only a month after Soyuz 11 ended in disaster. There have been no fatalities on Soyuz flights since Soyuz 11, all fatalities occurred early on. That’s forty years without fatalities, and that’s mostly why Soyuz is so safe and reliable. Sure, more astronauts died during Space Shuttle missions but the Space Shuttle also brought many more astronauts into space than Soyuz. If you look at the percentage of fatalities Soyuz is only doing marginally better – one more dead cosmonaut and the percentages would be about the same. It’s not so much the raw numbers, it’s the forty years. Soyuz is a mature spacecraft, all the kinks have been worked out, the Space Shuttle was always too complicated to ever really work out the kinks, to ever really be considered safe.

brudgers 15y ago

>"not the way we should be letting ourselves get into space." It would be interesting to see some rationale for this position besides the implied jingoism.