28 ms·

Per wikipedia: "It was intended as a survival aid to be used after landings and before recovery in the Siberian wilderness." Why is banning them worth celebrat

Per wikipedia: "It was intended as a survival aid to be used after landings and before recovery in the Siberian wilderness." Why is banning them worth celebrating?

a4a4a4a4 4y ago
- maest 4y ago
  Nobody is claiming they were banned because guns are absolutely, intrinsically bad. It's just that the safety tradeoff didn't seem good enough. From TFA: "Of course, plans were to use it only in special circumstances on return to Earth. But in space, on occasion, well-laid plans have a way of turning out very differently. In my publicity campaign, I suggested the presence of the gun, especially in light of recent space team psychological problems, might be an invitation to a future disaster. Fiendishly, I proposed that to guarantee the gun only be usable in an off-course landing (its official purpose), it be stashed in compartment accessible only from outside the Soyuz, after landing. There never was any response to my helpful suggestions."
  - a4a4a4a4 4y ago
    > Nobody is claiming they were banned because guns are absolutely, intrinsically bad. It's just that the safety tradeoff didn't seem good enough. I was making a (what I thought was) very thinly-veiled commentary on the current political discourse regarding guns in the media. > I suggested the presence of the gun, especially in light of recent space team psychological problems, might be an invitation to a future disaster. And this is just poor reasoning and political grandstanding from the author. The author wants to feel like he accomplished something really meaningful, and is patting himself on the back for it. These people can be trusted to travel to space and depend on each other for survival out there, but the presence of a very scary gun is the breaking point of where they can't be trusted anymore? At some point, you either trust someone or you don't. If I couldn't trust a colleague with a gun, there's no way I would be traveling to space with them, because either way my life would be in their hands. Edit: from another comment, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-couple-and-pilot-after-helicopter-crash-in-wilderness/ar-AAZJDWR https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-coupl...
    - maest 4y ago
      > I was making a (what I thought was) very thinly-veiled commentary on the current political discourse regarding guns in the media. Sure, but by doing that you were insinuating the only reason the author fought against guns in space (and won), was due to some irrational absolute fear of guns. The point I was trying to make is that the drivers for that decisions were more nuanced - there are tradeoffs when allowing astronauts to carry guns: they need to be trained, there _is_ an increase in accidental or intentional gun discharge, procedures have to be developed and maintained regarding gun storage and usage, increased storage weight etc. You can argue against each one of these cons (and you may well be right, although I don't think that would be immediately apparent), but that's beyond my point. My point was simply that the decision was more nuanced than "I'm irrationally afraid of guns".
JKCalhoun 4y ago
I guess because bear spray is a thing now.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  No good on wolves.
- BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
  I just think it's weird. If part of my coworkers' job was involved landing in the Siberian wilderness and they carried a gun to protect themselves, I wouldn't go out of my way to disarm them and then congratulate myself for it. Not even if it was David.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    The very idea of guns make some people crazy - for or against, usually against.
    - earthscienceman 4y ago
      - sawjet 4y ago
        You just proved their argument
      - water554 4y ago
        Why don’t you go live in Mexico for awhile. You can be under constant threat of kidnapping, crime, etc. you can always call the police if you have a problem. Guns are illegal there. Yes, the price of the second amendment is blood.
      - BitwiseFool 4y ago
        The GP asserted that "The very idea of guns make some people crazy - for or against, usually against." and you responded with a totally hyperbolic re-frame of the argument, insinuating that pro-gun people come from a place of wanting to "own an arsenal of any weapon of my choosing, the bloody bodies of children be damned". I'd say you've just proved their point.
SLWW 4y ago
Not really. I don't think we should rejoice in limiting their ability to protect themselves from something that may kill them.
AlwaysRock 4y ago
The road to hell, or a bear free landing, is paved with good intentions. Sure the guns are for bears. But once guns are a norm in space they will eventually be used in space.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >"But once guns are a norm in space they will eventually be used in space." For what purpose though? It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to fire a gun in a spacecraft. Firing a gun on an EVA would run into two main issues. One, the gun is likely to jam or not even work - metal has a tendency to spontaneously weld in the heat and vacuum of space. Two, orbital mechanics means that hitting a target is not as easy as pointing and shooting. The bullet won't simply go in a straight line, and the person firing it is going to get knocked back and probably lose control.
  - hourago 4y ago
    Then we should celebrate that the gun has been removed. It was a danger for everybody.
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      I wholeheartedly disagree and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I was pointing out that using the gun 'as a gun', so to speak, would make no sense whatsoever in space.
  - AlwaysRock 4y ago
    What about... every other situation in space? One country decides its standard to bring guns into the ISS. Conflict starts on earth. Country with guns now holds hostage other astronauts. Would the gun be smart to use inside a space craft? No. Would the gun work as intended inside a space craft? No. Could it possible cause damage that would kill everyone inside? Maybe. Would it work as a tool to control others regardless? Yes. It seems like you're being willfully naive or are just pro guns everywhere. Even space.
dannyphantom 4y ago
> Of course, plans were to use it only in special circumstances *on return to Earth*. But in space, on occasion, well-laid plans have a way of turning out very differently. In my publicity campaign, I suggested the presence of the gun, especially in light of recent space team psychological problems, might be an invitation to a future disaster. There is something about it just so frustrating in his writing, he's so proud to have been a pest about it; the author is an American and NASA doesn't want images of cosmonauts with guns, cool. That's as far as that should have ever gone. But don't impose your qualms on your Russian colleagues. Seriously? They were reunited with the earth with the intent to survive in less than ideal conditions, after being in SPACE of all places. Come on.
- pseudo0 4y ago
  What makes it even funnier is that during the period when this article was published, NASA didn't even have a functioning method of getting cosmonauts to the ISS. And meanwhile this guy is spending his time and energy trying to get Russia to remove an item from their safety kit, not trying to advocate for a US manned spaceflight capability. Kinda goes to show where bureaucrats' priorities lie.
rozab 4y ago
Right, this is nothing like the 23mm autocannon mounted on Salyut 3. It's just a tool.
eadmund 4y ago
> Why is banning them worth celebrating? Hoplophobia: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoplophobia https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoplophobia Which is to say: it’s not worth celebrating, but someone afflicted with hoplophobia might think that it is.

Per wikipedia: "It was intended as a survival aid to be used after landings and before recovery in the Siberian wilderness." Why is banning them worth celebrating?

a4a4a4a4 4y ago

maest 4y ago
Nobody is claiming they were banned because guns are absolutely, intrinsically bad. It's just that the safety tradeoff didn't seem good enough. From TFA: "Of course, plans were to use it only in special circumstances on return to Earth. But in space, on occasion, well-laid plans have a way of turning out very differently. In my publicity campaign, I suggested the presence of the gun, especially in light of recent space team psychological problems, might be an invitation to a future disaster. Fiendishly, I proposed that to guarantee the gun only be usable in an off-course landing (its official purpose), it be stashed in compartment accessible only from outside the Soyuz, after landing. There never was any response to my helpful suggestions."
- a4a4a4a4 4y ago
  > Nobody is claiming they were banned because guns are absolutely, intrinsically bad. It's just that the safety tradeoff didn't seem good enough. I was making a (what I thought was) very thinly-veiled commentary on the current political discourse regarding guns in the media. > I suggested the presence of the gun, especially in light of recent space team psychological problems, might be an invitation to a future disaster. And this is just poor reasoning and political grandstanding from the author. The author wants to feel like he accomplished something really meaningful, and is patting himself on the back for it. These people can be trusted to travel to space and depend on each other for survival out there, but the presence of a very scary gun is the breaking point of where they can't be trusted anymore? At some point, you either trust someone or you don't. If I couldn't trust a colleague with a gun, there's no way I would be traveling to space with them, because either way my life would be in their hands. Edit: from another comment, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-couple-and-pilot-after-helicopter-crash-in-wilderness/ar-AAZJDWR https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-coupl...
  - maest 4y ago
    > I was making a (what I thought was) very thinly-veiled commentary on the current political discourse regarding guns in the media. Sure, but by doing that you were insinuating the only reason the author fought against guns in space (and won), was due to some irrational absolute fear of guns. The point I was trying to make is that the drivers for that decisions were more nuanced - there are tradeoffs when allowing astronauts to carry guns: they need to be trained, there _is_ an increase in accidental or intentional gun discharge, procedures have to be developed and maintained regarding gun storage and usage, increased storage weight etc. You can argue against each one of these cons (and you may well be right, although I don't think that would be immediately apparent), but that's beyond my point. My point was simply that the decision was more nuanced than "I'm irrationally afraid of guns".

JKCalhoun 4y ago

I guess because bear spray is a thing now.

vorpalhex 4y ago
No good on wolves.
BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
I just think it's weird. If part of my coworkers' job was involved landing in the Siberian wilderness and they carried a gun to protect themselves, I wouldn't go out of my way to disarm them and then congratulate myself for it. Not even if it was David.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  The very idea of guns make some people crazy - for or against, usually against.
  - earthscienceman 4y ago
    - sawjet 4y ago
      You just proved their argument
    - water554 4y ago
      Why don’t you go live in Mexico for awhile. You can be under constant threat of kidnapping, crime, etc. you can always call the police if you have a problem. Guns are illegal there. Yes, the price of the second amendment is blood.
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      The GP asserted that "The very idea of guns make some people crazy - for or against, usually against." and you responded with a totally hyperbolic re-frame of the argument, insinuating that pro-gun people come from a place of wanting to "own an arsenal of any weapon of my choosing, the bloody bodies of children be damned". I'd say you've just proved their point.

SLWW 4y ago

Not really. I don't think we should rejoice in limiting their ability to protect themselves from something that may kill them.

AlwaysRock 4y ago

The road to hell, or a bear free landing, is paved with good intentions. Sure the guns are for bears. But once guns are a norm in space they will eventually be used in space.

BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"But once guns are a norm in space they will eventually be used in space." For what purpose though? It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to fire a gun in a spacecraft. Firing a gun on an EVA would run into two main issues. One, the gun is likely to jam or not even work - metal has a tendency to spontaneously weld in the heat and vacuum of space. Two, orbital mechanics means that hitting a target is not as easy as pointing and shooting. The bullet won't simply go in a straight line, and the person firing it is going to get knocked back and probably lose control.
- hourago 4y ago
  Then we should celebrate that the gun has been removed. It was a danger for everybody.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    I wholeheartedly disagree and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I was pointing out that using the gun 'as a gun', so to speak, would make no sense whatsoever in space.
- AlwaysRock 4y ago
  What about... every other situation in space? One country decides its standard to bring guns into the ISS. Conflict starts on earth. Country with guns now holds hostage other astronauts. Would the gun be smart to use inside a space craft? No. Would the gun work as intended inside a space craft? No. Could it possible cause damage that would kill everyone inside? Maybe. Would it work as a tool to control others regardless? Yes. It seems like you're being willfully naive or are just pro guns everywhere. Even space.

dannyphantom 4y ago

> Of course, plans were to use it only in special circumstances *on return to Earth*. But in space, on occasion, well-laid plans have a way of turning out very differently. In my publicity campaign, I suggested the presence of the gun, especially in light of recent space team psychological problems, might be an invitation to a future disaster. There is something about it just so frustrating in his writing, he's so proud to have been a pest about it; the author is an American and NASA doesn't want images of cosmonauts with guns, cool. That's as far as that should have ever gone. But don't impose your qualms on your Russian colleagues. Seriously? They were reunited with the earth with the intent to survive in less than ideal conditions, after being in SPACE of all places. Come on.

pseudo0 4y ago
What makes it even funnier is that during the period when this article was published, NASA didn't even have a functioning method of getting cosmonauts to the ISS. And meanwhile this guy is spending his time and energy trying to get Russia to remove an item from their safety kit, not trying to advocate for a US manned spaceflight capability. Kinda goes to show where bureaucrats' priorities lie.

rozab 4y ago

Right, this is nothing like the 23mm autocannon mounted on Salyut 3. It's just a tool.

eadmund 4y ago

> Why is banning them worth celebrating? Hoplophobia: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoplophobia https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoplophobia Which is to say: it’s not worth celebrating, but someone afflicted with hoplophobia might think that it is.