4 ms·

> Yet looking back the track record doesn't quite match. Well it does, kind of. I mean, during the space race itself and the cold war the US's space program ha

> Yet looking back the track record doesn't quite match. Well it does, kind of. I mean, during the space race itself and the cold war the US's space program had no in flight fatalities. The first NASA flight fatality wasn't until '86, a good 14 years after the Apollo program had ended. For what it's worth the Soviet's response to the Shuttle program was a failure. NASA remains the only one to get a partially re-usable orbiter into use. > But you know, that is also perhaps thing that should have factored in -- "If we launch 8 people at once, we will probably kill all of them if an accident happens". The Space Shuttle program already had a good 24 successful flights, 6 of which were in the Challenger, before the first fatal flight. It wasn't like they crammed in a bunch of people in an experimental ship for shits and giggles. The first set of shuttle flights only had a crew of 2.

rdtsc 13y ago
> For what it's worth the Soviet's response to the Shuttle program was a failure. I always thought Buran was a great success. It performed the first fully autonomous flight. It did at a fraction of what the Shuttle cost. It is just that "shuttles" are just a bad idea to start with. It is like saying Soviet Nuclear Airplanes were a failure compared to American Nuclear Airplanes. Well the idea of nuclear airplanes isn't that great so comparing advances in it doesn't say much. They started it as a response to show that they could do it. Then it was deemed a bad idea. Americans kept launching these oversized, expensive, hard and expensive to maintain machines. Looking at that particular Wikipedia page, informally it looks like the Soviet also didn't have any fatalities after 1971. Americans had quite a few. [quote from wikipedia article] "Soyuz accidents have claimed the lives of four cosmonauts. No deaths have occurred on Soyuz missions since 1971, and none with the current design of the Soyuz. Including the early Soyuz design, the average deaths per launched crew member on Soyuz are currently under two percent. " Sounds like historically their design is just better.
- kllrnohj 13y ago
  > It is just that "shuttles" are just a bad idea to start with. Shuttles are a fantastic idea. Just because the implementation wasn't brilliant doesn't make the idea bad. Then again I'd strongly disagree with your claim that the Shuttle program was bad in the first place. It had a very successful and impressive 30 year carrier. The comparisons of the Shuttle vs. the Soyuz are bad in the first place as the two platforms are vastly different in lifting capability. The correct comparison would be the Shuttle vs. the Proton-M/K, and the Protons are far from reliable (Proton-M has had 8 failed launches since 2001). Without the Space Shuttle we wouldn't have the ISS for example. > Sounds like historically their design is just better. Better than what? The Saturn V is the only rocket that has propelled humans to the moon, and the entire Saturn family has zero deaths. And the Saturn V remains to this day the heaviest lifter mankind has created (NASA's SLS and China's Long March 9 are in development to surpass the Saturn V)
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    > Just because the implementation wasn't brilliant doesn't make the idea bad. We have two countries that tried to build them and in the end it is still 60s tried and true technology that puts man in space. Some of those reasons are price, some politics. But that needs to be factored in the end. Formulas and blueprints don't launch people into orbit. Another way to put it, if the idea is so complicated that nobody got it to be implemented properly and no country is actively working on a new design, I say there is something with the idea. > Without the Space Shuttle we wouldn't have the ISS for example. That is true. But just like the idea that shuttles are great just that nobody engineered them well enough (yet?) one can also say well hypothetically if NASA had an equivalent program to Soyuz maybe they would have had more money in the pocket to build an even bigger and better ISS, or ISS would have been there a lot sooner. > Better than what? Better for fairly regularly flying people into orbit or to orbital space stations. Saturn V is awesome. That's great, I agree. If we were to still fly to the moon that would be the vehicle to use.
    - kllrnohj 13y ago
      > We have two countries that tried to build them and in the end it is still 60s tried and true technology that puts man in space. Some of those reasons are price, some politics. One country succeeded, and the other stopped being a country. In neither case did the idea fail. > Another way to put it, if the idea is so complicated that nobody got it to be implemented properly and no country is actively working on a new design, I say there is something with the idea. No, that's called learning from experience. There's nothing wrong with the idea. It's an idea still actively being explored by a variety of people as well, and the tech developed for the Shuttle programs lives on the SLS and Ares vehicles that NASA is replacing the Shuttle with. > one can also say well hypothetically if NASA had an equivalent program to Soyuz maybe they would have had more money in the pocket to build an even bigger and better ISS, or ISS would have been there a lot sooner. We can state with certainty that the ISS would have happened a lot LATER if all we had was Soyuz vehicles, if it would have happened at all. Soyuz lacks the capacity to build the ISS or to do space walk repairs. There's a reason Proton was used more than Soyuz was in the construction of the ISS. Soyuz is good for some things, building space stations, repairing satellites, or getting to the moon/mars are all not on that list. Also you do realize the Shuttle wasn't the only NASA vehicle, right? NASA does have Soyuz-class vehicles, such as the Atlas or the Delta (Atlas-Centaur alone has more flights than the Shuttle)
noonespecial 13y ago
I'd say the opposite on the soviet shuttle program. They tired it out, it performed well for them (successfully completing a fully autonomous flight), but then decided it wasn't a very efficient space launch platform and stopped using it. When you're going the wrong way, the leader is the one who turns around and heads back the other way first.
- kllrnohj 13y ago
  > but then decided it wasn't a very efficient space launch platform and stopped using it. No, they planned on using it again. But the Soviet Union stopped being a thing before that happened. And multiple times there has been interest in reviving Buran.
qwerta 13y ago
>For what it's worth the Soviet's response to the Shuttle program was a failure. NASA remains the only one to get a partially re-usable orbiter into use. Strictly speaking Sojuz has some reusable parts, mostly electronics. > It wasn't like they crammed in a bunch of people in an experimental s The Shuttle was so complicated that every flight was 'experimental'. One can leave testing phase after all fatal bugs are discovered and addressed, this never happened.
- kllrnohj 13y ago
  > The Shuttle was so complicated that every flight was 'experimental'. One can leave testing phase after all fatal bugs are discovered and addressed, this never happened. So every time you fly in an airplane or drive your car do you call it an experimental vehicle? How about your house? Is it experimental, too?
  - qwerta 13y ago
    If there is 1:70 chance that vehicle explodes on every use, then yes it is experimental.

rdtsc 13y ago

> For what it's worth the Soviet's response to the Shuttle program was a failure. I always thought Buran was a great success. It performed the first fully autonomous flight. It did at a fraction of what the Shuttle cost. It is just that "shuttles" are just a bad idea to start with. It is like saying Soviet Nuclear Airplanes were a failure compared to American Nuclear Airplanes. Well the idea of nuclear airplanes isn't that great so comparing advances in it doesn't say much. They started it as a response to show that they could do it. Then it was deemed a bad idea. Americans kept launching these oversized, expensive, hard and expensive to maintain machines. Looking at that particular Wikipedia page, informally it looks like the Soviet also didn't have any fatalities after 1971. Americans had quite a few. [quote from wikipedia article] "Soyuz accidents have claimed the lives of four cosmonauts. No deaths have occurred on Soyuz missions since 1971, and none with the current design of the Soyuz. Including the early Soyuz design, the average deaths per launched crew member on Soyuz are currently under two percent. " Sounds like historically their design is just better.

kllrnohj 13y ago
> It is just that "shuttles" are just a bad idea to start with. Shuttles are a fantastic idea. Just because the implementation wasn't brilliant doesn't make the idea bad. Then again I'd strongly disagree with your claim that the Shuttle program was bad in the first place. It had a very successful and impressive 30 year carrier. The comparisons of the Shuttle vs. the Soyuz are bad in the first place as the two platforms are vastly different in lifting capability. The correct comparison would be the Shuttle vs. the Proton-M/K, and the Protons are far from reliable (Proton-M has had 8 failed launches since 2001). Without the Space Shuttle we wouldn't have the ISS for example. > Sounds like historically their design is just better. Better than what? The Saturn V is the only rocket that has propelled humans to the moon, and the entire Saturn family has zero deaths. And the Saturn V remains to this day the heaviest lifter mankind has created (NASA's SLS and China's Long March 9 are in development to surpass the Saturn V)
- rdtsc 13y ago
  > Just because the implementation wasn't brilliant doesn't make the idea bad. We have two countries that tried to build them and in the end it is still 60s tried and true technology that puts man in space. Some of those reasons are price, some politics. But that needs to be factored in the end. Formulas and blueprints don't launch people into orbit. Another way to put it, if the idea is so complicated that nobody got it to be implemented properly and no country is actively working on a new design, I say there is something with the idea. > Without the Space Shuttle we wouldn't have the ISS for example. That is true. But just like the idea that shuttles are great just that nobody engineered them well enough (yet?) one can also say well hypothetically if NASA had an equivalent program to Soyuz maybe they would have had more money in the pocket to build an even bigger and better ISS, or ISS would have been there a lot sooner. > Better than what? Better for fairly regularly flying people into orbit or to orbital space stations. Saturn V is awesome. That's great, I agree. If we were to still fly to the moon that would be the vehicle to use.
  - kllrnohj 13y ago
    > We have two countries that tried to build them and in the end it is still 60s tried and true technology that puts man in space. Some of those reasons are price, some politics. One country succeeded, and the other stopped being a country. In neither case did the idea fail. > Another way to put it, if the idea is so complicated that nobody got it to be implemented properly and no country is actively working on a new design, I say there is something with the idea. No, that's called learning from experience. There's nothing wrong with the idea. It's an idea still actively being explored by a variety of people as well, and the tech developed for the Shuttle programs lives on the SLS and Ares vehicles that NASA is replacing the Shuttle with. > one can also say well hypothetically if NASA had an equivalent program to Soyuz maybe they would have had more money in the pocket to build an even bigger and better ISS, or ISS would have been there a lot sooner. We can state with certainty that the ISS would have happened a lot LATER if all we had was Soyuz vehicles, if it would have happened at all. Soyuz lacks the capacity to build the ISS or to do space walk repairs. There's a reason Proton was used more than Soyuz was in the construction of the ISS. Soyuz is good for some things, building space stations, repairing satellites, or getting to the moon/mars are all not on that list. Also you do realize the Shuttle wasn't the only NASA vehicle, right? NASA does have Soyuz-class vehicles, such as the Atlas or the Delta (Atlas-Centaur alone has more flights than the Shuttle)

noonespecial 13y ago

I'd say the opposite on the soviet shuttle program. They tired it out, it performed well for them (successfully completing a fully autonomous flight), but then decided it wasn't a very efficient space launch platform and stopped using it. When you're going the wrong way, the leader is the one who turns around and heads back the other way first.

kllrnohj 13y ago
> but then decided it wasn't a very efficient space launch platform and stopped using it. No, they planned on using it again. But the Soviet Union stopped being a thing before that happened. And multiple times there has been interest in reviving Buran.

qwerta 13y ago

>For what it's worth the Soviet's response to the Shuttle program was a failure. NASA remains the only one to get a partially re-usable orbiter into use. Strictly speaking Sojuz has some reusable parts, mostly electronics. > It wasn't like they crammed in a bunch of people in an experimental s The Shuttle was so complicated that every flight was 'experimental'. One can leave testing phase after all fatal bugs are discovered and addressed, this never happened.

kllrnohj 13y ago
> The Shuttle was so complicated that every flight was 'experimental'. One can leave testing phase after all fatal bugs are discovered and addressed, this never happened. So every time you fly in an airplane or drive your car do you call it an experimental vehicle? How about your house? Is it experimental, too?
- qwerta 13y ago
  If there is 1:70 chance that vehicle explodes on every use, then yes it is experimental.