U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2012, 02:21 AM
 
3,426 posts, read 2,791,710 times
Reputation: 3318

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking Tech Solutions View Post
No, it would be launched in components on individual rockets, the ones that they are having trouble with. The link detailed their issues recently, not just with the comm satellite.
Perhaps you should read up on the outstanding record of that ship before you condemn it to the teash heap. They are far more reliable than any of ours.

Progress cargo ship

For instance, there were ten Progess launches in 2010 and one failure. What American spacecraft has ever acheived a 90% success rate in one year?

Quote:
I'm not saying they aren't capable of doing it, they were the first to put something in orbit. Even if it was just a hunk of metal that went "beep beep" it was a major milestone. I'm just saying that they need to sort that stuff out before the good folks on the ISS run out of groceries.
They've already sorted it out.

Quote:
As for the number of people killed in space launches we're tied for failed manned spacecraft launches, it's just that both shuttles had 7 people on them. Things go wrong, unfortunately sometimes people are onboard when they do.
Please don't tell me thaqt you believe that the Shuttle was more reliable than the Soyuz. I don't think ANY rocket scientist would make that claim with a straight face.

Quote:
My point, while expressed in a slightly flippant manner, was that before they go designing a moon colonizing plan, they should get the bugs worked out of their delivery mechanisms so that we don't watch a few billion bucks worth of our cash, their cash, and any other participants cash, turn into a debris field scattered over the countryside.
There will always be bugs in what amounts to the most complex machines ever built. No one has ever said that flying one is safe, or ever will be.

Quote:
There's always a chance that it could happen no matter how careful you are, but it'd be good to minimize that chance.
I could get run over crossing the street. If we don't take chances, what's the point in getting up in the morning?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2012, 05:09 AM
 
Location: Wasilla Alaska
119 posts, read 201,456 times
Reputation: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
For instance, there were ten Progess launches in 2010 and one failure. What American spacecraft has ever acheived a 90% success rate in one year?
As a matter of fact with the exception of the two Shuttles that have been lost, (Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003) we have had a 100% success rate for shuttle launches.
So that's 1981 to 2010, giving us 29 years of service. 29-2= 27, so that's 27 years of 100% success rate.

Right now I suspect you're thinking "But they launch more often than we do!" You're the one that wanted to talk yearly percentage, or percentages in general for that matter.
In that vein there have been 133 shuttle launches, 2 failed. If my calculator skills are up to par that makes a 98% success rate over the life of the platform.


Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
They've already sorted it out.
Quote:
"Yes, there are problems, and we need to modernize," Popovkin said, saying Russia needs to upgrade facilities at its spaceports and tracking facilities.
Popovkin also highlighted the aging of the Russian space workforce as a systemic problem.
That's a quote from Vladimir Popovkin. Look him up on Wikipedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
On 29 April 2011, Popovkin was appointed as the head of Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos).[4]"
When the head of the Russian version of NASA says that there's problems with things that they're working on I'm inclined to believe he knows what he's talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Please don't tell me thaqt you believe that the Shuttle was more reliable than the Soyuz. I don't think ANY rocket scientist would make that claim with a straight face.
I never claimed to be a rocket scientist. I work with computers, speaking of which did you know that Firefox underlines misspelled words in red squiggly lines just like Word does? I use that feature extensively to catch typos. (Google Chrome probably has the same feature, but I'm not sure, I don't use it myself)


Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
There will always be bugs in what amounts to the most complex machines ever built. No one has ever said that flying one is safe, or ever will be.



I could get run over crossing the street. If we don't take chances, what's the point in getting up in the morning?
I'm preeeeetty sure I covered that in my post that you quoted from. I'm also pretty sure that I covered the fact that my original post was a bit "flippant"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
1.frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness; characterized by levity: The audience was shocked by his flippant remarks about patriotism.
2.Chiefly Dialect . nimble, limber, or pliant.
3.Archaic . glib; voluble.


But I'm fairly certain that you just desire to argue the point and read some strange sort of prejudice against the Russians into my posts. I'm pretty sure we've moved on past the Cold War, I was like 6 years old when it ended so it would be sort of hard for me to harbor some sort of resentment. If there was a string of failed American launches I'd say the same thing. Figure out how to put the stuff in space reliably before you worry about setting it up on the moon etc. etc. The same way I think we should have made sure that private companies could put something in space reliably before we mothballed the shuttle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 08:56 AM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,654,908 times
Reputation: 7645
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Perhaps you should read up on the outstanding record of that ship before you condemn it to the teash heap. They are far more reliable than any of ours.

Progress cargo ship

For instance, there were ten Progess launches in 2010 and one failure. What American spacecraft has ever acheived a 90% success rate in one year?
The Delta 4 HLV...

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 09:11 AM
 
3,426 posts, read 2,791,710 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
The Delta 4 HLV...
Has never had ten launches in a year, much less nine successful launches in a year. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the Delta IV heavy. It actually has more payload capability than the progress. My point was you were questioning the reliability of the progress vehicle, and I was pointing out that it has been among the most reliable rockets on the planet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 09:40 AM
 
3,426 posts, read 2,791,710 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking Tech Solutions View Post
As a matter of fact with the exception of the two Shuttles that have been lost, (Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003) we have had a 100% success rate for shuttle launches.
So that's 1981 to 2010, giving us 29 years of service. 29-2= 27, so that's 27 years of 100% success rate.
You are comparing the Space Shuttle to the Soyuz space ship, which has been in use and refined over and over since 1957, and lauched on a regular basis with far fewer fatalities (only three, in fact).


Quote:
When the head of the Russian version of NASA says that there's problems with things that they're working on I'm inclined to believe he knows what he's talking about.
No one is denying that they have problems. So does NASA. You're not denying that are you?

Quote:
I never claimed to be a rocket scientist. I work with computers, speaking of which did you know that Firefox underlines misspelled words in red squiggly lines just like Word does? I use that feature extensively to catch typos. (Google Chrome probably has the same feature, but I'm not sure, I don't use it myself)
Erm, why are you spell checking my post? I'll readily admit to being a bit lazy if you'll admit this is an informal forum.


Quote:
But I'm fairly certain that you just desire to argue the point and read some strange sort of prejudice against the Russians into my posts. I'm pretty sure we've moved on past the Cold War, I was like 6 years old when it ended so it would be sort of hard for me to harbor some sort of resentment. If there was a string of failed American launches I'd say the same thing. Figure out how to put the stuff in space reliably before you worry about setting it up on the moon etc. etc. The same way I think we should have made sure that private companies could put something in space reliably before we mothballed the shuttle.


If you ask any NASA rocket scientist I am confident that they would tell you that the Soyuz is a very reliable vehicle. We are, after all, putting out own astronauts on them and sending them to the ISS. That is all I am saying. And for the record, if you got the impression that I thought you had some bias against Russian vehicles, I assure you that is not the case. I've just been watching both programs since the Gemini program, and so I have seen how the Russians chugged along year after year placing rockets in orbit, while we did it in spits and starts. It is a very impressive record, to say the least, the best in the business, in fact. Have we done more Johnny Astro stuff? Sure, but that doesn't necessarily equate to better rocket capability. The Russian vehicles have a longer service record, and are just as capable (with the exception of the now retired Shuttle), if not more so, than ours.

Having said all that, we do currently have some very awesome rockets, such as the Delta IV heavy (one of my favorites) that you've already mentioned, as well as the various incarnations of the Atlas V (none of which, unfortunately, are man-rated). And of course, there is Space X with it's Falcon 9, and it's dreamed up Falcon 9 Heavy, Falcon X, Falcon X Heavy, and the Falcon XX. Now that last one, if it ever gets built, will be by far the baddest rocket ever built, bar none.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 10:12 AM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,654,908 times
Reputation: 7645
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
You are comparing the Space Shuttle to the Soyuz space ship, which has been in use and refined over and over since 1957, and lauched on a regular basis with far fewer fatalities (only three, in fact).
.
.
.
.
.
.
What does the success or failure rate of a rocket program have to do with the OP?

As I posted earlier
Quote:
The Russians have the heavy lift capacity, the Americans the miniaturization and the EU their engineering expertise.
I thought this would be an excellent thread to discuss the exciting possibilities of manned bases on the moon, instead it looks like a pissing contest on who has a more reliable launch vehicle..

This "us" verses "them" mentality makes me want to puke.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 10:18 AM
 
3,426 posts, read 2,791,710 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
What does the success or failure rate of a rocket program have to do with the OP?

As I posted earlier

I thought this would be an excellent thread to discuss the exciting possibilities of manned bases on the moon, instead it looks like a pissing contest on who has a more reliable launch vehicle..

This "us" verses "them" mentality makes me want to puke.....
That was never my intention, I promise you. Both programs have successes and failures enough to go around. I'm with you that what we need to do is concentrate on each program's capabilities to maximize any cooperative effort they may make in the future with regard to deep space human exploration (deep space meaning out of LEO). It makes sense to me to do this since it is really an natural progression from what we are already doing at the ISS. We can extend what has been learned there to a base on the Moon.

You know, the ISS has historically received a lot of criticism for the huge expense and the perceived lack of any tangible reward for having built it at such an enormous cost. But the fact is that much of its pay off will come from learning how to work in space cooperatively on an international level, to saying nothing of the fact that the details of habitation of and working and conducting science in a long term habitation facility in the space environment will be a hard earned, and invaluable knowledge base for future deep space manned missions. I think those heavily involved in the endeavor are aware of this, but I'm not sure that the general public or the politicians fully appreciate how important that work truly is.

Last edited by orogenicman; 01-24-2012 at 10:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Ohio
3,441 posts, read 5,273,458 times
Reputation: 2678
Since they are planning the colonization of the Moon I guess they have figured out how to get rid of all the rock monsters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 10:30 AM
 
3,426 posts, read 2,791,710 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post
Since they are planning the colonization of the Moon I guess they have figured out how to get rid of all the rock monsters.

Easy. Just send a crew of hardcore geologists up there. We are very good at busting up rocks and their associated 'monsters' (and we didn't have to go to prison to learn how to do it).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2012, 11:54 AM
 
15,924 posts, read 17,654,908 times
Reputation: 7645
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
You know, the ISS has historically received a lot of criticism for the huge expense and the perceived lack of any tangible reward for having built it at such an enormous cost. But the fact is that much of its pay off will come from learning how to work in space cooperatively on an international level, to saying nothing of the fact that the details of habitation of and working and conducting science in a long term habitation facility in the space environment will be a hard earned, and invaluable knowledge base for future deep space manned missions. I think those heavily involved in the endeavor are aware of this, but I'm not sure that the general public or the politicians fully appreciate how important that work truly is.
Agree, it's a shame that the general public and politicians always wants to see a ROI for everything.

Whatever happened to the quest for knowledge for knowledge's sake?

To me the Earth right now is like a bunch of kids that are locked up in a small room always getting on each others nerves.

We need to expand out and off of this planet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:45 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top