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.
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).
You asked me to name an American spacecraft that achieved a 90% yearly success rate. As I said, you're the one who wanted to talk percentages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
No one is denying that they have problems. So does NASA. You're not denying that are you?
Humanity has problems matey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
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.
Because when I click "quote" and it brings up your text inside the lovely little tags it squiggly lines it, and my Obsessive Compulsive need to correct things with red squiggly lines under it and my knowledge that to do so it would no longer truly be a direct quotation go to war in my head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
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.
Russia has launched more vehicles than anyone else since 05 or 06 if I recall correctly. We're ignoring large sections of text and tossing in facts we remember right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
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.
Can we paint it black and call it a Falcon XX Magnum?
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.....
What does the safety rating of a car have to do with how willing you are to put your family in it? There is no "us" verses "them" mentality here, I made a lighthearted comment, someone seemed to take it too seriously, it turned into a discussion of rocket ships. Didn't you know that everyone on the internet likes rocket ships?
Last I checked there were Russians, Americans, and Japanese all on the ISS We have a new "boogeyman" the middle east, we're buddies with everyone that we were angry with in WW2 and the Cold War.
What does the safety rating of a car have to do with how willing you are to put your family in it? There is no "us" verses "them" mentality here, I made a lighthearted comment, someone seemed to take it too seriously, it turned into a discussion of rocket ships. Didn't you know that everyone on the internet likes rocket ships?
Like you had anything intelligent to say, my comments were not directed at you.
Like you had anything intelligent to say, my comments were not directed at you.
I'm sorry that you feel my comments, quotations and links from articles upon spaceflight, and statistics didn't contribute something interesting to the discussion. I have enjoyed the back and forth because it caused me to look up things and read about things that I might not have looked as closely at without a prompt in the form of another individual who was willing to discuss in a civil manner.
Whatever points may have been made by me and orogenicman you cannot deny that the conversation has been civil, bereft of the typical internet name calling, and has not degenerated into a shouting match. Considering it's the internet I'd say that's a clear indication of the higher standards that most people here hold themselves to.
I'm sorry that you feel my comments, quotations and links from articles upon spaceflight, and statistics didn't contribute something interesting to the discussion.
What they had to do with a moon base built by America, the EU and Russia is beyond me.
What you and the other person were doing in this thread to put it politely is called hijacking...
And I hardly call this statistics:
Quote:
Russia has launched more vehicles than anyone else since 05 or 06 if I recall correctly. We're ignoring large sections of text and tossing in facts we remember right?
I had been hoping for discussions on topics like this concerning the moon base...
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).
No I haven't seen it yet. Didn't sound like I missed much.
You aren't missing anything, unless you enjoy constant in and out of focus with jiggling camera work, similar in technique as The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield. I just saw it yesterday. It's a visual headache.
Perhaps you would like to share with us all these countries that divert money into space projects which never complete?
And perhaps you would like to share with us the location of all the proper-resolution photographs which we dont get to see?
India and China are both countries which have sent a space ship to the Moon and never released the photographs they took. Without the proper photographs the people of the world paid for, the mission is NOT complete. India took over 40,000 and so maybe you can tell me where these are now please? China has released some press release photographs and then nothing else. Japan too but they released some HD footage which is amazingly poor for HD quality. anyway...
What did the space shuttle do for each of its 10-17-day missions to the ISS? I mean we can hardly call the ISS a hotel in space can we? Just as some kind of perspective, it takes about 4 days to get to the moon so they could have gone there and back twice in the time it takes for a longer shuttle mission, but all of them are about 10 days+. Where did all the fresh food go that they took up there - there was tons of the stuff, far more than 5 people in the ISS will ever eat. No, if you look at all the different facts and put them together I am firmly of the belief that there is more to this space thing than we are being told about. I am not trying to convince anyone else to believe this way.
Somehow, I dont think you have a satisfactory answer to questions like these.
There will be no space station on the Moon since the favourite at the moment is Mars (for whatever emotional reason which defies logic). Logic says that the Moon is closer and we can get to our men quicker if anything goes wrong. With Mars, they will all be definitely dead by the time help arrives. I have not heard any reasonable reason why we are not shooting for the moon rather than Mars - other than Mars is sexier and more in fashion. Moon is supposed to be old hat.
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.
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.
