Yeah? So?
The point being is that for the ISS they used an older, proven system of launch. Yet you say that these are as bad as the launchers that failed recently? They are not, which is obvious.
I never said they were. What I AM saying NOW is perhaps they should go back to that, since the new system does not seem to work so good.
To an older man like me who remembers when both were parts of the Soviet Union, that makes little impression on me.
Dismissing something just because you can't get your facts straight. You said Russian and when you were shown that your data was wrong you just try to dismiss it.
You misunderstand. My facts are perfectly straight. But because the Ukraine is now a separate country does not make it fundamentally different from Russia even after twenty years, anymore than Disney World is fundamentally different from Disneyland - just more advanced. Before you diss what I said, perhaps you should make sure you understand what it is I am trying to say.
In fact, excluding the space shuttle, we have had NO fatalities on a space mission in actual flight
If you exclude shuttle missions before 2003, you can get the same result. If you exclude Soyuz missions before 1972, you could get zero fatalities for the Soyuz Missions as well, which were four fatalities. Massaging away numbers can give you anything you want.
Fair enough I suppose. After all, the Russians HAVE done much better in their own manned missions lately. Thankfully none of the launch failures involved no live cosmonauts. Maybe they should go back to using that system they use for launching crew for launching satellites as well.
No Space Shuttle
Really Jason? I didn't think that you'd stoop to this level, but I was wrong. . The Russians built one, and saw it as a white elephant. There is even arguments about whether the space shuttle program saved any money in the long term, compared to disposable launches
Stooping to what level? The space shuttle IS and WAS a more advanced spacecraft. The problem was that they didn't use it to anywhere near its full potential and it wasn't needed for most of the things they actually did with it, so in that sense yes it was a white elephant. It was also badly designed in some respects too. But at least we tried. Unfortunately that was a lack of vision in its actual use and deployment.
If you had mentioned what the Russians had concentrated on which was close Earth orbit and long term living in space, it would have been more balanced.
I thought I HAD said that, if in different and perhaps less flattering terms. But long term living in space only gets you so far if you stay in low Earth orbit. IMO it's getting time to go on to the next step; permanent bases on the the moon and manned missions beyond. Granted it's expensive, but if we spent the money we waste arming ourselves against each other instead it'd suddenly be pretty affordable. Too bad that world political tensions makes that impractical and will likely continue to do so for the rest of my lifetime.
The Space Race ended with the Lunar Landings, but it seems some people think that it should be going on.
The Space Race, no. Further lunar landings and other missions to Mars and the asteroids though - in partnership with Russia and other nations rather than competition - yes.
In short, I do not think we disagree on matters as much as you seem to think we do. My
only original point is that... r
ight now... the Russians are having serious technical problems they'd better deal with soon or missions on both sides are in serious jeopardy. That's ALL I was saying; otherwise, you seem to be reading a lot of negative stuff into what I said that I never intended or even thought, just like someone else did in a different post when I discussed my admiration of Galileo (something I never imagined was even remotely controversy until I get blasted out of the blue for being anti-Catholic!).
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...