Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

X-555 Criuise Missile: Russia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • canoe
    replied
    Originally posted by lurker
    I just used to read space forums in time (and after) Columbia disaster.
    Everybody was complaining that in will be difficult now to get financing for anything that looks like Shuttle.

    p.s. What reusable crafts are you taking about? From what I've seen - for example about US new Moon programm, they all looks like oversized Apollo's.
    I think the issue was more to do with NASA then the shuttles specificly. They performed reasonably well for the time they've been in service, they have their faults but for a first attempt at a reusable space plane they weren't that bad.

    I think NASA's problem is its not making any practical case for manned space flight. Alot of what is done up there can be done with cheaper unmanned vehicles. The only really unique research being done that requires humans be up there is studying the effects of being in space on the human body.

    NASA needs to establish clear, realistic near-term goals. They keep making all these extreme long-term plans for things in the future that the present day politics make impossible to carry out. They need to set goals they can actually accomplish that have immediate and short term returns.

    An immediate priority for them should be getting a replacement spacecraft designed and built. They need to get this done as soon as possible not 10 years down the road. A realistic time period for them if they're reusing previously deployed spacecraft technoligy should be like 3-5 years. If this requires they dump the current shuttles to reallocate funding then they need to do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • HistoricalDavid
    replied
    Originally posted by lurker
    I just used to read space forums in time (and after) Columbia disaster.
    Everybody was complaining that in will be difficult now to get financing for anything that looks like Shuttle.
    True, there's no Space Race any longer, no Cold War competitiveness, they've had two Shuttle disasters, and it's not unreasonable that Americans simply want to sit down and prosper.

    p.s. What reusable crafts are you taking about? From what I've seen - for example about US new Moon programm, they all looks like oversized Apollo's.
    Crew Exploration Vehicle... I think.

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...G=Search&meta=

    I think you should have explained it more then.
    Perhaps. ;)

    My opinion is that Shuttles (all) are too complicated and expensive to build and maintain even today for ANY country.
    The US has done it for almost three decades. A fleet of them, even.

    Maybe for some time it "was" a success, but all it's failures set the WHOLE space developmen back, by descrediting the reusable craft idea for the public.
    To some extent, yes.

    Leave a comment:


  • lurker
    replied
    I just used to read space forums in time (and after) Columbia disaster.
    Everybody was complaining that in will be difficult now to get financing for anything that looks like Shuttle.

    p.s. What reusable crafts are you taking about? From what I've seen - for example about US new Moon programm, they all looks like oversized Apollo's.

    Leave a comment:


  • highsea
    replied
    Originally posted by lurker
    ...Maybe for some time it "was" a success, but all it's failures set the WHOLE space developmen back, by descrediting the reusable craft idea for the public.
    I disagree. The real problem was that the shuttle was too successful. Launches became a mundane event, and people forgot just how dangerous manned space flight really is, no matter how you go about it.

    What really delayed further development was this very success. The simple fact that the shuttle was doing the job meant that R&D monies went elsewhere.

    The loss of the Challenger was not really a fault of the tanks, but of the politics of NASA. The engineers had warned of the dangers of launching in the very cold temps, but previous successes caused complacency at the decision-maker level. Good grief, there was a schoolteacher on board at the time. How complacent is that?

    The shuttle was a good ship for it's time, it just happens to be long overdue for retirement. The replacement will leverage shuttle technologies into the next generation of vehicles (which could never have happened without first building shuttles). The next gen will also be reusable vehicles, so that idea is hardly discredited in the US.

    Leave a comment:


  • lurker
    replied
    Originally posted by HistoricalDavid
    Because it was funny. :)

    Seriously, then why did you mentioned Challenger, which was back in 1986? Granted, Columbia disintegrated in 2003, but that only proves the point; at least the US has had a broadly successful Shuttle programme which manages to get manned Shuttles into the air on a largely regular basis. The Buran, in contrast...
    I think you should have explained it more then.

    My opinion is that Shuttles (all) are too complicated and expensive to build and maintain even today for ANY country.

    Maybe for some time it "was" a success, but all it's failures set the WHOLE space developmen back, by descrediting the reusable craft idea for the public.
    Last edited by lurker; 14 Feb 06,, 20:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • HistoricalDavid
    replied
    Originally posted by lurker
    Not arguing largely with the poor general safety record, I still wonder, why are you posting images of the accident that happend in 2002, some 14 years after program was abandoned?
    Because it was funny. :)

    Seriously, then why did you mention Challenger, which was back in 1986? Granted, Columbia disintegrated in 2003, but that only proves the point; at least the US has had a broadly successful Shuttle programme which manages to get manned Shuttles into the air on a largely regular basis. The Buran, in contrast...
    Last edited by HistoricalDavid; 14 Feb 06,, 20:43.

    Leave a comment:


  • lurker
    replied
    Originally posted by HistoricalDavid
    Yes, the Space Shuttle is so crap, please show the Americans how it's actually done. Oh wait...

    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...an-damaged.jpg
    Not arguing largely with the poor general safety record, I still wonder, why are you posting images of the accident that happend in 2002, some 14 years after program was abandoned?
    The thing is dead, those a decomposing corpses.

    Leave a comment:


  • canoe
    replied
    Originally posted by HistoricalDavid
    The point is, at least they have a Shuttle in the first place.

    And criticism of the F-15? The fighter jet with a kill ratio of infinity? Criticising Three Mile Island? Beginning with C, ending in L, hello?

    The Americans have had their share of technical gaffes but, more often than not, they just pale in comparison to you-know-who.
    Well I definately agree with you on the F-15 as a fighter it has a phenomenal combat record. There simply is nothing thats seen as much action and performed so well in air to air combat. It will likely be the gold standard all air superiority fighters are compared to in the future.

    Leave a comment:


  • HistoricalDavid
    replied
    The point is, at least they have a Shuttle in the first place.

    And criticism of the F-15? The fighter jet with a kill ratio of infinity? Criticising Three Mile Island? Beginning with C, ending in L, hello?

    The Americans have had their share of technical gaffes but, more often than not, they just pale in comparison to you-know-who.

    What I will also concede is Russia's early lead in space technology and Mir. I doubt, however, that this is anywhere near enough to discredit America - especially since it not only kept up with Russia, by and large, but also managed to outdo them in the most total manner possible in the areas of freedom and standard of living.
    Last edited by HistoricalDavid; 14 Feb 06,, 18:34.

    Leave a comment:


  • canoe
    replied
    Originally posted by HistoricalDavid
    Yes, the Space Shuttle is so crap, please show the Americans how it's actually done. Oh wait...

    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...an-damaged.jpg
    In a general sense the Russian's have always had looser safety standards then their western counterparts. Its a mentality that goes back to WW2 were the upper ranks generally viewed the lower ranks as cheap and expendable infact they're equipment was generally considered more valuable then their personel.

    This has changed somewhat but still has a ways to go. Theres still alot of issues pertaining to this in the Russian military to this day but its nowhere near as bad as it used to be.

    Leave a comment:


  • HistoricalDavid
    replied
    Yes, the Space Shuttle is so crap, please show the Americans how it's actually done. Oh wait...

    http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...an-damaged.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • Defcon 6
    replied
    Okay Rusky I'll give you that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rusky
    replied
    Originally posted by Defcon 6
    Or more like-

    K-219
    K-123
    K-19 "The Widowmaker"
    Komsomolets

    Rooshoo technology at its finest.

    Every nation has its accidents, hell just last week an F-15 crushed into the ocean, you guys had the Three Mile Island, your shuttle disasters and so on and so forth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Defcon 6
    replied
    How's that you said about Tu-160 being a "not fielded" prototype? Swallowed it, and continue to brag, shithead? :)
    Whats thatr RooShoo-san? I never said anything of the sort. So I had nothing to swallow, and no reason to brag. Once again I'll leave that last bit for the mods.

    Leave a comment:


  • lurker
    replied
    Originally posted by Defcon 6
    Or more like-
    K-219
    K-123
    K-19 "The Widowmaker"
    Komsomolets

    Rooshoo technology at its finest.
    Forgot Scorpion and Thresher also fine pieces of pindos technology :)



    No pictures, no information, no official statements. Doesn't exist. At least the black eagle existed.
    It's classified. No pictures released.
    I, as opposite of you, talk about the stuff that I know. llama

    I'll just leave that for the mods.
    As you wish troll. Nobody wants a trolled board.
    You for now hasn't proved your value to anybody here.
    Go watch a TV or you miss your cartoons :)


    How's that you said about Tu-160 being a "not fielded" prototype? Swallowed it, and continue to brag, shithead? :)

    .
    Last edited by lurker; 19 Jan 06,, 07:43.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X