31–40 of 185 posts
vs. other uses of the money. On Earth, direct replacement with new in-orbit infrastructure/new station, or other space operations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What possible reason would the Russians have to sabotage their own side of their won space craft? Some people believe the Nord pipeline blowup was self-sabotage. Update: I did not say I believe this myself. I'm just using this as a counter argument to say that the reasons might not be obvious at first glance and people tend to believe all sorts of things.
... because it gets them out of contractual obligations to deliver gas.
This comment section looks ridiculous. If the purpose of propoganda stories is to paint the Russians as untrustworthy to the Western world (hint: that is the purpose!) then it is surely effective.
Tangentially: What purpose does ISS serve today? It cost $150 billion to get to this point, but is it doing anything which justifies the operating and maintenance costs? vs. other uses of the money. On Earth, direct replacement with new in-orbit infrastructure/new station, or other space operations.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/02/world/nasa-international-...
And it's already planning its replacement:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-companies-to...
Tangentially: What purpose does ISS serve today? It cost $150 billion to get to this point, but is it doing anything which justifies the operating and maintenance costs? vs. other uses of the money. On Earth, direct replacement with new in-orbit infrastructure/new station, or other space operations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is this just usual Russian incompetence? I don't think there is an impression of that or really ever has been. Russia has successfully launched humans into space more regularly and at a lower cost than the US for the last 60 years. (Well until the last few years) I think it's more likely that this is just an occurrence of something akin to the birthday paradox and sometimes things just happen. It's the narrative du…
It wasn’t that long ago they drilled a hole in a Soyuz, then patched it with epoxy and sent it up anyway, only for the epoxy to come out and cause a leak.
Here is the hole. Personally, I don't see any trace of epoxy in or around this hole: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Hole_in_...
(To be clear, it's the small hole, not the big one next to it. The small hole next to the paint marred by a slipping drill bit.)
Tangentially: What purpose does ISS serve today? It cost $150 billion to get to this point, but is it doing anything which justifies the operating and maintenance costs? vs. other uses of the money. On Earth, direct replacement with new in-orbit infrastructure/new station, or other space operations.
I also don't necessarily have any problems with that, unless it's siphoning away funds that could have been used to build up an actual orbital infrastructure or serves to further the impression that this is the reasonable maximum the public can expect from a human presence in space.
Since the Apollo program we have a history of hinting at, but then purposefully not following through on, the idea of expanding human civilization into space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is this just usual Russian incompetence? I don't think there is an impression of that or really ever has been. Russia has successfully launched humans into space more regularly and at a lower cost than the US for the last 60 years. (Well until the last few years) I think it's more likely that this is just an occurrence of something akin to the birthday paradox and sometimes things just happen. It's the narrative du…
It wasn’t that long ago they drilled a hole in a Soyuz, then patched it with epoxy and sent it up anyway, only for the epoxy to come out and cause a leak.
Looks like decades of rampant corruption and political violence are not exactly good for high-tech industry. Who would have thought?
Tangentially: What purpose does ISS serve today? It cost $150 billion to get to this point, but is it doing anything which justifies the operating and maintenance costs? vs. other uses of the money. On Earth, direct replacement with new in-orbit infrastructure/new station, or other space operations.
