Author Topic: Oft Repeated Untruths  (Read 26567 times)

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 985
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #20 on: 08/24/2012 05:26 AM »
If that's your standard, why not say they've already been? Why not claim they're going to 4179 Toutatis too?
You don't subscribe to transhumanist philosophy then, great - i don't think we need to debate it here. And no - they haven't been on the moon yet, only orbited the moon.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3795
  • Liked: 599
  • Likes Given: 156
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #21 on: 08/24/2012 05:28 AM »
If China is really going to the moon Im buying some nice seaside property in Tajikistan ;)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5227
  • Likes Given: 1675
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #22 on: 08/24/2012 05:50 AM »
No, the untruths are fine as they stand. 

3.  the possibility is close to 100%.  The point was some said that Congress or NASA would never let a US astronaut fly on a Russian engine

Those 'some (people)' really should have known better. US astronauts have been flying on Russian engines for many years now (Soyuz).

Granted, that's not the same as US astronauts flying on a US-made launcher with a Russian engine underneath, but the principle is the same. Why those 'some (people)' single-out RD-180 over any other Russian engine is beyond me.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2595
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #23 on: 08/24/2012 07:50 AM »
Here's another one - Soyuz is safer than shuttle because it killed only 4 astronauts against 14 for a (comparable) numbers of flights - 100 vs 135.
 
Wrong, since the shuttle carried an average 7 astronauts when Soyuz is limited to 3... count the "seats" and not the deads...
...you have been found guilty by the elders of the forum of a (imaginary) vendetta against Saint Elon - BLAAASPHEMER !

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7454
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #24 on: 08/24/2012 08:12 AM »
There already is a 5m tank production line.  Common avionics are in work.  ACES is out there and maybe next.

So it would be about costs, not payload capacity? Would consolidating production lines mean large savings? After all, they've already paid for them. And would they skip Atlas Phase 1 and go straight to Phase 2?

On a slight tangent: do you know why the current Centaur doesn't already have the diameter of the Shuttle Centaur? If the next step is a wider Centaur, why didn't they make it wide straight away if they already had the tooling to do it?
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9170
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #25 on: 08/24/2012 12:37 PM »
To the OP:  The check is in the mail?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #26 on: 08/24/2012 03:30 PM »
1. We waste/spend money in space, shouldn't we spend it here on earth instead?
2. Space exploration is something we can't afford to do.
3. The public is disinterested in space exploration.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9170
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #27 on: 08/24/2012 07:02 PM »
Unmanned exploration is a better value than manned exploration.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 241
  • Likes Given: 341
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #28 on: 08/24/2012 07:13 PM »
Fusion based rocket engines and/or reactors will fix all problems with propulsion.

Offline AS-503

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Orion Fab Team
  • Colorado USA
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #29 on: 08/24/2012 07:28 PM »
Here's another one - Soyuz is safer than shuttle because it killed only 4 astronauts against 14 for a (comparable) numbers of flights - 100 vs 135.
 
Wrong, since the shuttle carried an average 7 astronauts when Soyuz is limited to 3... count the "seats" and not the deads...

But what about the Soyuz "Max Faget" style abort system and the proven ability to survive off-nominal re-entry?

Even if we count the seats, the points stated above "empirically" make the Soyuz a much safer system than STS, no?

Even with the stringent measures of Return-to-Flight, STS was an inherintly unsafe design. After the facts published in the CAIB report, it is astounding that the second STS failure (STS-107) occured so many flights into the program.

But then again, there are no other manned systems (historical or otherwise) with the high flight rates of Soyuz and STS. With STS being unchallenged in the "capability" department.

Comparing safety between the two is little too apples and oranges, no?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #30 on: 08/24/2012 08:21 PM »
Unmanned exploration is a better value than manned exploration.

That is a truth

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 241
  • Likes Given: 341
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #31 on: 08/24/2012 08:28 PM »
Unmanned exploration is a better value than manned exploration.

That is a truth
et tu Jim

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • UK
  • Liked: 1851
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #32 on: 08/24/2012 08:34 PM »
7? Saturn V blueprints and tooling were all intentionally destroyed at the end of Project Apollo so that it would be too expensive to go back to HLV should STS not live up to expectations.

Another one I have never heard of. Darn I really have missed out something here haven't I. :D

My biggest bugbear that I often see in relation to space exploration when it is mentioned on many Internet forums is that old chestnut that space exploration is a waste of money and that the money is better spent on the starving or hospitals etc etc.
« Last Edit: 08/24/2012 08:40 PM by Star One »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #33 on: 08/24/2012 08:38 PM »
America was transfixed by every detail of the Apollo missions, and they enjoyed overwhelming public support.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #34 on: 08/24/2012 09:14 PM »
America was transfixed by every detail of the Apollo missions, and they enjoyed overwhelming public support.

Not an untruth.  A vast majority was until after Apollo 11

Offline collectSPACE

  • The Source for Space History & Artifacts
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1871
  • Houston, TX
    • collectSPACE
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #35 on: 08/24/2012 09:55 PM »
Not an untruth.  A vast majority was until after Apollo 11

Not true Jim. From Roger Launius:

The only point at which the opinion surveys demonstrate that more than 50 percent of the public believed Apollo was worth its expense came in 1969 at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing. And even then only a measly 53 percent agreed that the result justified the expense, despite the fact that the landing was perhaps the most momentous event in human history since it became the first instance in which the human race became bi-planetary.
« Last Edit: 08/24/2012 09:59 PM by collectSPACE »

Offline AS-503

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Orion Fab Team
  • Colorado USA
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #36 on: 08/24/2012 10:35 PM »
Here's another one - Soyuz is safer than shuttle because it killed only 4 astronauts against 14 for a (comparable) numbers of flights - 100 vs 135.
 
Wrong, since the shuttle carried an average 7 astronauts when Soyuz is limited to 3... count the "seats" and not the deads...


But what about the Soyuz "Max Faget" style abort system and the proven ability to survive off-nominal re-entry?

Irrelevant to Archibald's point. You're arguing inputs (safety features), he's arguing outputs (overall safety records). And he's right on the outputs.

I was not "arguing" with Archibauld's points, I learned not to argue with anyone on this forum before i was even a registered user.

I ended my comments with regard to Archbauld's posts with a ? and the word "no", is if to imply "arnt they?" and the end of the sentence.

My post was certainly not argumentative or in direct disagreement with Archibauld.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4401
  • Liked: 182
  • Likes Given: 359
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #37 on: 08/24/2012 11:28 PM »
I have a few.
 
Space planes are inherently less safe then capsules.

The Shuttle's problems stem from the interactions of the systems vs anything intrinsic to winged vehicles.

As far as descent and landing are concerned the statistics point to space planes being safer then both Apollo style space downs and Soyuz style landings.

Shuttle was the first reusable space vehicle.
It was beaten by the X15, Gemini 2 was flown in space twice and the Soviet VA capsule was reusable.

Cassini could have poisoned the entire Earth if it came down.
Now this one is a huge lie RTG's have reentered before without causing any injury.
If Cassini came down in the ocean it probably would not have harmed a single person.
« Last Edit: 08/25/2012 04:20 AM by Patchouli »

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1717
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #38 on: 08/25/2012 02:42 AM »
Here's another one - Soyuz is safer than shuttle because it killed only 4 astronauts against 14 for a (comparable) numbers of flights - 100 vs 135.
 
Wrong, since the shuttle carried an average 7 astronauts when Soyuz is limited to 3... count the "seats" and not the deads...

But what about the Soyuz "Max Faget" style abort system and the proven ability to survive off-nominal re-entry?

Even if we count the seats, the points stated above "empirically" make the Soyuz a much safer system than STS, no?

Even with the stringent measures of Return-to-Flight, STS was an inherintly unsafe design. After the facts published in the CAIB report, it is astounding that the second STS failure (STS-107) occured so many flights into the program.

But then again, there are no other manned systems (historical or otherwise) with the high flight rates of Soyuz and STS. With STS being unchallenged in the "capability" department.

Comparing safety between the two is little too apples and oranges, no?
Since the Shuttle's RTF there have been no close calls aside from the foam issue on STS-114. NSF has plenty of articles on how safe and clean the vehicles were being flown. Soyuz had as many LOC events as STS, but it had twice as many LOM events. It has also had a few close calls with the landings. One landed in a lake almost suffocated the crew. Three Soyuz have entered hatch forward with the service module still hanging on. Two of those in quite recent history, back to back. The rocket its self had a failure a few months back. When talking about safety those should be factored in as well. The Shuttle has simply failed fewer times in flight.

Offline Sparky

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Connecticut
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Oft Repeated Untruths
« Reply #39 on: 08/25/2012 03:59 AM »
NASA spent millions of dollars developing a space pen that could function in micro-gravity, vacuum, temperature extremes, etc... While the Russians just used pencils.

Tags: