Slashdot Mirror
ISS Crew Returns in Soyuz Capsule
physicsnerd writes "According to CNN the Soyuz capsule from the International Space Station has landed in Kazakhstan. This is the first time US Astronauts have ever landed outside of the US."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Before the shuttle program, as I recall, they always landed outside the US.
Tito was just cargo.
Russian: ~ 1 billion dollars per year.
American: ~ 15 billion dollars per year.
Of the 1 billion dollars a year, only 20% is paid by the Russian government, the rest is commercial enterprise. That's a fantastically tax efficient space programme for Russia. Can America get even a single shuttle launch for $200million?
Perhaps the US government should outsource the management of their space programme to the Russians. They have a better heavy lift capability more reliable launch vehicles and are many many times cheaper.
They actually missed their landing point and landed in the Kazakhstan desert: over 400km from their intended destination!!
BBC News: story
http://blog.grcm.net/
>That could have easily have gone very horribly wrong - imagine them coming down on the side of a steep mountain-face.
That's why they aim for Kazakh steppe - it's about as hard to miss as the Pacific ocean.
Since Soyus is so bumpy, they always have custom-built recliners.
It wasn't a case of 'These are whiny americans, let's give 'em special seats'
have you seen the seats in a soyuz? really smart, they let your body wistand far greater g-forces than the 'lay on your back' american chairs, and fit in almost half the space. that's part of why they were able to land on dry ground with just a few parachutes on the capsule, instead of a big plane-like ship, or dropping the thing to the sea.
Unfortunately, they're so thight, i think would be very uncomfortable if not custom-built for every cosmonaut. There have one-size-fits-all models for emergency lifeboats too, but i wouldn't be surprised if there was a risk of minor damage to leg arteries or muscles.
-Kz-
This troll has elements of a reasonable idea, but tries to support them with mistakes and misinterpretations:
>> the ISS (which is an utter joke compared to Skylab or Mir) was placed into a rapidly-decaying orbit...
"Utter joke"? It's reasonable to ask what ISS can do that Skylab or Mir couldn't, but making unbuttressed assertions isn't reasonable.
ISS is not in a "rapidly-decaying orbit". As a satellite in low-Earth-orbit, ISS requires occasional use of onboard thrusters to maintain the correct orbit. This is common.
>> Most of the satellites that are "launched" by the shuttle suffer from the design constraint that they have to fit into the friggin' bay AND have room for the accompanying boosters that will put them into their real orbit once the shuttle lets them out. Again, the shuttle can't go high enough for real deployment.
Height has nothing to do with it. Orbit is achieved by virtue of velocity. While it can be argued that some satellites didn't need to be launched via the shuttle, it is silly to argue that satellites have been compromised by being ddiesinged to fit in the shuttle's cargo bay. All satellites must be designed to fit in the craft that launches them, whether a shuttle or an expendable booster.
>> The safety record sucks.
It is naive to expect spacce travel to have a safety record that even approaches that of commercial air travel. This is risky and experimental work, and we should accept that. A safety record that approximates that of the X-series of manned experimental aircraft would be more than acceptable.
>> Scrap the silly "space-plane"...
The purpose of putting wings on a spacecraft is recovery and reuse. Otherwise, they're more trouble than they are worth.
The real problem with the U.S. space effort is that it has lacked a clearly defined mission since the Nixon administration told NASA it had to cut its funding, following the initial lunar missions, from about 3% to 1% of GDP. That played havoc with NASA'a scheduled remaining lunar missions, with its plans to return to the moon for long durations and possible permanent basing, and for logical and incremental increase of low-Earth-orbit and trans-lunar infrastrcture. Hence, the space station and the shuttle, and none of the rest happened.
Here's what we need:
1. A clearly defined mission -- the President needs to direct NASA and the nation to reach a specific target within a specific timeframe. E.g, permanent manned Lunar presence, manned asteroid flyby and return, a manned Mars mission. The target is less important than the fact that it exists, thereby providing reason to build and use the infrastructure needed to get there.
2. Recognize that the purpose of getting to orbit is to buld and construct equiment to accomplish the assigned mission. (Yes, you can do scientific research there, but that is only incidentakl to the primary purpose. Trying to justify manned presence in Earth orbit as "reasearch" is tantamount to justifying the 747 as an airborne laboratory.
3. Build boosters than get the most stuff to orbit at the least cost. Don't fixate on reuse. If that's cheaper, fine, but don't build over-complex hardware simply to ahere to the mantra of reuse. If that means building contemporay versions of the Saturn and Nova booster, so be it.
4. Ditto for hauling people to low-Earth orbit. Once you're there, how you got there is not important. Use big, cheap capsules.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"