"Except of course for all the times it has failed critically."
And when was that? During one of last missions? 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 15 perhaps? 20? Uhmm...in that case, 25? Nah, can't be 30? Oh...you want to say that the last criticall failure was over 34 years ago and that's your argument? You're a fanboy, of the mindset directed against the Soyuz, to be precize.
It's very interesting how in your eyes the glass was half-empty, not half-full, when Soyuz survived _large_, _critical_ part of reentry facing in the wrong direction (oh, but you nitpick at it nonethelles; conveniently forgetting other debunked things of yours - for example the one when Soyuz ended below ice; I've said valid argument about spacecuits use...valid, but not true anyway - because this ONE time when Soyuz ended below water it was during early, unmanned mission, during testing and so on...you of course by pure accident forgot to mention that? I mean, the thing that it is a fact, but the one that weakens your argumentation, doesn't count, right?) About this accident...that's precizelly good engineering. Namely: the decision to use titanium shell. You should know the propoerties of it... (granted, if it continued the outcome would be catastrophic...but the point is that it could continue up to some point without harm)
Yes, thee's no point in discussion. You're pretending that pure engineering succeses are all that matters, but you forgot why this tech exists in the first place. And that the final goal for it is to protect its content. But hey, that's just me, working daily with the "content" and using tech at most for the purpose... BTW, if however you wish to continue, you should know that name-calling doesn't affect me...(again, my work). However, if you're such looser that calling anyone who doesn't share your view an idiot helps you to function, go ahead, as I've said, I'll ignore those parts.
Yeah, you were quite directly repling to my question why better...nevermind.
But you still delude yourself if you think everyone was poor...and anyway somehow we get to my point - having bread and vodka doesn't do much for normal standard of living...
And, IMHO, you delude yourself if you think they're moving in the same direction...look at Belarus and Ukraine, these two fronts of current battle illustrate good what I mean...
"Will" kill? There's really no point in discussion it seems...
You see, apparently you can't get the point that Soyuz would have hard time in failing critically...and that it fails somewhat, sometimes doesn't mean it's unsafe design. Furthermore, the only thing that really matters is loss of crew - remember how cheap Soyuz is to operate? It all boils down that Soyuz should fail in a safe manner. Predictable manner. You can't have 100% reliability. But predictability is very precious...
Ballistic reentry...so what? Harsh ride at worst. (but I guess you would like to be in pieces, spread over Texas, than sitting 100 miles from the target on the ground waiting for the chopper...) And Soyuz survived even reentry facing 180 degrees in the opposite direction, heatshield in the back. Try that with shitty engineering.
Capsule under the ice...so what? Crew is all the time in Sokols.
Docking problem...we can override and go manual.
Landing in forest with wild animals? Hey, capsule is pretty sturdy, and we have shotgun onboard.
And so on...
It couldn't be better...did you know that one of main express trains to Moscow, stopped in my little city? Why? Because it fallowed some obscure, non-used, single rail line, not going into innards of big cities whenever possible. Besides windows weren't exactly "clear". It was so much better here. And yet - it was bad.
"Poverty can exist only when someone is richer than someone else, and in USSR that was not the case - nobody could earn more than his neighbor, salaries were very much the same."
You've lost me here...I should post "ROTFLMAO" if I woudln't be emotionally connected with the issue and so...how sad it is:/
But they were awful in managing that produced things...even though production was high in ceratin areas, a lot was wasted and often the regions producing things (you know, basically each countyr had certain "tasks": heavy industry and agriculture in case of mine) were lacking them in reality...
Well, yes, the Euroepan part...you do realise that farer to East, the worst? (up to some point)
And surely you must've heard about Gulags, with all basic stuff readily available for every happy inhabitant, when such institutions still existed...
Sad there are still people who think that behind the Iron Curtain there was no poverty, unemployment or heavy crimes. Everything was there...just hidden.
The fact that "general city public" was hit during Perestroyka doesn't mean it was nice for everybody earlier...
Yes, Soviets. Soviets != Russians (or put any other nationality from any other of former republics here). In most places Soviets have similar range of meaning to Stalinists for example...
4. Doubles? I don't see how's that possible...
6. Not pathetic, your #1, "man rated" adresses this issue. They CHOOSE that way.
8. KISS. Remind me, please, why would I need wings in orbit? Or on lunar trajectory? Or on Mars trajectory?
And you know, it's funny that although it's not stepping back in any way of course...it's simply reimplementation of the Russian system from 2 decades ago. Yes, they've had then simple/robust crew vehicle/rocket and a super-heavy booster. Too bad they lacked funds (or...luckily, since that's also why Soviet Union cillapsed)
Oh, and as for "more powerfull than any rocket ever designed"...I would be be surprised (but impressed also) if this would be more powerfull than Energia Vulkan...
They're not glossy, right?
If "general public" wants glossy things, christmas tree like (although thankfully iPod menages to not the second thing), then so be it...deal with consequences!
"Overall, this looks like good technology to me. Anyone who thinks NASA is taking a step back (except for the capsule configuration, I agree with you there) needs to pull his head out of his rear. This design will be inexpensive (NASA is merely redirecting the shuttle buget plus a little extra), reuse existing components/industry, will be more powerful than any rocket ever designed, and will finally give us back the ability to put USEFUL stuff into space. Good job, NASA!"
But you know...it's funny that it's practically mimicking what Russians have done 2 decades ago...but didn't have the money to keep it alife...
And as for "more powerful than any rocket ever designed"...do any numbers exist? I would be surprised and impressed if it'll beat Energia Vulkan configuration...
Showm me photo before I believe the screen becomes useless. And it WILL scratch. It's a device that you use constantly in not-very-friendly enviroment. Last I checked, the purpose of exteriors is to protect the interiors, and that means some damage.
Oh, yes, iPod is for looking at, not for listening to, I forgot...
He didn't talk about space engineering, but engineering in general. Look at reasources consumed vs. output. Heck, look at American vs. European cars. Why is it that when somebody's get rich enough, he'll most likely want to have European car?
And don't dellude yourself that the current "space plane" is the result of pushing things forward. It's the results of trying to push them forward, but due to many conflicting political agendas we've had POS. You shouldn't take chances with politicians...who knows what's their next whim.
About ISS you're beeing ignorant or trolling...
Because it's funny how Russians could probably build same size/function station for half the money and have it completed already. Russian modules are also very large and heavy - the station started form them, moreover: they assembled themselves. WHY DO YOU THINK THE STATION ASSEMBLY DOESN'T SEE PROGRESS? Yes, that's right, because some idiot decided that the modules should designed so they can only fit inside the large (which is BTW one of reasons behind SS problems...) cargo bay of Shuttle. Yes, it's a question of volume, not mass. And moreover, American modules are simply dead mass, some new "propulsion part" would have to be designed and build, apart from redesigning the rocket. And it can be neccesary to do it anyway, since it's possible that Shuttle WILL NEVER FLY AGAIN.
And don't forget the current state of affairs with ESA is that...they simply started with different background and also had different priorities and finaciall possibilies during cold war.
But yeah, Europens can't do a shit when itcomes to engineering...just look at their Airbus. Or TGV. Or public transportation systems in general. Or cars. Or...
Yes, Russians lost a lot of man...but most unrevealed was of the type "accident during assembly at launch platform", in which workers, etc. died. If astronaut died, it was quite public... (and we started this discussion from safety of the Soyuz after all, ergo: during mission;P )
And do you really think that Soviets haven't improved also? You know, serious Soyuz accidents were only at the begginning of the programme, and practically the same serious malfunction never happened 2 times...
And I don't understand the point about Saturn vs. N1 (not to mention some facts are wrong). NASA simply made better decisions when it comes to the realities of race (any race): they took simpler approach. Yes, N1 was a total failure, but the Russians made the decision of taking some very risky design path. Overall the idea behind the engines of N1 wasn't bad in any more sense than Space Shuttle is bad - its quite marvelous actually when properly implemented...but this needs more time, resources (for more tests/test launches) and money. Russians didn't havy any of it. And this resulted in problems. And BTW, your descriptions of problems is BS, it was vibrations/lack of understanding how engines would behave en masse that caused the problems (alone they are pretty good - so good actually that they bere bough a decade ago by some american and japanese companies for use in launch vehicles)
You know, you've lost me with the comment about russian shuttle. Just look at the top raw of photos and say no more... http://tinyurl.com/7hz93 I'll just add...the Russian didn't have to use some cargo plane for test glides, their test vehicle had jet engines and was able to fly by itself. It took longt to build because it started much later (when it was clear the NASA is going for the Shuttle - so it was mostly political decision) and again - lack of funds. "Theirs just took to long to build and costed to much and in the end they were able to do much more for less with the old soyuz capsules." Uhmm...and why exactly NASA is scrapping Shuttle and going capsule way? From the precizely the same reasons! In that case (contrary to Saturn vs. N1), the NASA made a bad decision, and Russians unfortuantelly followed, but pulled out rather quickly (but anyway, Russian design was simpler/better this time; more capable and overall the types of failures that happened to Challenger/Columbia were impossible in Buran). Ironically they unfortuantelly didn't have the money to not pull the plug completelly and Energia died; if that wasn't the case they'd have the system NASA is building now (safe and robust crew vehicle/rocket + super-heavy cargo booster) 2 decades earlier than NASA'll have...
In the end, it's not really about NASA vs. comunism, but NASA vs. Russian Space Agency, and that's it. Sometimes one makes bad decision, sometimes the other. And politics doesn't help. Quite the contrary. If you'll reserach into early stages of Shuttle programme, you'll see that political considerations made it the POS it is... OTOH...Russian Space Agency had the "luxury" of having to fallow only one political agenda...but this agenda also sometimes had too much ego, and not enough resources to support it.
You missed the point...there were obviosly regions/groups that had to deal with bread-lines and poverty...and Soviets could decide if you and your family should belong to them or not.
Interesting...because in Poland there was poverty and bread lines even at the beginning of the 80's. Also people were executed up to then. Society of law...well, people were equal when it comes to the law...but some were more equal then others.
And PL was often considered "bloody west" by Soviets...how in USSR could be better?
"How many Shuttles have landed off course and threatened the lives of their crews?"
I believe the landing of Columbia was a bit non-precise...
Besides what you're describing about Soyuz is just rubbish really...those are either things that happened to early versions or, in case of landing hazards, not related to Soyuz itself at all, beeing just fairly probable outcome of choosing such landing place as central Asia...
Check your stats with what is really Soyuz now/recently: TMA/TM
Why not? If something can't be implemented in js, Opera can use external apps, written in any language practically (I've seen Adblock for pera made as external thing, in 3 versions: C++, Python...and something)
Why everyone choose? Partly because it's free of course (not an issue for Opera anymore), partly because of idiotic propaganda campaign (look at forums of SpreadFF)
And yes, that's good reason to migrate. There's a lot of zealots of different kind you know...
BTW, "nobody used it"? It has "no measurable marketshare"?Are you kidding? In my country it had half a year ago half of market share of FF. In many other European countries is is even more common. Either you forgot that the browser market doesn't end on US, or you're trolling here...
PS. Income from payments for Opera was small part of their income anyway...
PPS. Just a note: I don't consider myself Opera advocate. Actually, up to about year ago, I've used FF for a long time...but then I ended up with machine with 128mb of ram...and FF was little too heavy unfortunatelly. SO I got used to Opera, simple as that.
Slashdot Mirror
"Except of course for all the times it has failed critically."
And when was that? During one of last missions? 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 15 perhaps? 20? Uhmm...in that case, 25? Nah, can't be 30?
Oh...you want to say that the last criticall failure was over 34 years ago and that's your argument? You're a fanboy, of the mindset directed against the Soyuz, to be precize.
It's very interesting how in your eyes the glass was half-empty, not half-full, when Soyuz survived _large_, _critical_ part of reentry facing in the wrong direction (oh, but you nitpick at it nonethelles; conveniently forgetting other debunked things of yours - for example the one when Soyuz ended below ice; I've said valid argument about spacecuits use...valid, but not true anyway - because this ONE time when Soyuz ended below water it was during early, unmanned mission, during testing and so on...you of course by pure accident forgot to mention that? I mean, the thing that it is a fact, but the one that weakens your argumentation, doesn't count, right?)
About this accident...that's precizelly good engineering. Namely: the decision to use titanium shell. You should know the propoerties of it... (granted, if it continued the outcome would be catastrophic...but the point is that it could continue up to some point without harm)
Yes, thee's no point in discussion. You're pretending that pure engineering succeses are all that matters, but you forgot why this tech exists in the first place. And that the final goal for it is to protect its content. But hey, that's just me, working daily with the "content" and using tech at most for the purpose...
BTW, if however you wish to continue, you should know that name-calling doesn't affect me...(again, my work). However, if you're such looser that calling anyone who doesn't share your view an idiot helps you to function, go ahead, as I've said, I'll ignore those parts.
Yeah, you were quite directly repling to my question why better...nevermind. But you still delude yourself if you think everyone was poor...and anyway somehow we get to my point - having bread and vodka doesn't do much for normal standard of living... And, IMHO, you delude yourself if you think they're moving in the same direction...look at Belarus and Ukraine, these two fronts of current battle illustrate good what I mean...
"Will" kill? There's really no point in discussion it seems... You see, apparently you can't get the point that Soyuz would have hard time in failing critically...and that it fails somewhat, sometimes doesn't mean it's unsafe design. Furthermore, the only thing that really matters is loss of crew - remember how cheap Soyuz is to operate? It all boils down that Soyuz should fail in a safe manner. Predictable manner. You can't have 100% reliability. But predictability is very precious... Ballistic reentry...so what? Harsh ride at worst. (but I guess you would like to be in pieces, spread over Texas, than sitting 100 miles from the target on the ground waiting for the chopper...) And Soyuz survived even reentry facing 180 degrees in the opposite direction, heatshield in the back. Try that with shitty engineering. Capsule under the ice...so what? Crew is all the time in Sokols. Docking problem...we can override and go manual. Landing in forest with wild animals? Hey, capsule is pretty sturdy, and we have shotgun onboard. And so on...
Russia would probably want the EU to join them...Putin wouldn't allow for the other way around...
It couldn't be better...did you know that one of main express trains to Moscow, stopped in my little city? Why? Because it fallowed some obscure, non-used, single rail line, not going into innards of big cities whenever possible. Besides windows weren't exactly "clear". It was so much better here. And yet - it was bad. "Poverty can exist only when someone is richer than someone else, and in USSR that was not the case - nobody could earn more than his neighbor, salaries were very much the same." You've lost me here...I should post "ROTFLMAO" if I woudln't be emotionally connected with the issue and so...how sad it is :/
But they were awful in managing that produced things...even though production was high in ceratin areas, a lot was wasted and often the regions producing things (you know, basically each countyr had certain "tasks": heavy industry and agriculture in case of mine) were lacking them in reality...
Well, yes, the Euroepan part...you do realise that farer to East, the worst? (up to some point) And surely you must've heard about Gulags, with all basic stuff readily available for every happy inhabitant, when such institutions still existed... Sad there are still people who think that behind the Iron Curtain there was no poverty, unemployment or heavy crimes. Everything was there...just hidden. The fact that "general city public" was hit during Perestroyka doesn't mean it was nice for everybody earlier... Yes, Soviets. Soviets != Russians (or put any other nationality from any other of former republics here). In most places Soviets have similar range of meaning to Stalinists for example...
You have any stairs? They're good place...drawers underneath each step, etc.
4. Doubles? I don't see how's that possible... 6. Not pathetic, your #1, "man rated" adresses this issue. They CHOOSE that way. 8. KISS. Remind me, please, why would I need wings in orbit? Or on lunar trajectory? Or on Mars trajectory? And you know, it's funny that although it's not stepping back in any way of course...it's simply reimplementation of the Russian system from 2 decades ago. Yes, they've had then simple/robust crew vehicle/rocket and a super-heavy booster. Too bad they lacked funds (or...luckily, since that's also why Soviet Union cillapsed) Oh, and as for "more powerfull than any rocket ever designed"...I would be be surprised (but impressed also) if this would be more powerfull than Energia Vulkan...
Looks about normal for any highly-glossy thing kept for a week in my pocket...
Ahh, but yes, SUVs are for show, not for offroading...
They're not glossy, right? If "general public" wants glossy things, christmas tree like (although thankfully iPod menages to not the second thing), then so be it...deal with consequences!
"Overall, this looks like good technology to me. Anyone who thinks NASA is taking a step back (except for the capsule configuration, I agree with you there) needs to pull his head out of his rear. This design will be inexpensive (NASA is merely redirecting the shuttle buget plus a little extra), reuse existing components/industry, will be more powerful than any rocket ever designed, and will finally give us back the ability to put USEFUL stuff into space. Good job, NASA!" But you know...it's funny that it's practically mimicking what Russians have done 2 decades ago...but didn't have the money to keep it alife... And as for "more powerful than any rocket ever designed"...do any numbers exist? I would be surprised and impressed if it'll beat Energia Vulkan configuration...
Showm me photo before I believe the screen becomes useless. And it WILL scratch. It's a device that you use constantly in not-very-friendly enviroment. Last I checked, the purpose of exteriors is to protect the interiors, and that means some damage.
Oh, yes, iPod is for looking at, not for listening to, I forgot...
He didn't talk about space engineering, but engineering in general. Look at reasources consumed vs. output. Heck, look at American vs. European cars. Why is it that when somebody's get rich enough, he'll most likely want to have European car? And don't dellude yourself that the current "space plane" is the result of pushing things forward. It's the results of trying to push them forward, but due to many conflicting political agendas we've had POS. You shouldn't take chances with politicians...who knows what's their next whim. About ISS you're beeing ignorant or trolling... Because it's funny how Russians could probably build same size/function station for half the money and have it completed already. Russian modules are also very large and heavy - the station started form them, moreover: they assembled themselves. WHY DO YOU THINK THE STATION ASSEMBLY DOESN'T SEE PROGRESS? Yes, that's right, because some idiot decided that the modules should designed so they can only fit inside the large (which is BTW one of reasons behind SS problems...) cargo bay of Shuttle. Yes, it's a question of volume, not mass. And moreover, American modules are simply dead mass, some new "propulsion part" would have to be designed and build, apart from redesigning the rocket. And it can be neccesary to do it anyway, since it's possible that Shuttle WILL NEVER FLY AGAIN. And don't forget the current state of affairs with ESA is that...they simply started with different background and also had different priorities and finaciall possibilies during cold war. But yeah, Europens can't do a shit when itcomes to engineering...just look at their Airbus. Or TGV. Or public transportation systems in general. Or cars. Or...
A bit arguing...
;P )
Yes, Russians lost a lot of man...but most unrevealed was of the type "accident during assembly at launch platform", in which workers, etc. died. If astronaut died, it was quite public... (and we started this discussion from safety of the Soyuz after all, ergo: during mission
And do you really think that Soviets haven't improved also? You know, serious Soyuz accidents were only at the begginning of the programme, and practically the same serious malfunction never happened 2 times...
And I don't understand the point about Saturn vs. N1 (not to mention some facts are wrong). NASA simply made better decisions when it comes to the realities of race (any race): they took simpler approach. Yes, N1 was a total failure, but the Russians made the decision of taking some very risky design path. Overall the idea behind the engines of N1 wasn't bad in any more sense than Space Shuttle is bad - its quite marvelous actually when properly implemented...but this needs more time, resources (for more tests/test launches) and money. Russians didn't havy any of it. And this resulted in problems. And BTW, your descriptions of problems is BS, it was vibrations/lack of understanding how engines would behave en masse that caused the problems (alone they are pretty good - so good actually that they bere bough a decade ago by some american and japanese companies for use in launch vehicles)
You know, you've lost me with the comment about russian shuttle.
Just look at the top raw of photos and say no more... http://tinyurl.com/7hz93
I'll just add...the Russian didn't have to use some cargo plane for test glides, their test vehicle had jet engines and was able to fly by itself. It took longt to build because it started much later (when it was clear the NASA is going for the Shuttle - so it was mostly political decision) and again - lack of funds.
"Theirs just took to long to build and costed to much and in the end they were able to do much more for less with the old soyuz capsules."
Uhmm...and why exactly NASA is scrapping Shuttle and going capsule way? From the precizely the same reasons! In that case (contrary to Saturn vs. N1), the NASA made a bad decision, and Russians unfortuantelly followed, but pulled out rather quickly (but anyway, Russian design was simpler/better this time; more capable and overall the types of failures that happened to Challenger/Columbia were impossible in Buran). Ironically they unfortuantelly didn't have the money to not pull the plug completelly and Energia died; if that wasn't the case they'd have the system NASA is building now (safe and robust crew vehicle/rocket + super-heavy cargo booster) 2 decades earlier than NASA'll have...
In the end, it's not really about NASA vs. comunism, but NASA vs. Russian Space Agency, and that's it. Sometimes one makes bad decision, sometimes the other.
And politics doesn't help. Quite the contrary. If you'll reserach into early stages of Shuttle programme, you'll see that political considerations made it the POS it is...
OTOH...Russian Space Agency had the "luxury" of having to fallow only one political agenda...but this agenda also sometimes had too much ego, and not enough resources to support it.
You missed the point...there were obviosly regions/groups that had to deal with bread-lines and poverty...and Soviets could decide if you and your family should belong to them or not.
Interesting...because in Poland there was poverty and bread lines even at the beginning of the 80's. Also people were executed up to then. Society of law...well, people were equal when it comes to the law...but some were more equal then others. And PL was often considered "bloody west" by Soviets...how in USSR could be better?
I see there's no point in discussing with you...you have some interesting concept about the meaning of word "significant"...
OK, to put it clearly: STATISTICS CAN PROVE ANYTHING, AND EVERYTHING FAILS SOMETIMES; THE POINT IS: HOW IT FAILS.
BS, it's all about engineering:
shitty engineering = catastrophe
good engineering = malfunction
Remind me please...how many of these accidents turned out to be catastrophic?
"How many Shuttles have landed off course and threatened the lives of their crews?" I believe the landing of Columbia was a bit non-precise... Besides what you're describing about Soyuz is just rubbish really...those are either things that happened to early versions or, in case of landing hazards, not related to Soyuz itself at all, beeing just fairly probable outcome of choosing such landing place as central Asia... Check your stats with what is really Soyuz now/recently: TMA/TM
Small C/C++ app, practically console only (well...no noticeable output actually) slow and large?
But it could get far on windows...especially since due to PR bullshit Firefox is used more and more by people who aren't xactly tchnically inclined...
1) Is there... 5) Two clicks; or gesture Anyway, it's starting to be nitpicking...WTF for?
Why not? If something can't be implemented in js, Opera can use external apps, written in any language practically (I've seen Adblock for pera made as external thing, in 3 versions: C++, Python...and something)
Why everyone choose? Partly because it's free of course (not an issue for Opera anymore), partly because of idiotic propaganda campaign (look at forums of SpreadFF)
And yes, that's good reason to migrate. There's a lot of zealots of different kind you know...
BTW, "nobody used it"? It has "no measurable marketshare"?Are you kidding? In my country it had half a year ago half of market share of FF. In many other European countries is is even more common.
Either you forgot that the browser market doesn't end on US, or you're trolling here...
PS. Income from payments for Opera was small part of their income anyway...
PPS. Just a note: I don't consider myself Opera advocate. Actually, up to about year ago, I've used FF for a long time...but then I ended up with machine with 128mb of ram...and FF was little too heavy unfortunatelly. SO I got used to Opera, simple as that.