top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 258 points 4 months ago (35 children)

Russian capsules have returned to land since their very first launches.

The decision has more to do with geopolitics than physics. Russia does not have a robust Navy with access to equatorial waters on which to land a spacecraft, the US does. Given the historical accuracy of landing a capsule it is actually a hell of a lot easier to drive a big ship to the eventual location than it is to drive a big truck into the middle of a desert. The reason western nations return capsules to the sea is because its easier to recover them there.

Both approaches have technical challenges. Returning to land requires a slower landing speed (although as a percentage of the starting velocity of a spacecraft its a pretty insignificant difference) and landing on the sea requires the carrying of flotation devices and designing a capsule with buoyancy in mind.

In other words this post is completely inaccurate.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    For a while (maybe still) Russian rockets even had a shotgun on board after wolves got to a landing first.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It was a three-barreled gun that fired shotgun shells, rifle rounds, and rescue flares. 10 rounds of each type of ammunition were supplied. The stock could be detached and used as a machete.

    For a while, these guns were on every Soyuz capsule that docked with ISS, and they were under the operational control of the Soyuz commander. I've read that they may have been retired in 2007 because Russia finally ran out of the very unique ammo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 46 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    The Russian system has a braking rocket that fires at the very last second to soften up the landing. On one early Soyuz mission, this rocket didn't fire, and the solo cosmonaut suffered substantial injuries from the landing.

    The Orion capsule hits the water at the final parachute speed of 20-30 mph without injuring the crew. But as you state, they also have to design the capsule for flotation and egress in potentially rough sea state.

    Boeing Starliner is designed for a land landing, but it uses deployable air bags instead of a braking rocket. It's not clear that Starliner will ever fly again after the RCS thruster problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    It's such a weird flip of philosophy given we've all heard the classic story of the US spending millions on developing pens that write in space while the Soviet Union just issued pencils.

    Choosing a retroburst system over trusty parachutes over water is wack, but as someone else pointed out it's more to do with their Navy than anything else. Plus knowing Russia's current capabilities, they'd probably forget to factor in the water being frozen or something stupid like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (12 replies)
    [–] 145 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 61 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    The nasa broadcaster called it a perfect bullseye landing about 5 times. A perfect bullseye, hit em right in the Pacific ocean.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 4 months ago

    They later said it was less than 1 mile away from the target spot.

    A big benefit of the ocean is if the capsule loses all attitude control, it can still reenter and survive. But it will be a "ballistic reentry", much more punishing with the g forces, and also about 1500 miles short of the target zone.

    The Pacific Ocean makes it easy to ensure that those backup contingency landing sites are also safe landing sites.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 82 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    What the fuck is the first person insinuating? What would always landing in the water "prove"??

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    You can't easily go out to see a splashdown in the middle of the ocean, therefore space travel is fake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 57 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Why do people always do cannonballs into pools, lakes, and oceans, and never from windows and overpasses into the concrete?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 39 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    I though "woke" was the term that implied people being asleep, or are they use them interchangeably now?

    1000057808

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 26 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    What… are they even trying to imply?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    This mission especially brought the "space travel is fake" crowd out. The rocket launch explodes over a deserted area, nobody's onboard, all the missions are faked, and the splashdowns are in restricted waters to sell the simulation.

    Usually this is on top of "well you can't survive the Van Allen radiation belts", as if radiation safety and shielding is not a problem we understood and solved before we even lit off Mercury.

    Ultimate reasoning for it is either a vague notion of "control", bread and circuses, or "they do this to defy God", because space isn't real and the Firmament lies above the sky.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Flat earth-ism started as very elaborate satirical performance art. Now thanks to 50 years of Republicans cheapening public education, a plurality of Americans actually believe this shit and want it taught in the schools.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 24 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Just launch these fuckers into space. I’m fine with not shooting trash at the sun because it’s too expensive but we should let make an exception for people like this. If they’re so smart I’m sure they’ll figure out a way back.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 22 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    Several capsules are designed to effectively and safely land on land.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    Including the soyuz which to this day routinely lands on land

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    But the landing needs active thrusters to soften the blow. This introduces more complexity and also adds more danger as there needs to be extra fuel on board.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago

    she's got a good point, should we called waterers not landers

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    ....ok, but what is the post getting at?

    Like what conspiracy is this supporting?

    That they are more easily faked on water?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Yes, because the area gets a no-fly zone and navy ships go to get the capsule, it makes it "easy" to fake because the government controls the situation. Yes, this ignores a lot of other independently verifiable data, because that doesn't confirm biases. Yes, it ignores all the Soyuz landings over land. Yes, it ignores the facts that the Soviets and Russians do and did the same thing, as if a highly-planned re-entry might just happen in anyone's rye field. Yes, it's stupid. Yes, it's on purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago

    They never land back on land? Really? Tell that to Russia, they always land the Soyuz back on land.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Except for every time they used the Space Shuttle lol

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    To be fair the Soviet cosmonauts did land in the Kazakh steppe. I mean sure the landings were probably hard but they didn't die.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 16 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Water is as hard as concrete from a large height.

    They splash down in water because there is less chance of hitting something.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 16 points 4 months ago

    Just show this dumbass how landings happen for Russians on land. There’s a reason why no one does it multiple times.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago*

    Water = inside bones

    Land = outside bones

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago

    Why does EVERY rocket have thrusters... PAY ATTENTION...

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    How do garbage twitter screenshots get so many upvotes

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›