🔎 If you see an alert for analytics.usips.org, this is a self-hosted system I am running as a test. It is GDPR compliant and collects no invasive information.
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading. Create account
Maybe if the exact same scenario hadn't already happened on a previous flight and NASA stuck their heads in the sand and went "oh but it was fine, nobody died (that time)".
NASA's space adventures have always been high risk but they tried to compensate for that with brilliant engineering. The shuttle however an absolute death trap from nose to tail and the whole agency was completely blasé about it because they couldn't admit what they were mandated to do was impossible to do safely with the technology available.
My hope is that Davinci gives us a better Idea of the Venusian atmospheric column. If its habitable enough in the upper atmosphere, it be perfect for aerostats. Three month travel time, earth like gravity, and little radiation, be perfect for future colonies.
My hope is that Davinci gives us a better Idea of the Venusian atmospheric column. If its habitable enough in the upper atmosphere, it be perfect for aerostats. Three month travel time, earth like gravity, and little radiation, be perfect for future colonies.
The Soviets were the only ones nut bars enough to send surface landers to Venus. the surface of the planet has the atmospheric pressure of an ocean trench on earth.
The Soviets were the only ones nut bars enough to send surface landers to Venus. the surface of the planet has the atmospheric pressure of an ocean trench on earth.
Not only that, they just kept doing missions until it worked. The camera system was brilliant in its functionality and just brutal simplicity.
People bring up the pencil story all the time (which is made up anyway) when the Venus mission is an actual example of Soviet engineering brute forcing simple solutions to brutally difficult problems.
There weas a lot of behind the scenes collaboration going on. Apollo, and the space race really, is a myth that was essentially created out of political pressure. There was numerous examples of each wanting to collaborate. The Moon Landings being one of the main examples with one example being JFK in the UN wanting to collaborate on lunar exploration. But this brings us onto the whole Apollo Soyuz problem. No country wanted to be seen as the submissive, feminine partner. Which is why the androgynous docking mechanism exists because both Apollo and Soyuz used a probe and drogue system.
Who would have been the first to put steps on the moon if they worked together? This is why programs like Apollo Soyuz, Shuttle-Mir and the ISS can work as there was no prestige in being the first, but rather it would allow costs to be dissipated for mutual gain. With stuff like Artemis, all of America's partners have been put into a submissive role but they accept that on the grounds of them not caring about prestige, and its more of a science program.
There were however other areas of cooperation with stuff like medicine and weather where it was mutually beneficial.
There weas a lot of behind the scenes collaboration going on. Apollo, and the space race really, is a myth that was essentially created out of political pressure. There was numerous examples of each wanting to collaborate. The Moon Landings being one of the main examples with one example being JFK in the UN wanting to collaborate on lunar exploration. But this brings us onto the whole Apollo Soyuz problem. No country wanted to be seen as the submissive, feminine partner. Which is why the androgynous docking mechanism exists because both Apollo and Soyuz used a probe and drogue system.
Who would have been the first to put steps on the moon if they worked together? This is why programs like Apollo Soyuz, Shuttle-Mir and the ISS can work as there was no prestige in being the first, but rather it would allow costs to be dissipated for mutual gain. With stuff like Artemis, all of America's partners have been put into a submissive role but they accept that on the grounds of them not caring about prestige, and its more of a science program.
There were however other areas of cooperation with stuff like medicine and weather where it was mutually beneficial.
There are a lot of benefits for it. But the main reason why the system was made was literally because neither the Soviets or the Americans wanted to be seen as the one getting penetrated. Because that'd be like gay or feminine.
There weas a lot of behind the scenes collaboration going on. Apollo, and the space race really, is a myth that was essentially created out of political pressure. There was numerous examples of each wanting to collaborate. The Moon Landings being one of the main examples with one example being JFK in the UN wanting to collaborate on lunar exploration. But this brings us onto the whole Apollo Soyuz problem. No country wanted to be seen as the submissive, feminine partner. Which is why the androgynous docking mechanism exists because both Apollo and Soyuz used a probe and drogue system.
Who would have been the first to put steps on the moon if they worked together? This is why programs like Apollo Soyuz, Shuttle-Mir and the ISS can work as there was no prestige in being the first, but rather it would allow costs to be dissipated for mutual gain. With stuff like Artemis, all of America's partners have been put into a submissive role but they accept that on the grounds of them not caring about prestige, and its more of a science program.
There were however other areas of cooperation with stuff like medicine and weather where it was mutually beneficial.
I had always read about the androgenous docking module but never actually considered what it meant. It's possible I did and forgot because it was so long ago I read about all this stuff.
It was only the other day watch a Adam Savage video I learnt about how neither side wanted to be penetrated.
I had always read about the androgenous docking module but never actually considered what it meant. It's possible I did and forgot because it was so long ago I read about all this stuff.
It was only the other day watch a Adam Savage video I learnt about how neither side wanted to be penetrated.
Yeah, there's been quite a few articles on this that I came across about two years back (space race stuff, until I lost all interest in my degree for many, many reasons). It's one of those humorous little things because the Soviets would continue to use progue and drouge, with the Russians still using it as that is what they had been using. The only exception to this is Buran, which was built around an androgenous docking system. Which, this is how we get onto APAS-89 being installed on Mir's Kristal module, with this being meant for the Buran program. The shuttle would eventually use this for Mir, and APAS-95 for ISS operations.
It's one of those nice little things which is funny to look back on retrospect, with the Soviets/Russians only using it during the Apollo Soyuz program with the Soyuz spacecraft.
There are a lot of benefits for it. But the main reason why the system was made was literally because neither the Soviets or the Americans wanted to be seen as the one getting penetrated. Because that'd be like gay or feminine.
It's simpler, that's the main reason. The Soviets were concerned with their LEO space stations and probe and drogue did the job. And the culture remained with the Russians, who when building the ISS reused hardware. Zvezda was meant for Mir-2 [It was the backup for Mir's core module]. And with the Soyuz being in operation there was no real need to change it.
