top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 72 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I'm not really sure that's the main reason. In case of a chute failure you're going to have a bad time in either case.

Russian capsules land on land.

I think it's just a lot more easier to recover, when there's no landscape around that you need to traverse

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 126 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Russian capsules launch from the Kazack steppe. In the event of a launch abort, like there was in October 2018, you need to have a capsule that can land on land.

    American capsules launch from Florida and fly over the ocean. In the event of an abort, they need to be able to land at sea.

    They both took their abort modes and just made it the standard way to land after a mission.

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

    Sounds like the real reason right here. The sea landing surely is a lot easier and quicker to recover as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    It's also much easier to hit what you aim for
    water -> water
    Land -> oops, that's a tree, and that's a boulder, and that's a lake.
    Although recovering the people is much easier on land, most of the time you can land a helicopter near the capsule, recovering the hardware is generally more difficult

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    Also where they are taking off and landing in Russia is a big flat wasteland. It's the ocean of the land. There isn't a lot of empty space in the US unless you are either in the desert or in the places we grow corn and wheat. Less shit to crash into when it's water in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 36 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    There are so many things that you can land on land that will absolutely ruin your day. A large boulder, a large tree, a cliffside, a building, something flammable, near an angry hungry bear... Astronauts coming back to Earth after spending a significant amount of time in microgravity are also mostly helpless until they adapt to Earth's gravity again. The open sea is seen as safer in the American school of thought.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    I read that as "safer than an American school" and I'm like well yeah, low bar

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Did you see the Principal that tackled a shooter the other day? Bravo!

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

    Russians would actually send their cosmonauts to space with a gun in case they encountered a bear before rescue while in the wilderness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    The capsules can do a water splashdown with parachutes alone.

    The capsules that land on land all seem to have some additional system to slow down in addition to the parachute. Boeing Starliner has airbags that deploy around and below the heat shield. Soyuz has a braking rocket system that fires immediately before impact.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    So, the issue does come down to the chutes. A chute capable of reducing decent speed to 10m/s is significantly larger than one capable of getting the speed to 60 m/s. Impractically large on a weight constrained thing like a space capsule.

    The Soyuz uses a small set of retro rockets to reduce speed in the last few seconds before touch down, and even then it’s like being in a car crash.

    On the Vostok capsules the astronauts didn’t even land with the capsules, they just bailed out and parachuted down.

    Landing in the ocean is significantly more comfortable and less complicated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 58 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Pay attention to what? Why would you say that and then proceed to say nothing?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago

    Conspiracy theorists on the far fringe are all about knowing more than you, being smarter than you for noticing the obvious when you can't.

    Them saying "pay attention" doesn't mean "there's something here that you are missing". It means "I am projecting that I know more than you". This is why they don't elaborate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    It's 'think for your self'. Its a command, an open ended command.

    Which they say with authority, because they fashion themselves as thought leaders (cough cult leaders cough) and have literally delusional levels of self confidence and ego.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 3 months ago

    Its called landing, not watering ffs.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    What is she even getting at?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I was about to say, what is even her point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    You’re obviously not paying attention

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah. I’m ready for the wacked-out conspiracy shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    It’s because the ocean doesn’t exist.

    say that the astronauts landed in the ocean because they don’t want us to realise that there is no ocean. NASA landed on the moon and faked the “”””””””splashdown“””””””” (which was filmed by Kevin Reynolds at a soundstage on Specific Boulevard) just to keep people from realising THE TRUTH..!!!.!!.!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!

    Pay attention.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Also

    We did land on land

    For like forty years we did that exclusively

    It's called the Space Shuttle and it's pretty cool

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Ignoring that the Soyuz is a more traditional capsule that does land on land, with timed rockets to slow their descent just before impact.

    Let’s just say landing on water is better, based on the medical injuries different astronauts have suffered riding home on the Soyuz. Several American astronauts have experienced bruising and joint/back pain from the hard “bone-jarring” landing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    That's true. Honestly I remember being a kid, learning about the Soyuz recovery system and being shocked. A 20mph collision with the ground (without the braking SRs, 5mph with them) doesn't sound like much, but it can still ring your bell pretty good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    True.

    While the USSR has a history of ignoring human safety, I suspect a large factor for landing on, well, land is the fact they had very few ports open year-round, unlike the US

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Another commenter said that capsules are primarily designed for their abort landings. The US launches crewed missions from Florida, so the abort landing options are mostly in the Atlantic (on water landing). Russia launches from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, so their abort landing options are mostly over Northern Asia (on land landing)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago

    Water big, easy hit, soft splash.

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

    No, no she’s on to something. If they don’t touch down on land why is it called a landing and not a sea-ing.

    Checkmate atheists

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I recently left a job where my coworker was the absolute dumbest motherfucker I have ever met, but at least he was willing to listen to people with differing opinions. I think I managed to pull him a little left, at the very least he started out going "the people in charge generally know what is best for us even if they sometimes dip into things themselves" and ended with "fuck ice, they're fascists acting exactly like the nazis did and the shitbags in charge are enabling them at every turn, the whole system needs reset" which is a pretty big leap, IMO.

    One thing I couldn't budge him on was the moon landing. It doesn't matter that I have assisted in a laser range-finding experiment using the retro reflectors left on the moon, thus confirming to myself that we HAVE been there.

    It didn't matter how much I explained the Apollo missions, how much I explained why things behave in space the way they do, how much I explained why NASA essentially hd to rebuild a moon mission from the ground up, or any number of things. He still firmly believed it was all bullshit and we never went there.

    I would always end the conversation about space stuff with "the biggest reason to me is that the USSR never came out and said 'this is fake, here's proof they faked the landing' and basically gave up not long afterward, and they clearly had spies and intelligence capable of infiltrating NASA systems and obtaining classified information, just look at the Russian space shuttle. If they knew we faked it, they would have every reason in the world to embarss us by revealing our lies to the world" and he would always agree on that point. Still fake to him though

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Space deniers are the bottom of the fucking barrel as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what it is about them, or how they got so fucking stupid, but there appears to be no limit to their ignorance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    What I never understood is why the unloading process is so needlessly complicated. After splash down, why not attach a cable and hoist the capsule onto a ship for unloading?

    Instead, it's always this long spectacle of multiple back-and-forth boat trips, inflation and attachment of rafts and 'porches', and several helicoptor trips to a ship.

    Just build a recovery ship that can park right over the capsule and hoist it on deck.

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

    It’s called splashdown for a reason. I guess on land it could still be a splashdown?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Water isn't soft - high bridge jumpers die on impact.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›