You must log in or # to comment.
Just show this dumbass how landings happen for Russians on land. There’s a reason why no one does it multiple times.
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.
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.
This was because they had rockets that fired precipitously close to the ground which cushioned the landing to something like 20 mph IIRC. If those rockets failed for any reason there would be a very big splat.
At an altitude of eight meters, the “Posadka” (landing) signal lights up on the cosmonauts’ console and at an altitude between 1.1 and 0.8 meters from Earth, the Kaktus altimeter issues a command for the firing of the braking solid motors, DMP. The spectacular firing takes place around 0.7 meters above the surface, reducing the descent speed of the capsule to between 0 and 3 meters per second. A speed of 2 or 1.5 meters per second is considered average at the touchdown point. The structural loads on the capsule at the moment of DMP firing was quoted as 0.1 kilograms. These loads were reported to be the main reason for ruling out the reuse of the Descent Module.
In case of landing under a spare parachute, the descent speed could reach as high as 9.5 or even 10.5 meters per second, but it is still considered to be survivable by the crew.
Some additional cushioning at touchdown is provided by individual crew seats, known as Kazbek (Kazbek-UM on Soyuz TMA) equipped with custom-fitted liners for each crew member. As a last resort, the bottom of the capsule also designed to absorb the shock of a particularly bad impact. https://russianspaceweb.com/soyuz-landing.html
In Russia, people have always been expendable.
That reminds me about Vladimir_Komarov on Soyuz_1.
He went up there knowing he was likely going to die because of the build problems with the early Soyuz capsules.
The module crashed into the ground at terminal velocity, killing Komarov, at 6.24 a.m. … Soyuz 1 engineers reported 203 design faults to party leaders, but their concerns “were overruled by political pressures for a series of space feats to mark the anniversary of Lenin’s birthday”.
This is why I 100% believe in the “lost cosmonaut” theories.
Even stuff like probes for Venus they kept absolutely secret if they failed - and those didn’t kill people!
They did have to give them a special gun so they weren’t killed by bears though.
space bears?
Bears that realize once you crack that Soyuz shell there’s a creamy cosmonaut middle.
Crunchy on the outside, creamy on the inside. And still hot, probably.
why have we not been arming nasa astronauts against these devious space bears or did they only learn about creamy delicious cosmonaut from soyuz capsules?
I spent so much time playing Kerbal Space Program in the early days that my asshole still puckers when I see a return vehicle heading toward the water
Why do people always do cannonballs into pools, lakes, and oceans, and never from windows and overpasses into the concrete?
I mean, people do that occasionally, but for completely different reasons.
Several capsules are designed to effectively and safely land on land.
Including the soyuz which to this day routinely lands on land
And the space shuttle which did it for decades
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.
And extra weight I imagine, making it more expensive to launch.
Correct. It’s not that they can’t, they save tens of millions by landing in the water on fuel alone. Not only to land but to leave. The extra fuel increases the weight which increases the overall fuel cost on launch.
Just add more boosters. Problem solved.
You might need to add more struts too.
Might as well send 2 rockets. One to leave and one to come back.
it’s not quite that simple.
you also have to make sure mechjeb is installed and nasa has “too much pride”
I figured village was making a kerbel joke. Everyone who’s played knows that design that happens early on when you are struggling to get out of earths gravity into orbit and all the studden you just have umpteen boosters and struts precariously attaching everything so they don’t go flying off. I think they made it now so you cant even get RCS that early in the campaign type mode.
Water is as hard as concrete from a large height.
They splash down in water because there is less chance of hitting something.
You are talking about surface tension. The importance parameter is speed not height and “like concrete” is a drastic simplification as both behave very differently on impact.
Notably whereas high divers have reached speeds of 60 mph the Artemis II splashed down at around 1/4 that speed a speed you too can obtain by jumping from about 10 feet up.
Due to its low density and viscosity, water cushions the spacecraft enough that there is no need for a braking rocket to slow the final descent
Water = inside bones
Land = outside bones
…ok, but what is the post getting at?
Like what conspiracy is this supporting?
That they are more easily faked on water?
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.
gagarin just parachuted out of a plane and told that farmer he went to space
Why would that be any different over land? Wouldn’t they land in government-controlled land? The conspiracy isn’t unique to water… or am I missing something?
The only thing you’re missing is brain damage.
It makes no sense and is predicated on not caring about actual real information.
The purpose of these questions people ask conspiratorially is not to get answers. It’s to foment doubt. They don’t want answers; if they did they could look it up and find an answer. They just want people to start questioning the official story, then they sell their own conspiracy to them. It’s an old playbook, and people like Alex Jones have been using it for decades.
You have dozens more IQ points than needed to understand this
What HeroicBillyBishop said :)
Thank you for the smile this comment brought to my face
So does a low iq mean if you notice something, anything, you think it is clever, like a little child?
The shuttles landed on runways…
I like how conspiracy theories are now slightly sarcastic, signifying the underlying bullshit underneath.
They never land back on land? Really? Tell that to Russia, they always land the Soyuz back on land.
I though “woke” was the term that implied people being asleep, or are they use them interchangeably now?
Woke means you’re awake to the injustices in society
Yup. Being woke means you care about other people. Which the right undeniably hates.
wasn’t woke used as a slang for denoting good things in the past?
It started in afro communities and “woke” meant they were socially conscious and aware of racial injustice and systemic oppression
We should be using this meaning of it
We are.
It’s just that some (bad) people think that being woke is a bad thing, and they are overrepresented in the culture at the moment.
To be fair, some (not necessarily bad) people also use woke to mean ‘comes from a good place, but gets taken too far and is a bit cringe’, similar to ‘hippy-dippy’ or ‘touchy- feely’ in the past, I don’t hold that against them too much.
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.
Imagine surviving a whole ass moon flight just to perish at sea because no one comes to get you…
They had only imagined the moon flight…
On July 21, 1961, Virgil I. “Gus” Grissom flew the second NASA Mercury-Redstone mission. But that trip, nearly identical to Shepard’s almost ended in disaster. Grissom’s capsule, Liberty Bell 7, sank after the successful splashdown in the Atlantic, and Grissom came close to drowning.
The space race has a lot of “learning by doing” with some pretty icky lessons learned along the way.
I’m upset that you didn’t mention Cosmonauts are equiped with an on board shotgun to fend off bears.
Moon bears?
Desmond the Moon Bear
EVERYBODY DO THE FLOP flops
Low key, we gotta pack some shotties in ours. Space race to the death!
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.
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.
That story is apocryphal.
Pencils aren’t suitable in space because the last thing you want are little wood and graphite shavings floating around the capsule.
Both the US and Russia used grease pens.
The Fischer space pen was developed by a private company with no public investment and was marketed to the government and public.
Not so much Navy as geography and allies’ geography.
classic story of the US spending millions on developing pens that write in space while the Soviet Union just issued pencils
You used “story”, so I’ll assume you know this is mostly untrue, but for any of the lucky 10k that hasn’t heard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Pen#Uses_in_the_U.S._and_Soviet_space_programs
For a while (maybe still) Russian rockets even had a shotgun on board after wolves got to a landing first.
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.
That sounds way too cool to be true but I’ll take your word for it and do some research lol
It’s true. They also issue a pistol as part of the kit and as far I know still so, but it is apparently optional and most cosmonauts choose to leave it behind.
Space gun control is a thing: https://spectrum.ieee.org/how-i-stop-cosmonauts-carrying-guns
Did the cosmonauts fend off the wolves, or did they just stick the wolves in their suits and pretend that they were on the mission the whole time?
“Look out Comrade! Is wolf, attempting to undermine Glorious People’s Space Mission with revisionist propaganda of deed. Death to Wolf. Death to Trotsky. Long live Great Socialist Republic.”
I listened to Chris Hadfield describe coming home in a Soyuz capsul and it rolling a few times after hitting the ground. Land works but water sounds more comfortable, as long as you don’t get sea sick on top of it all.
Water isn’t like in the video games. It’s still a hard landing that you wouldn’t survive if you were going too fast. There’s just much more margin for error trying to hit the ocean vs. a plot of land.
My father was a fighter pilot. He explained that at a sufficiently sharp angle, hitting water was like hitting concrete.
Surface tension is a weird thing chemically/electrostatically, but we also probably don’t have life on Earth without it.
When they were covering the Artemis landing, they mentioned that just returning to earth from weightlessness makes them pretty nauseous, so they get motion sickness meds before landing anyway. Ibuprofen or anti inflammatory meds too, since 1 G is hard on joints after a few days without it.
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.
Does landing on the sea really require that much more braking when compared to land? Sure water has some give but I’ve always understood that, from a large enough hight, due to surface tension landing on water is the same as landing on concrete. But I ain’t no physicist and by no means of the imagination a rocket scientist so I might as well be very wrong here lmao
One of the advantages of water is even if your target area is measured in square miles it’s all roughly at sea level. If you miss your target area on land you have to account for that and trees and wildlife and hopefully not buildings.
Like the above said, you can do either, it’s kind of a wash. But a water based landing does simplify some things.
yes the post may be inaccurate but i doubt the dumbass they were responding to could have even read HALF of your comment
another thing that’s also not considered here is the fact that astronauts parachute out of the capsule before impact
No no no. They dive, so as to hit the water with the least surface area.
… What?
Like elevators, if they jump right before impact it doesn’t hurt.
False. They teleport.
No no no… They don’t even have waffle houses in Russia or the ocean.
Nonsense.
They have ejection seats.
