pizzaoverhead Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Putting weapons in space is illegal by the way.Weapons of mass destruction at least. Salyut 3 had a machine gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seret Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Salyut 3 had a machine gun.Better than that, a full-on autocannon. Would make proper mincemeat of another spacecraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwiak Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Weapons of mass destruction at least. Salyut 3 had a machine gun.And Soyuz cosmonauts carried gun. Well oficially for self protection against wildlife if they landed in some rural area.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP-82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 There are always 2 guns on the ISS. They are part of the standard survival kit of Soyuz. They used to be specially designed "space guns", but they now use standard issue hand guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastbikkel Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The soyuz is not underappreciated at all, where did you get that idea from?Everyone in the business knows how well it works. Sure it is tight, but damn that thing works like a charm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3_bit Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 If I'm not mistaken most of the Soyuz accidents were early on.Additionally, the Columbia disaster can be blamed by NASA not testing the environmentally-friendly foam they switched to for the possibility of it damaging the shuttle when it impacts it at high velocities.On an much less serious sidenote, it may be a good idea if NASA stopped having ship names begin with the letter "C". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyrunner27 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 But...Cassini, Curiosity, and Columbia(The CM for Apollo 11) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahgineer Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Possibly the reason why the Soyuz is the under appreciated workhorse is because the shuttle stole the spotlight. Why? which looks better: a bunch of tubes, or a stinkin space plane? Which one is more cutting edge: a bunch of tubes, or a space plane? Which one did more in orbit (on its own: Salyut doesn't count. Spacelab does because it was with the shuttle the entire time): a bunch of tubes, or a space plane? which one was/is run by the world super power: a bunch of tubes, or a space plane? which one had more of an impact on future spacecraft and there style: a bunch of tubes, or a space plane? which one became the the pop culture symbol of spaceflight: a bunch of tubes, or a space plane?The answer to all of these questions is why the Soyuz is the under appreciated of the two work horses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Really. The average Joe might see it as the icon of space flight. But a lot of space nuts might think that Soyuz holds that place.I think it would be a whole different story if NASA kept to the rocket-capsule configuration, Gemini or Apollo.Then everyones opinion might be geared towards what country they like more instead of the actual spacecraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Random Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Yep, russians have guns in survival kirt. And yes, it was for self-defence at the surface. For space, we were actually prototyping a non-lethal laser gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyewok Posted January 24, 2014 Author Share Posted January 24, 2014 which one had more of an impact on future spacecraft and there style.Yeah that why a bunch of tubes is still flying Americans to the ISS while the space plane is gathering rust in museums (or in billions of little exploded peices). Why is it the USA is going back to a bunch of tubes for future manned programs?Id take the bunch of tubes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Yep, russians have guns in survival kirt. And yes, it was for self-defence at the surface. For space, we were actually prototyping a non-lethal laser gun. http://www.popmech.ru/images/upload/81850522_1370370956_resize.jpgSince when did was burning a hole in an astronauts spacesuit meant to be non-lethal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 You don't die by the hole, but by the lack of pressure in your suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 You don't die by the hole, but by the lack of pressure in your suit. Holes are a good way of causing that lack of pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokker Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Yeah that why a bunch of tubes is still flying Americans to the ISS while the space plane is gathering rust in museums (or in billions of little exploded peices). Why is it the USA is going back to a bunch of tubes for future manned programs?Id take the bunch of tubes.Ok, seriously stop with the offensive Columbia/Challenger jokes you dick. You are ignoring decades of trust and friendship built between the Cosmonauts and the Astronauts. You are turning it into some heartless joke of "haha people died." Show some respect. I dont go around the forums joking about how Soyuz 1 Komarov died because he got in a ****ty spaceship. I don't joke about how "Dobrovolski was such a bad commander he couldn't even keep a door shut." No, I show some damn respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firov Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Yeah that why a bunch of tubes is still flying Americans to the ISS while the space plane is gathering rust in museums (or in billions of little exploded peices). Why is it the USA is going back to a bunch of tubes for future manned programs?Id take the bunch of tubes.Riddle me this... Which one had two fatal accidents?Surprise! Trick question! They both had exactly 2 fatal accidents over their entire careers, with the shuttle actually having more total flights.Anyway, seriously, drop the blind nationalism, Chekov. It serves no one. In the end every nation is going to have to work together if we hope to make any meaningful progress in space exploration and especially colonization. Personally, I welcome that cooperation. Be they Russian, American, Chinese, or Indian, any investment into spaceflight ultimately uplifts all of humanity. So why don't you get over your "Russia first!" attitude and join the rest of the world. The cold war is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokker Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Riddle me this... Which one had two fatal accidents?Surprise! Trick question! They both had exactly 2 fatal accidents over their entire careers, with the shuttle actually having more total flights.Anyway, seriously, drop the blind nationalism, Chekov. It serves no one. In the end every nation is going to have to work together if we hope to make any meaningful progress in space exploration and especially colonization. Personally, I welcome that cooperation. Be they Russian, American, Chinese, or Indian, any investment into spaceflight ultimately uplifts all of humanity. So why don't you get over your "Russia first!" attitude and join the rest of the world. The cold war is over.Well said, the perfect comment to bring out this article for. http://rbth.ru/science_and_tech/2013/04/26/russian_cosmonaut_remembers_us-russia_space_teamwork_during_25511.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piwa Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) "soyuz the underappreciated workhorse." Question who underestimated him? Edited January 25, 2014 by Piwa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Random Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Since when did was burning a hole in an astronauts spacesuit meant to be non-lethal?It wasn't strong enough to burn through something. It was intended to blind (both people and optics) and maybe cause moderate skin burns, all of that without the risk of depressurisation. Never got into production though, only to prototyping phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZetaX Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Since when did was burning a hole in an astronauts spacesuit meant to be non-lethal?Depending on hole size (possibly even up to centimeters), this is only lethal if your space ship is too far away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyewok Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Ok, seriously stop with the offensive Columbia/Challenger jokes you dick. You are ignoring decades of trust and friendship built between the Cosmonauts and the Astronauts. You are turning it into some heartless joke of "haha people died." Show some respect. I dont go around the forums joking about how Soyuz 1 Komarov died because he got in a ****ty spaceship. I don't joke about how "Dobrovolski was such a bad commander he couldn't even keep a door shut." No, I show some damn respect.What I stated wass a fact not a joke. 2 Shuttles blew up. One of the reasons they are not flying and soyzus is.Not my issue if you cant handle the truth.Your the one that should stop being so nationlistic. Edited January 25, 2014 by crazyewok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyewok Posted January 25, 2014 Author Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Anyway, seriously, drop the blind nationalism, Chekov. It serves no one. In the end every nation is going to have to work together if we hope to make any meaningful progress in space exploration and especially colonization. Personally, I welcome that cooperation. Be they Russian, American, Chinese, or Indian, any investment into spaceflight ultimately uplifts all of humanity. So why don't you get over your "Russia first!" attitude and join the rest of the world. The cold war is over.Wow your a smart one. Or not.Im neither USA or Russian so no nationalism here. Im just calling what I see and that was that the shuttle was overhyped and fundmemtaly flawed.Im just calling it how I see it. Shuttle was overhyped. Edited January 25, 2014 by crazyewok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyrunner27 Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 What I stated wass a fact not a joke. 2 Shuttles blew up. One of the reasons they are not flying and soyzus is.Not my issue if you cant handle the truth.Your the one that should stop being so nationlistic.If this was true the shuttle would have ended in 2003 or 1986 and the Soyuz would end in 1967 or 1971. Also Apollo would never fly. The shuttle was old and never replaced that is why it doesn't fly if they kept on building orbiters and changing the design like the Soyuz then it might still be flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 If this was true the shuttle would have ended in 2003 or 1986 and the Soyuz would end in 1967 or 1971. Also Apollo would never fly. The shuttle was old and never replaced that is why it doesn't fly if they kept on building orbiters and changing the design like the Soyuz then it might still be flying.That is actually one more fundamental flaw of reusable spacecraft: It's harder and more expensive to retrofit and upgrade a reusable vehicle than to continuously improve a series production design like soyuz. Although they were refitted several times with modern electronics, the Shuttle was stuck with a lot of 1970's technology. With Soyuz, there is practically no part that is identical between the original Soyuz 7K-OK and the modern Soyuz TMA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZetaX Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Skyrunner: at least the Apollo one is obviously hypocritical of you, as you completely ignore the difference between "blowing up while on a mission" and "problems encountered while testing" (deadly or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts