American space program

>>66345049
too soon, la

File: 1337190953228.jpg (410KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1200x900px

>>66345049
thats what you get when buying ukranian engines

File: Moon Landing 1920x1200 wallpaper.jpg (411KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 1600x1000px

You posted the wrong picture f a m

File: dont_know_what_the_fuck_is_going_on.jpg (41KB, 351x359px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 351x359px

>>66345065
>Americans saying "la"

>>66345097
>red stirps
Nice commie you have here m8

File: image.jpg (6KB, 299x168px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 299x168px

>>66345097
No no I think it's accurate

>>66345087
check mein nein

File: image.jpg (134KB, 621x525px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 621x525px

>>66345134
Guess what the red is

You have to take huge risks to attain the stars. We will always be there when major accomplishments happen. We inspired the planet.

Stay jelly, world. We accomplished a lot. You're welcome.

Now let's stop with the stupid nationalistic shit. The next level requires all our efforts.

File: beagle.jpg (113KB, 680x382px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 680x382px

European space program

File: Russian Mars missions.png (30KB, 596x509px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 596x509px

Russian space program

>>66345238
>we
Are you roleplaying again, James?

File: 1474321723555.jpg (88KB, 716x408px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 716x408px

>>66345407

File: image.jpg (30KB, 282x383px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 282x383px

>>66345349
Okay

>>66345476
Wtf I hate american now

>>66345434

The ballsy stunts pulled by the US and USSR in the 50s-80s inspired the planet. It didn't accomplish much, but it proved that large concerted efforts could accomplish a lot.

Stop pretending you are relevant EU swamp.

File: Doubt.jpg (64KB, 600x694px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x694px

>>66345097

he is floating in the picture?

if he jumped, why there is no dust in the floor?

>>66345476

Pfft. Orbital launches. Low mileage. We farm that out to our dot coms now.

>>66345476
Gee, the ESA is really in the pits.

>>66345476
That chart doesn't factor in that Russia launches more often than everyone else.

BTW 2016 has been an extremely successful year. There have been 64 orbital launches so far and only one (a Chinese launch last August) failed.

>>66345564
>It didn't accomplish much
This is just flat wrong.
Even if you somehow skirt the significance of politically fueled manned space flight, shit like advanced ceramics, Velcro and Satellites are big fucking deal.

>>66345664

They are literally the cheap taxicab of "get shit into orbit". They do it well, and we want to encourage them to stay there. They are the China of our Walmart of outer space.

What we need from them is a cooperative initiative, with China, the EU and perhaps the pooloos, to develop an orbital launch platform. Not just a space station, but a place to built shit in orbit that will be launched form there.

Fucking hell can we get over the cold war and "me too" pissing contests of the 1960s?

>>66345476
Why would NASA be launching private companies satellites when private companies will do it?

Current space stats:

US 40%
Europe 30%
Russia 20%
China/India 10%

>>66345784
Don't forget fuel cells, memory foam, portable cordless vacuum cleaners, scratch resistant lenses, aircraft de-icing systems, etc.

>>66345931

thats not correct for budget nor achievements


for achievements:
ussr = 50%
usa = 40%
europe = 4%
japs = 4%
india/china = 2%

>>66345953
No I won't
ever
space race was fucking great
I bet most kids don't even know where any of those things came from, or the rockets themselves for that matter

>>66345591

The dust on the Moon is highly charged due to Sun's radiation and solar winds, so it would stick quite good to the surface.

>>66346166
Depends on the timeframe I guess.
I was posting the present day stats.

>>66346166
>ussr = 50%
>usa = 40%

How does the Soviet program rank higher when they didn't even put a guy out of LEO?

>>66346390
Because they did a bunch of we wuz first and shiet

>>66345476
CHINKD

>>66346465
We did too. :^)

>first communications satellite
>first weather satellite
>first reconnaissance satellite
>first large solid rocket motor
>first liquid hydrogen engine
>first successful planetary probes
>all outer planetary probes
>first rendezvous and docking of two spacecraft

>>66346390
lol yes, there is no way they can rank higher than the US. They had Laika the dog, Sputnik satellite, Yuri Gagarin and Valentina Tereshkova. That's preddy much it. The Soviet space program didn't lead to ANY new understanding of the universe. It only led to the downfall of the Soviet Union due to economic reasons.

>>66346536
Yeeh but they did more

And more clear firsts

Like instead of first satelite with a vibrator on it, they had the first satelite period etc.

>>66346390
That Panamanian is infamously anti-American. He's easy to pick out because he never puts in capital letters.

>>66346578
>The Soviet space program didn't lead to ANY new understanding of the universe
They took the first photos of the far side of the Moon.

>>66346390
They were the reason it all happened.
I doesn't matter who was first where, but that without USA and USSR being butthurt about each other, maybe people wouldn't be flying to space today at all.

money well spent

>>66346578
They also had the space station

>>66346536
That's pretty irrelevant stuff tho

>>66346587
>Yeeh but they did more

Um, no they didn't. They basically had the stuff he listed in >>66346578 and not a lot more than that.

>>66346638
>has no idea how much of modern life is dependent on satellites like those

>>66346644
You obviously dont' know much about the subject and you're /int/posting at this point

>>66346644
>notable firsts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_program#List_of_projects_and_accomplishments

>>66346629
However, Skylab was the first one that worked and didn't fail in orbit or get a crew killed. :^)

>>66346701
Yeah it's mostly stuff that happened 1965 and earlier. Even then, the US program still had many firsts in the first several years such as >>66346536

>>66346775
>Yeah it's mostly stuff that happened 1965 and earlier.
That's literally what you're discussing. The soviets had more impressive "firsts" at that time no question about it

Another point: Explorer 1 discovered the Van Allen Belts while Sputnik 1 was nothing more than a radio transmitter.

The Soviets actually had the chance to discover the VABs on Sputnik 2's flight, but failed to do so. The instrumentation detected radiation while deep in the Southern Hemisphere out of range of Soviet tracking. Australian stations managed to pick up the signals from Sputnik 2, but the Soviets would not give them the decoding information for it.

>>66346819
Though I don't see how putting a woman in space is a bigger accomplishment than the first successful planetary probe unless you're Tumblr.

>>66346897
You are cherry picking

>>66346935
In what way? You didn't provide your definition of what more impressive "firsts" are.

>>66346644
Venus missions.
Lunokhod , first space rover
A fucking Drone Shuttle 20 years before Boeing X-37 made people go woah
Salyut, Mir, fucking cornerstone of ISS
Soyuz, most venerable, reliable space vehicle ever.

Why won't you give credit where credit is due?

Americans are so desperate at always trying to be #1 lmao

File: sovcosm.png (402KB, 543x480px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 543x480px

>>66346960
You are so desperate, man

>>66346968
That stuff happened after '65. The period being discussed was 1957-65.

>Why won't you give credit where credit is due?

I'll give credit where it's due, for example >>66346603. What I don't do is fall for low quality b8 posts made by Kremlinbots hiding behind proxes like >>66346972

>>66346960
>take one of the less iconic USSR achievemnts, instead of let's say the first fucking human in space
>take one US achievement and make the point that it could be more impressive than this particular USSR achievement you chose to compare to

>>66347101
>muh proxies

>>66346638
>Weather and Communications satellites aren't important

>>66346968
>Venus missions

Sure, they got back about 3 pics before the probes were destroyed. But it took American probes like Magellan to radar map the entire surface. The Venera probes were more impressive as an engineering feat than a scientific one.

>>66346596
Yeah and when you call him out he pretends he's completely neutral. I could understand it if his countries relevance and a significant portion of their economy wasn't from a U.S.A. project.

File: usaf-x-37b-landing.jpg (188KB, 1085x599px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1085x599px

>>66346390
Don't forget America is still doing a lot of "not commercial space" stuff.

I just hope when push comes to shove our space program happens to be on our side.

Sorry, China. I don't have the web address of this.

>>66347186
They definitely are, the thing is most people only know/care about the more high profile, glamorous stuff like manned missions or planetary probes. Telstar wasn't as sexy as landing on the Moon, but definitely very important in allowing our modern electronic-based infrastructure to exist.

When it came to a lot of the more low-profile, workaday satellites like weather and communications, the Soviets were a number of years behind and when they did finally develop them, they were mainly just for military use.

>>66347248
I'm more interested in their ideas for colonization.
floating cities... how high must they have been? (the Russians when they came up with it)

>>66346722
>or get a crew killed. :^)
Killing your crew is a superior Soviet tactic tovarich.

>>66346935
He's right though, once they put a man into space you can put a woman with no more advances.

>>66347503
Yes, but he cherry picked this and compared it to whatever he wanted

As stupid as me saying that the first man in space is more impressive than the first vibrating dildo in space, don't you understand what cherry picking is?

>>66347454
First space station was Salyut 1. Of the two crews to visit it, one failed to dock and the other died after the mission was completed. Then they had a station end up in the Pacific Ocean, followed by two that made it to orbit but then failed.

Thus, Skylab was the first completely successful space station and also the astronauts repaired some serious damage it took during launch.

>>66347554
>As stupid as me saying that the first man in space is more impressive than the first vibrating dildo in space, don't you understand what cherry picking is?

I think you're completely failing to understand where I was going with my argument. I'd said that the US program had more space firsts up to 1965 however you were arguing that what counted was how spectacular/cool they were.

>>66347101
It's not a bot their is a Russian in Germany who hates the U.S. and thinks Russia's great despite residing in the U.S. There is also a Chechen not sure how he feels about the USSR and space though. It's like our country where half the posters are Chicanos and foreigners.

>>66346596
>>66347310

lol chill out fagots im just fucking with you

40% ussr
40% usa

how about that :)

I like to think that USSR has the most iconic/notable firsts

While US achieved more

Thoughts?

>>66347311
I'd like to know what that thing is actually doing it spent like a year or two in orbit. All I can imagine is it's something to do with manipulating satellites or spying on enemy satellites.

>>66347623
I already turned his logic back on him by pointing out that although Sputnik was the first satellite, Explorer 1 discovered the Van Allen Belts which is a bigger deal than simply sending a beeping sound back to Earth.

>>66347554
>vibrating dildo in space
What are you even talking about?

>>66347623
Well USSR had the first basic achievements instead of building on top of them

You know like first satelite as an example, instead of the first satelite with some sort of specific purpose

You know, more general achievements

>>66347644
Yet there was nothing in the Soviet program as iconic as the Apollo 8 Earthrise photo or Buzz Aldrin standing on the Moon.

>>66347644
No, America had the best firsts and the most achievements and is the best at evetything else America is always numbah 1 ALWAYS

The first Soviet scientific satellite was Sputnik 3, which Sergei Korolev had planned back in 1956, but the initial model of the R-7 rocket didn't have enough lift capacity to orbit it which was why they went with the simple radio transmitter Sputnik 1.

>>66347743
Argiung with Americans is a waste of time. Their ignorance is almost scary

>>66347755
Ye but the USSR got more of iconic firsts

A bunch of silver medals against a gold medal

>>66347821
Question. Who invented the transformer.

>>66347837
>putting a woman in space is worth more than landing on the Moon

>>66347866
No

>>66347866
Putting the first man in space is more iconic than putting the first man on the moon.

Again, imagine how we could work together. Low earth orbit is Africa-tier today. That's why we farm it out to the russians as an aid program.

But ultimately we need to get together and do deep space together. Americans do it ok, but everyone else could make it great.

>>66347949
+25 Putintokens for this post.

>>66347960
You are pathetic.

>>66345711
>2016
>a Chinese launch last August) failed.

Also, source?

>>66347311
>3 launches in 6 years

Wow that's a whole lot anon!

>>66345711
chinks just put 2 astronauts in space and usa cant even drive them to their local mcdonalds

it seems usa's space program has a space problem

>>66348019
The launch was on August 31, but since it was a military satellite, they didn't say too much about it. That has been the only failed orbital launch in 2016 so far which by any standard is impressive.

>>66347986
>says the guy who's been outed as a butthurt Russian diaspora who resides in Germany

>>66347821
well I'm done either way

I just think that USSR has most of the iconic firsts

US: put a man on the moon and the first docking

USSR first: put a satelite, space station, human, living thing, man made thing to escape earths gravitational pull, first rover/thing to land on another celestial body

Pretty much any of the other US firsts I can think of are continuations of the USSR firsts

For example like I mentioned the satelite vs satelite for some specific purpose

Now overall US has of course expanded and achieved more

>>66348409
>Pretty much any of the other US firsts I can think of are continuations of the USSR firsts

I don't remember them being first at putting a guy on the Moon or sending anything to the outer planets.

>>66348265
https://www.scmp.com/cnbc/article/2012543/spacex-explosion-blew-key-facebook-plan

I think you need an update senpai

>>66348409
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Space_Race

Also here's a nice timeline I think

>>66348447

Read again, I did point that out

>>66348455
That was a prelaunch testing accident, not a launch attempt. The probe was not actually intended to launch for another week.

>>66348409
you forgot the first space lab/station, which is another not irrelevant thing that actually counts for something

>>66348377
Why don't you braindead subhuman just do yourself a favor and put your worthless life to an end, oh and on't forget to film it so I can watch it on bestgore

>>66348644
Yeah, I also probably forgot some of the fundamental firsts from US too, feel free to point out

My point just is that it seems that USSR did more of the funamental firsts instead of some variations/building on top

US achieved more

File: 1299781122352.jpg (821KB, 1500x1050px) Image search: [Google]

821KB, 1500x1050px

>>66347644

You speak as if firsts in space only happened during 1950 and 1969.

Compare what NASA has done for the last 30-40 years with Roscosmos.

And look at the present.

At this very moment the US is doing things like creating inflatable space habitats, working on rocket reusability, creating at least 3 new space capsules and a new small glider, working on asteroid mining technology, working in space drones, and within the next 5 - 10 years the US will be operating 4 of the most powerful rockets ever made at the same time.

And in terms of scientific knowledge go ahead and try to compare the research NASA scientific missions produce vs Russia's.

On top of this we pay for something like 80% of the cost of the ISS.

If the US were to stop all aerospace development and work right now human space progress would basically slow to a crawl.

File: corpse_custom.jpg (42KB, 462x316px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 462x316px

>>66345049
>Russian space program

>>66348762
The last time Russia did anything noteworthy in space were the Vega probes in the mid-1980s.

>>66348698
no ussr did the first space lab

File: Hypergolic_Fuel_for_MESSENGER.jpg (505KB, 2000x3008px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 2000x3008px

>>66348762
hydrazine class safety suits are so fucking futuristic cool looking

>>66348814
Yeah I know

>>66348762
I think it's a case where we'd agree but I'm apparently not saying what I want properly, I tried to elaborate in my last posts in this thread tho

>>66348409
Like this, I feel like I've said the same thing again and again in this thread at this point

>>66348778

Fucking Soviet government deßü.

That dude should have never died.

>>66348540
That's a literally retarded distiction.

>Elon Musk 's SpaceX rocket was supposed to deliver Facebook's first satellite into orbit — a satellite leased in partnership with French Eutelsat from Israeli-based Spacecom for $95 million for five years. But that plan ended when the rocket blew up on the launch pad early Thursday morning at Cape Canaveral, Florida. (No one was hurt

Using your logic, since the Chinese didn't confirm their failure, there's no confirmation their payload failed to make it to orbit.

>>66349000
It doesn't count as a launch ""failure"" unless you try to actually launch it.

File: 123.jpg (96KB, 640x414px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x414px

>>66345097
You posted the wrong picture f a m

Apparently that was the first time this happened to an American launch vehicle on an orbital mission since 1959.

File: colhelmet.jpg (25KB, 300x235px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x235px

honestly if I got to choose how to die then burning up like a falling star as I fall to earth at Mach 25 would be pretty far up the list.

Hopefully blasting thrash metal until the end as well.

>>66349071
So they were just static firing the rocket with the payload for the lulz, and not "with the intent of launching it"?

It's a pathetic and misleading distinction. The end result is the same for the industry. Failure

>>66349197
Compared to the many times in the Soviet program where rockets blew up on the pad and got dozens of people killed.

did I miss something?

>>66349281
>So they were just static firing the rocket

No. Something outside of it literally caused the explosion.

>>66349281
>So they were just static firing the rocket with the payload for the lulz, and not "with the intent of launching it"?

Correct. It was a PFRF (Pre Flight Readiness Firing) of the first stage engine to test out the booster systems before the planned launch in a few days.

>>66349071
Any confirmation China's launch failed?
To me it looks like the payload deployment failed. Not the launch.

See how this distinction between what is a launch and what is not is misleading?

>>66349304

A European lander may have crashed in Mars.

Someone made a thread to laugh at europe.

Then someone created this thread because they got their feelings hurt.

This thread appears to be far more popular, and it has a greater number of flags. Fascinating isn't it?

>>66349359
>correct

So they were not testing with the intent to launch? Then why do you claim they were intending to launch later that week?

>>66349316
[Citation needed]

Also, not relevant

>>66349359
>Correct

When the explosion happened they were in the process of fueling.

Engines were not engaged.

>>66349423
>So they were not testing with the intent to launch?
Obviously they weren't on the day of the accident. The launch was scheduled for the next 1-2 weeks.

>>66349423
>[Citation needed]
Read the epic 450 post thread on forums.nasaspaceflight.

>>66349424
Whatever. Point still is that there had not been an accident of this nature involving an American launch vehicle on an orbital mission since 1959.

>>66349424
>Space X still doesn't know what caused it
Lmao real signal of confidence for 2018 when they launch our astronauts

>>66349375
>Someone made a thread to laugh at europe.
>Then someone created this thread because they got their feelings hurt.

But the OP is American.

>>66349537
Investigation can take a while particularly when the cause of the failure is non-obvious.

>>66349529
What happened in 1959?

>>66349494
>Obviously they weren't on the day of the accident. The launch was scheduled for the next 1-2 weeks.

So when does it go from "preparing to launch" to "launching"?

If China's rocket blew up 2 seconds before the day of the launch, it wouldn't be a launch failure?
But if it blew up 1 second into the day of the launch, it is a launch failure?

>>66349624
The Atlas-Able static firing disaster. An Atlas-Agena collapsed on the pad in 1963 but I guess they didn't count that because there wasn't any fire or explosion.

>>66345049
>>66345134
What am I looking at?

>>66349637
>So when does it go from "preparing to launch" to "launching"?

The SpaceX incident does not count as a launch attempt since there was no intention of launching it on the day of the accident. An event like the Soyuz T-10 accident in 1983 would because the booster was in the process of being fueled prior to planned launch.

File: pepe anger.png (135KB, 483x442px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 483x442px

>>66349669

you have to be 18 to post here

>>66349637
Or if Space X's rocket blew up 1 second before the launch, it isn't a launch failure?
But 1 second into the launch, then it's a launch failure?

See, I think there's a difference between "preparing for the launch by testing the rocket and payload" and "simply doing static tests on a rocket".
It's all in the intent. Space X intended for those tests to confirm that the rocket was ready for launch. Therefore, it was a launch failure in my opinion.

File: JUST.jpg (19KB, 217x320px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 217x320px

>>66349669
>>66349722

>2003 was 13 years ago

I still remember watching it on TV.
I still remember having to stand for the pledge the next day.
I still remember everyone thinking it was another terrorist attack.

File: image.jpg (146KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 640x512px

>>66349669

>>66349709
So when does it go from "testing for launch" to "preparing for launch" to "launching"?

If it occurs 1 seconds before launch day it's not a launch failure, but 1 second into launch day and it is a launch failure?

>>66345476
It's not the number of orgasms but the impregnations that actually matter ;^)

>>66349669
Space shuttle Columbia went boom boom in 2003 during re-entry because a piece of foam on the external tank whacked off a bunch of the thermal tiles during launch a couple days previously.

Re-entering the atmosphere at mach twenty-fucking-holy-shit, compressive frictional heating due to the space shuttle having to push literal tons of air out of its way every second caused a wing spar under the thermal tile gap to heat up until failure. Once they lost stability the shuttle started to tumble at which point the atmosphere whacked it like a pinata spreading debris across several hundred miles.

>>66349724
That's what a PFRT is, you baka. Obviously the thing exploded before they could carry out the on-pad test of the engines.

File: image.jpg (111KB, 1268x672px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1268x672px

>>66349813
Trudeau would disagree

>>66349894
Answer my question

>If it occurs 1 seconds before launch day it's not a launch failure, but 1 second into launch day and it is a launch failure?

>>66349779
HOLLA
So u be sayin our atmosphere is racist and a staunch antisemite too?

File: 1396738276777.jpg (254KB, 803x994px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 803x994px

>>66349778
>I still remember everyone thinking it was another terrorist attack.

>terrorist jumps out of launch storage crate
>ALLAHU AKBAR waving box cutter around
>rams SS into seattle space needle

Even if you look at the table on spacelaunchreport, they don't count Amos 6 as a launch failure and only list the August Chinese failure for 2016.

I also looked it up. The accident happened on September 1 and planned launch was the 3rd.

Official space program power ranking:

1) USA
2) USSR
3) China
4) ESA
5) India
6) Japan
7) North goryea

This is irrefutable

File: canada.jpg (272KB, 664x1000px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 664x1000px

>>66349896

>>66349942
Does it count as pedophilia if you have sex with a girl one minute before her 18th birthday?

>>66349973
But isn't that completely arbritrary?

All because of the exact time it occured?

Answer my question and stop using the appeal to authority fallacy.
>If it occurs 1 seconds before launch day it's not a launch failure, but 1 second into launch day and it is a launch failure?

File: wojack concern.png (123KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 633x758px

>>66350013

I remember this too

I've also just realized my 40th birthday is coming up

File: image.jpg (106KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1200x800px

>>66350019

>>66350095
How does this answer the question?

Yes. But it is a completely arbitrary distinction, and therefore meaningless.

If the failure does not occur during the prelaunch countdown or during the actual launch, it does not count as a launch failure.

Are we clear on that now?

>>66350208
So if it occurs 1 second before the preflight countdown, it's not a launch failure? But 1 second into the countdown, and it is?

File: image.jpg (191KB, 2880x1618px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 2880x1618px

NASA seal of approval

>>66350361
>>66350326
Those are SpaceX, not NASA launches.

>>66350407
>Muh private enterprise paid for by the government

>>66350505
>>66350361
>>66350326
>>66348683
>>66347986
>>66347949
All samefag. All Kremlinbot with a proxy.

>>66350583
Uhhh no

>>66349316
Yeah JFK was behind it

File: image.jpg (91KB, 491x675px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 491x675px

>>66350985
We all know who the real culprit is

>>66350208
>If the failure does not occur during the prelaunch countdown or during the actual launch, it does not count as a launch failure.

By that logic, Columbia was technically not a launch failure (it was damaged, but it didn't fail during launch, it failed during reentry).

File: 1413866906548.jpg (49KB, 330x319px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 330x319px

I love this threads. Same scenario every time

>>66351352
That white guy has an average body but dat beautiful face

>>66350019
Fucking faggot pm

>>66352862
that's Trudeau son