>mfw Russia is the only country that can into space

File: SUPERPOWER BY 2030.jpg (2MB, 2447x3279px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2447x3279px

>>73167339
>mfw Russia is the only country that can into space

Wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CkOlO_hLyM&t=322s

File: en_axelrod_0704.jpg (569KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1280x960px

Reminder

>>73167472
The SCATSAT used tech bought from the Russians though

>>73167510
Oh I love Kubrick films

File: 1454352645090.jpg (51KB, 326x320px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 326x320px

>>73167339
Sure thing bub

File: moon.jpg (93KB, 774x576px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 774x576px

This is not anime. Believe.

>>73167339
Market leader in commercial launches is Arianespace.

>>73167339
stay mad we still have most of satellite launch market.

>>73167706
except they don't take people

"market leader" only because they monopolize all european launches

they are basically subsidized by the eu

>>73167472
Is it fueled by poo? That would be sustainable.

>>73167510
>>73167614
>the USA has no way to put a man into orbit right now (and has not for many years)
>>73167706
Go on and ctrl+f "manned"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_in_spaceflight

File: Ariane5.jpg (235KB, 1100x734px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1100x734px

>>73167339
*Blocks your orbit*

>All this wrong

Does Latvia even teach their children what space is?

>>73168152
>All this wrong
This counts as counterargument in the US of A.

>>73167787
>>73168073
Never send a human to do a machine's job.

>>73168152
It's pretty much all true though

>>73168264
Nobody is replacing satellites with humans Hans.
They serve completely different purposes

>>73167787
>"market leader" only because they monopolize all european launches
Nope. In contrast to the US, European payloads aren't required by law to use a European launcher. The German DoD, for example, ordered a SpaceX launch.

>they are basically subsidized by the eu
All launch service providers are subsidized. SpaceX is 70% taxpayer money. Hardly a private enterprise in the true meaning of the word. But of all the LSPs Arianespace is by far the least subsidized.

>>73168364
You don't say. And what profits does human spaceflight generate? Oh, less than zero. Great! So it's a money sink then. Congrats Russia, well deserved. Kek.

>>73168526
>what is the ISS
>being this retarded

>>73168565
What profits again?

File: 1436677498357.jpg (188KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1462x1462px

>>73167542
>india
>uses a SCATSAT

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

>>73168776
lel so funneh lelelel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS-RapidScat

>>73168678
Research
>inb4 but muhh shekels

>>73168409
Spacex really isn't subsidized they have the lowest cost of any anyone. Most of their revenue comes from independent work outside of launching stuff for NASA. Arianespace is and will always be completely subsidized as they have no reusable rocket or promise of reusable rocket in their future. They will cost a lot more to launch then Spacex so they will end up being subsidized by the EU. There is no competition in Europe for a cheaper rocket you will be stuck with an expensive rocket by a company that can't innovate.

>>73169071
>lacking reading comprehension
>calling others retarded

>>73169346
Just because you claim it doesn't make it so. I told you the facts last post. You're wrong on all accounts.

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

30KB, 596x509px

:^) (^:

If you think it's an honor to be used as a low cost freight service flying 50-60 year old rockets and spacecraft, then cool. Also it goes without saying that the OP is a proxy Kremlinbot.

>like any real Balt would spam Russian propaganda

>>73170974
>damage control

>>73171029
>doesn't deny it
:^)

>>73170704
>muh mars
Literally a massive waste of money
Meanwhile Russia is making big bucks on on launching to ISS and satellites for the US and other countries

>>73171146
>sour grapes

>>73171146
>Literally a massive waste of money
If it was a waste, why did Russia try it 17 times?
>Meanwhile Russia is making big bucks on on launching to ISS and satellites for the US and other countries
More like a homeless junkie who needs money for smack. And once SpaceX is operational, we won't need them anymore. They really need that $20 million they get from each Soyuz launch. Poor shithole is poor.

>>73171229
>And once SpaceX is operational, we won't need them anymore.

>depending on a beta South African that doesn't know much about social interactions to go to space

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2wRvhbJIQQ

Poor USA.

>>73171214
Not sure what you mean. You know Im right.
It might have been some important point to prove for the USSR but right now Russia is content from leading and making money from the launch industry

I mean, shit. They never even sent a guy out of LEO which we did in 1966. Sending probes to the outer Solar System? Forget about it.

>>73171065
You aren't giving any counterarguments to the OP. Instead, you make stupid claims. Here, look.
>If you think it's an honor to be used as a low cost freight service
Poor attempt at an insult.
>50-60 year old rockets and spacecraft
Which are clearly not; those were continuously modernized over years.
>also you're literally Stalin and a dezinformatsya robot and a reptilian alien from Nibiru
Even if I was, why won't you be a good American and disprove OP?

>>73167339
>and fewer fatalities than the USA

Two fatal accidents on a Russian manned flight (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11) and two on a US manned flight (the two Shuttle accidents). That's even.

File: 1439630318616.png (425KB, 486x495px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 486x495px

>>73167339
>i know nothing about spaceflight and space industry in general at all: the post

File: Soyuz_TMA-3_launch.jpg (522KB, 1312x2000px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 1312x2000px

>>73171631
>Which are clearly not; those were continuously modernized over years
It's kind of like how you can put new tires and an MP3 player in a '65 Chevy, but it's still a '65 Chevy. The R-7 family is a ridiculously superannuated design based on 1950s design concepts. It has only the advantage of being cheap and reliable because of having flown for so long that all possible hardware bugs were long ago worked out. But you wouldn't design a launch vehicle like that today, also its performance to size ratio is pretty damn low. The Soyuz was designed in the 1960s, it's not much newer. In fact they planned to replace them with next generation rockets and manned spacecraft in the 80s, but the collapse of the USSR prevented that. However, Russia has retired a good deal of legacy rocket hardware in recent years such as the R-14, Tsyklon, and Proton will soon be retired too.

We retired all of our legacy Cold War rocket systems in the last 15 years. Atlas, Delta, Titan, shuttle. All gone and replaced by newer stuff.

>>73167472

Those ancap lamp posts...

>>73171989
>The R-7 family is a ridiculously superannuated design based on 1950s design concepts
For example, it was designed back when they didn't yet know how to air start a rocket engine so they had to have all engines ignited and running at liftoff. This problem was solved just a few years later which allowed the use of upper stages.

>>73171989
That Progress failure last December was caused apparently by a turbopump failure due to improper alloys used in the pump blades and falsified documents at the R-7 plant in Kuybyshev. They were damn lucky that rocket wasn't used for a Soyuz launch because the accident probably wouldn't have been survival for a human crew.

>>73172561
Nah I doubt this would happen on a manned flight since that was one of the last of the older model Soyuz U booster. They launch manned flights on the newer Soyuz FG now. Most likely because it was one of the last Soyuz Us, the workmen just half-assed it so they could close out the final orders for the rocket.

>>73172716
I've heard it said that some of those recent Proton failures were due to low interest and apathy since most Roskosmos personnel were being transferred to the Angara program.

>>73171989
I would agree if anyone else on earth had the ability to reliably send humans to the ISS

what is pathetic is the USA not planning for the retirement of the space shuttle (the writing was on the wall in 2004, columbia just crashed and the newest shuttle was 20 years old)) that was 13 years ago and still no manned flight system, that's 3 years longer than it took us to go from having no human capable launcher to landing on the moon (1960-1969)

The Russian system works, has put more men and women in space than any other system and has the best safety rate over the last 40 years of any launch system

>>73173014
>what is pathetic is the USA not planning for the retirement of the space shuttle
It was supposed to be replaced with the Constellation spacecraft however they decided instead to switch development of routine LEO launches to SpaceX and phase NASA out of that.

>what is pathetic is the USA not planning for the retirement of the space shuttle (the writing was on the wall in 2004, columbia just crashed and the newest shuttle was 20 years old))

>he complains about the shuttles being outdated, but at the same time has no problem with Russian spacecraft decades older than the shuttle

Also I note this "Latvian" has never actually denied being a Kremlinbot.

>>73167939
lyl

>>73173269
>Also I note this "Latvian" has never actually denied being a Kremlinbot

It's the same guy who was posting in that Russian identity thread. He also used a Kyrgyzstan proxy to samefag.

>implying anyone in Kyrgyzstan has Internet access or electricity on their $10 a month salary

The Swiss flag in here is him too.

Russian rockets have no advantage over US/ESA ones other than price.

>>73174789
Unless they're the son of the president. :^)

And for all that, he never mentions that the USSR tried to build their own shuttle and had to abandon it for lack of funds in the 90s.

>>73167721
I'm surprised at the Russians persistence after fucking it up so many times.

>>73178804
There were a million reasons why their Mars probes failed but they can be summarized mainly into these two points:

>rushing everything to meet political deadlines
>inferior electronics and communications systems compared to the US program

The Kremlin also gave lukewarm support to the program since they really only cared about space exploration insofar as it was useful for political propaganda.

One of those Mars launch attempts resulted in the booster crashing near the pad and leaving a pool of toxic propellants which kept the blockhouse crew trapped inside for a couple days until rain washed it away.

File: 1470574546404.png (42KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x322px

Why do Europeans and asians try to compete with America

It's not even funny

>>73170704
I got to admit, trying it in 1960 was fucking insane especially when getting probes to the Moon was an exercise in frustration.

Why the fuck should I give a fuck about fucking space when muhammads are literally blowing up metros in the glorious motherland?

>>73179533
Most of our modern lifestyles wouldn't be possible without comsats, weather satellites, and more.

File: kim-jong-il-smiling.jpg (19KB, 470x427px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 470x427px

>>73179577
And yet all it takes is 1 yellow tin dictator with a couple of orbit capable rockets packed with junk to turn all those satellites into dead debris within 24 hours.

Space is a dead end investment

too much important shit going on on here on the ground

but dont let that stop you from watching star trek or hopes of getting abducted by them aliens and anally probed

>>73179828
And all it would take is one nuke on Pyongyang to end that yellow tin dictator.

File: kimjong.jpg (45KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 460x276px

>>73180033
nukes dont exist

youve been mind fucked by your devil worshiping elite since birth

poor capitalist bastards

>>73179008
You also don't get that many chances because Mars is only near Earth every 2-1/2 years.

all that ad hominem itt, butthurt included kek

>>73179179
ouch