can we give up on NASA yet? - Page 3

Eric5273 · #21 08-13-2007, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x54.4blue

It is very difficult when you do it with humans (maned space flight).

We really don't need maned space flight.

Sponsored Links

rebound · #22 08-14-2007, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Ummm....correct me if I am wrong, but except for a very small period in the late 1960s (present included), the Russian space program has always been way more advanced than ours. Even when we were launching the Apollo missions to the moon, we were still landing in a capsule in the ocean with parachutes, while the Russians always landed on the ground a la the space shuttle.

Yeah - their capsule piled into the ground. Sounds WAAYYYY better.

It wasn't like it had landing gear...

Name: Soyuz 11.bmp
Views: 93
Size: 87.4 KB

Anything to denegrate the U.S., and pump up the workers' paradise.

Scottie · #23 08-14-2007, 04:58 AM

Saturn 5 was the best space vehicle. The Shuttle is to old.

Nasa should stay.

Wagner · #24 08-14-2007, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaefer

The MIR was a piece of shit. The ISS almost killed its residents a few weeks ago because the Russian-made computers crashed, and the thing could not produce oxygen. And that's just the latest in a growing list of problems it has had over the past four or five years.

Not trying to bash the Russians; this just reinforces my point that this is difficult, and dangerous stuff.

Call me biased. I can live with that.

Didn't they try to blame that on the space craft?

"..I tell you touch nothing, but you American cowboys touch everything.." - Armageddon

And how exactly did the Russians get up and back from the space station

One of the coolest things we've ever done in space is the Hubble after that, we're crashing landers into far away rocks.

Sponsored Links