Αnti-Rogozin thread for tantrums.

Oh wait, did you just accuse someone ELSE of having a crush on lard-brain?

YOU of all people?

Something like that came out of YOUR mouth?

This is pure gold

Don't worry, your hubby will always be all yours (that you will share with fellow fluffers obviously)

Big_Gazza wrote:...Atlas EELV, or cuz Starliner/Orion haven't flown yet, or cuz SLS is till years away from a 1st flight...

As always, other people's fuckups are no excuse for your own

I ain't even surprised when this kindergarten level approach to dealing with reality pops up, it's like clockwork at this point



I might save this low grade cope of yours for when those things do fly and lard-brain's clownshow is still panhandling from space tourists

PapaDragon wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Why post it then? It isn't like arstechnica will post any of the successes....

Did they make any false claims? Because everything they listed is accurate and easily verifiable

Just because you don't like the source (or reality being reported on) doesn't change the fact that content is accurate (plus he provided Russian source not ​that it matters unless content fits the personality cult of clown in charge, does it?)

Entire thing is a shitshow and the guy in charge is more busy being Twitter diva than doing his job

And you were trashing JohninMK for posting it until you were called out on it and started weaseling out

As for Roskosmos successes maybe they would post about them if there was anything to post? We won't know unless it happens

What was their latest success? Not crashing the ISS on second go and dropping off some Japanese billionaire for pittance? Hardly something worth reporting on

Until something changes you should find different method of coping instead of shitting on person who was just posting relevant article (and the choice of person you decided to shit on is really a doozy, John of all people FFS...)

I already outlined what they done. They produce more microelectronics now than your entire country does. And they had to do it after 2014.  That in itself costs tens of billions usually west of Germany.

So you can deny all you want, but they had to make these achievements just so they can still put satellites up into space and space modules into ISS which they have since 2014.  So you can knock it all you want, doesn't make you correct.

Arstechnica, which I used to read quite often back in HS, is a load of nonsense then as it is now. And I actually provided some details in my previous comment.

You is funny, and predictable...  If only fish were as easy to hook...

PapaDragon wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Why post it then? It isn't like arstechnica will post any of the successes....

Did they make any false claims? Because everything they listed is accurate and easily verifiable

Just because you don't like the source (or reality being reported on) doesn't change the fact that content is accurate (plus he provided Russian source not ​that it matters unless content fits the personality cult of clown in charge, does it?)

Entire thing is a shitshow and the guy in charge is more busy being Twitter diva than doing his job

And you were trashing JohninMK for posting it until you were called out on it and started weaseling out

As for Roskosmos successes maybe they would post about them if there was anything to post? We won't know unless it happens

What was their latest success? Not crashing the ISS on second go and dropping off some Japanese billionaire for pittance? Hardly something worth reporting on

Until something changes you should find different method of coping instead of shitting on person who was just posting relevant article (and the choice of person you decided to shit on is really a doozy, John of all people FFS...)

I've read this article, and I can say that it's full of shit based on manipulating facts. Do you want to discuss this with someone who has a real relationship with the Russian aerospace industry, or do you prefer to take the word of a crappy article in a yellow newspaper?

Any hack can excrete and article. What matters is the content. Where is there any evidence of meaningful content in this turd?

PD + Rogozin = bollox thread

I dont understand the hoot about Roscosmos

VVP slashed the budget because space program by default is a glorified trophy pageant that sucks money out of actually important issues occurring on earth.

For example, an F5 Tornado came down and ripped an entire Pindo town from the face of the earth.

The same day, Jeff Bozo was launching 4 members of non important pindo intelligentsia to Karman Line.

After they returned it was discovered that Jeff Bozo locked his employees in a warehouse and they died and were injured due to this wasteful moron needing revenue to fund his trophy program.

Spending billions on this is a sure way to get yourself regime changed, like Joe Brandon is being now.

In reality the Build Back Better bill was more important than mars trip or reusable boosters.

It was shot down yesterday.

The reality is that when the population catches on and sees that you are spending money on a trophy pageant, then actual verifiable and tangible issues occurring on planet earth, you will be regime changed.

Russia needs to face Siberian fires, population growth, resolving taxation legislation, stabilizing security vis a vis NATO, restoring wildlife, and many issues that are much more important than space pageant.

So yes some money can be allocated to sat launches, module replacement, reusable boosters, nuclear powerplants, and so on and so forth.

But it should be done at a rate which does not compromise the real problems facing the state on earth.

This is why Provorniy, Carriers, and space program are issues of a certain size, but not of the magnitude all these whiners are making it out to be.

What good is it if your president is impeached even after creating a space farce, or if you can take tv celebrities to karman line, after you lose 100 people and an infrastructure bill because you are throwing away money subsidizing a space pageant?

Russia's space program towers over every other in terms of bang for the buck. This is true even if it is built on the Soviet
legacy. People who drivel on about this being a bad thing are retards or malicious. If sitting on some legacy was such a
cakewalk, then Ukraine would be one of the wealthiest countries in Europe instead of being a failing state racing to the
bottom.

Big_Gazza wrote:You is funny, and predictable...  If only fish were as easy to hook...

Amazing counterargument

You should try it on playground tomorrow

Scorpius wrote:......I've read this article, and I can say that it's full of shit based on manipulating facts. Do you want to discuss this with someone who has a real relationship with the Russian aerospace industry...

Let me guess, you the random internet guy on some god forsaken forum is connected to Russian aersopace indutry?

Are you also a Navy Seal with a black belt and 500 confirmed kills who is dating Taylor Swift?

Russian SPACE industry has a confirmed track record in four fields:

1) They absolutely suck at doing their job

2) They are moderately successful at making scale models

3) They can (still) recycle Soviet products... for now

4) They are masters of making morons of themselves on social networks (and even this is solely thanks to herculean efforts of one man and one man alone)

kvs wrote:Russia's space program towers over every other in terms of bang for the buck. ...

Definitely

Bang is one thing you can definitely count on with them, just ask the poor shmucks on the ISS

Must be that time of the month for PD...

Big_Gazza wrote:Must be that time of the month for PD...

It's yours, that's why I'm doing you so hard, we don't want anything to start crying 9 months from now do we?

PapaDragon wrote:

Scorpius wrote:......I've read this article, and I can say that it's full of shit based on manipulating facts. Do you want to discuss this with someone who has a real relationship with the Russian aerospace industry...

Let me guess, you the random internet guy on some god forsaken forum is connected to Russian aersopace indutry?

*Sigh* You probably would have fewer questions if you bothered to read my welcome message on the forum.

Are you also a Navy Seal with a black belt and 500 confirmed kills who is dating Taylor Swift?

Dude, do you really want to turn this into a penis measurement competition?

Let me show you one photo and state one fact, and then you yourself already think about how much I am aware of the situation with the Russian space program.



So, this photo is from my personal archive, it was taken more than 17 years ago. This is me in the Soyuz T-3 landing capsule.

And yes - this is the territory of RSC Energia, and a couple of meters from there are Vostok-1, Voskhod-2 and Zond-5 capsules. The originals. I touched them. Right here with my hands.

So I don't know why I need to be a seal member with 500 confirmed murders and date some Taylor Swift (who the **** is that anyway?) to see lies in a crappy yellow newspaper article. I've been following all the cosmonautics news in Russia for too long not to notice the lies in that article that you so happily seized on.
I will repeat separately: I'm not bragging about this - it's just that since it's so difficult for you to imagine my involvement without any concrete evidence, then here's what should lead you to some thoughts about the words I said.

Russian SPACE industry has a confirmed track record in four fields:

1) They absolutely suck at doing their job

But that's a lie. The Russian space program is fully in line with its budget. If you want an example of how the space industry is not doing its job, you can look at Ukraine.

2) They are moderately successful at making scale models

In the early 2010s, Russia had less than 100 functioning satellites in orbit. At the moment there are more than 160 of them. Are they scale models?

3) They can (still) recycle Soviet  products... for now

This is an outdated mantra of Russophobic propaganda. I've been hearing it for at least twenty years, could you come up with something more original? By the way, the warranty period of storage of launch vehicles is 10 years, so the last rocket from the Soviet reserve was launched somewhere in the middle of the two thousandth, and this even taking into account all possible extensions. As for the designs - well, tell me how the Soyuz-2 missiles relate to Soviet developments? Or, for example, the Proton-M, which flew in 2000, is a Soviet development (I'm not talking about the 4 stages of its further modification"). Maybe you can tell me the analogues of the telescopes "Spektr-R" and "Spektr-RG"? I don't recall similar projects in the USSR. There were other projects, no less interesting, but the "Spektr" series is a completely Russian development.

4) They are masters of making morons of themselves on social networks (and even this is solely thanks to herculean  efforts of one man and one man alone)

Hmm, they're probably not here to meet your expectations, are they? Their task is to fulfill the tasks that the government has set them, and not to satisfy anyone on social networks, isn't it?

PD is just another Russophobic limitrophe chihuahua who demonstrates his hate on a daily basis.

As with the NATzO demonization of Putin, demonization of Rogozin and assertion of Russian fail on every front is
nothing but thinly veiled hate for Russia and Russians. Anyone bitching at Roscosmos while ignoring the ESA
and what it delivers for its budget is a full on retard or malicious actor. You can tell which PD is likely to be.
But the latter option is not independent of the former. Russia haters are basically retards.

kvs wrote:PD is just another Russophobic limitrophe chihuahua who demonstrates his hate on a daily basis.  

Well, I'm not ready to give such characteristics to a person based on his dislike of Rogozin alone. I do not know, maybe they have their own story))).

As with the NATzO demonization of Putin, demonization of Rogozin and assertion of Russian fail on every front is
nothing but thinly veiled hate for Russia and Russians.  

Well, I agree that personal dislike of Rogozin is currently more of a marker of a brainwashed person. This is exactly what Western propaganda repeats - so every sane person should subject such statements to a very critical assessment.

As I say: practice is the criterion of truth. Since Rogozin joined the direct leadership of Roscosmos, I have been observing the longest accident-free series of space launches in Russian history. So - for me, this is a strong argument: I don't care what Rogozin says on political issues (by the way, I haven't seen completely unfounded statements from him in recent years) - for me, the main thing is that rockets fly and satellites work. And so far it is.

As for PD - well, I'm mostly indifferent to their relationship with Rogozin. But when insults begin to pour in the direction of an entire industry - which covers more than 200,000 people in Russia - I am outraged.

Kiko wrote:The source said about the postponement of the launch of the Angara-A5 rocket, 24.12.2021.

The launch of a heavy carrier rocket "Angara-A5" from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in the Arkhangelsk region, previously scheduled for December 24, was canceled by the automation of the launch complex. This was announced by a RIA Novosti source in the rocket and space industry...

This is why you move to new stuff

Had this been Proton there would be good odds of gigantic fireball lighting up the sky and insurance firms giving even worse ratings to MoD in the future

This is at least the third time that this system salvaged the launch vehicle that I remember

Even if the beast launches successfully, it will be the third time that they wasted a good GTO launch capacity of the big horse. Yet another dummy with yet another third stage. Shame.

PapaDragon wrote:

Kiko wrote:The source said about the postponement of the launch of the Angara-A5 rocket, 24.12.2021.

The launch of a heavy carrier rocket "Angara-A5" from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in the Arkhangelsk region, previously scheduled for December 24, was canceled by the automation of the launch complex. This was announced by a RIA Novosti source in the rocket and space industry...

This is why you move to new stuff

Had this been Proton there would be good odds of gigantic fireball lighting up the sky and insurance firms giving even worse ratings to MoD in the future

This is at least the third time that this system salvaged the launch vehicle that I remember

The problem wasn't with the launcher, but some unspecified failure of ground support equipment.

Lets not invoke worse-case disaster scenarios because an air compressor tripped out or a valve got frozen closed...

Daniel_Admassu wrote:Even if the beast launches successfully, it will be the third time that they wasted a good GTO launch capacity of the big horse. Yet another dummy with yet another third stage. Shame.

Its called testing for good reason. Why would anyone want to put a $300M equivalent bird on an untested launcher? Imagine the insurance premiums?

Big_Gazza wrote:

Daniel_Admassu wrote:Even if the beast launches successfully, it will be the third time that they wasted a good GTO launch capacity of the big horse. Yet another dummy with yet another third stage. Shame.

Its called testing for good reason.  Why would anyone want to put a $300M equivalent bird on an untested launcher? Imagine the insurance premiums?

That is why the normal practice is to schedule a totally government owned off-the-shelf assembled satellite, such as a replacement weather station for this launch either for free or a very low fee with no insurance offer. At the very least some university departments will be more than happy to to cook up a telescope or something for a free ride if given enough time. The dummy load is not paying for its own ride for sure.

Rogozin himself said he regretted not commercially loading the vehicle and sending a dummy after it's first flight. You would think that they would do so in the second. Alas. And the third? ወፍ የለም።

By the way I doubt a weather or even a TV sat from Reshentev costs anything near $300M.

Rogo says many things, many of them are just plain exaggerated or designed for PR spin.  Its one of his less positive personal attributes...

A modern geostationary comms sat costs around $300M.  ISS Reshetnev birds don't cost that much in absolute terms, but its all relative and a Western satellite delivering the same performance will be in that price range. I'm invoking USD-equivalence simply as a comparison of resource expenditure - a payload in a GEO is too expensive to risk in these early shakedown missions. As for flying a payload with no insurance, Roskosmos isn't exactly overflowing with funds, and the regular launch failures of the early-to-mid 2010s is still rather fresh in the minds of program mangers.

The fact that a rocket outputs a mass-dimensional block does not mean that it is just a piece of metal or concrete. This is still a complex engineering product that is designed to collect and transmit telemetry data at each stage of launching into orbit so that it can be compared with design calculations and develop accurate recommendations and requirements for the payload.

Scorpius wrote:The fact that a rocket outputs a mass-dimensional block does not mean that it is just a piece of metal or concrete. This is still a complex engineering product that is designed to collect and transmit telemetry data at each stage of launching into orbit so that it can be compared with design calculations and develop accurate recommendations and requirements for the payload.

That usually is a function fulfilled by the equipment aboard the third stage, whether it is a live or dummy load. The lower stages report their own telemetry.

The rocket mass vs fuel vs thrusst vs trajectory relation is really already worked out a century ago. They are a set of differential equations collectively known as Tsikolovsky equations. All a new rocket tests out is the performance of the engines and the reliability of the controls implemented. The only reason not to load a vehicle with a live payload is if you doubt the reliability of these implementations and you value your payload too much to risk losing them. That scenario is usually reserved for the first flight test. It is odd to waste all those URM modules of such a heavy vehicle after it performed flawlessly during its first flight.

I remember the second flight was supposed to carry the Angosat satellite, which it eventually didn't. I am sure that they have their reasons for their decisions. I just find it odd. That is all.

Big_Gazza wrote:Rogo says many things, many of them are just plain exaggerated or designed for PR spin.  Its one of his less positive personal attributes...

A modern geostationary comms sat costs around $300M.  ISS Reshetnev birds don't cost that much in absolute terms, but its all relative and a Western satellite delivering the same performance will be in that price range. I'm invoking USD-equivalence simply as a comparison of resource expenditure - a payload in a GEO is too expensive to risk in these early shakedown missions. As for flying a payload with no insurance, Roskosmos isn't exactly overflowing with funds, and the regular launch failures of the early-to-mid 2010s is still rather fresh in the minds of program mangers.

This discussion is the usual BS about Russia fail. Give me a f*cking break. The wankers want Russia to fail so badly that
anything is equivalent to a crash and burn.

I do not see Elon Musk's worshipers who are busy ragging on Rogozin ever bringing up the fact that Musk spews PR hot air 24/7.
Only Russians are not allowed to have PR exaggeration. Actually Rogozin does not spew crap like Musk so once again we
are seeing foaming at the mouth, hate-filled anti-Russian hypocrisy.

Daniel_Admassu wrote:Even if the beast launches successfully, it will be the third time that they wasted a good GTO launch capacity of the big horse. Yet another dummy with yet another third stage. Shame.

Since when are you a manager at Roscosmos and get to tell them what they should do. How many commercial payloads
did SpaceX deliver during its tests?