Αnti-Rogozin thread for tantrums.

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.

We have here infantile bitching by trolls about test launches not sending commercial payloads to orbit as if testing
is a mere formality. As typical the standard being applied to Russia is ludicrously exaggerated, consistent with
the malicious intent of the criticism.

kvs wrote: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?

Actually SpaceX got a DoD payload for most of the initial Falcon 1 tests. The DoD even paid for a dummy payload on the second flight. Only after it failed hard three times losing satellites in the process (it lost loads of satellites on the first and third failed flights) did the DoD get cold feet and SpaceX had to pay for a launch with a dummy load themselves. Since that one worked the next flight had a paying customer again (Malaysian government). Falcon 9 had a dummy on the first test but since that worked it had an actual payload on the next one.

I personally think they are wasting way too much time with dummy payload launches. The fact is, Angara had already been tested with the South Korean Naro-1 rocket launches and it worked. There was no reason to think Angara 1.2 would fail.

Still it is better than how the Soviet rocket industry used to be in the early days for sure. You should try reading about the R-7 rocket development cycle in case you haven't.

kvs wrote:...Musk spews PR hot air 24/7.
Only Russians are not allowed to have PR exaggeration....

Other people's fuckups are no excuse for your own

kvs wrote:
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?

And as usual your glib stupidity and rash wording stinks to the high heavens beyond the geosynchronous orbit we are discussing. It is people like you trying to shut down any discussion that has the slightest hint of criticism of Russian officials that provide ammunition to the actual haters at the other end of the spectrum.

kvs 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.

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?

Maybe the critics would shup up if Roscosmos would launch one of these into space?

This is a nothing burger.

Long as Rogozin is not littering the body parts of his astronauts all over the worldlike the sts mission commanders were, locking his employees in warehouses during f 5 tornados while overseeing a cheap space tourism launch to karman line, or blowing up grain silos every other month, hes good in my book.

People whining about costs should refer to japanese guy who paid 80 million for 12 day excursion to LEO. Guys like him will keep roscosmos with extra cash.

Just cus some random african guy is acting like he knows what's best for roscosmos on a forum doesnt mean anyone should take him seriously.

Roscosmos doesnt need to worry about some one off replacement of a dummy payload for some uni telescope or whatever dumb shish this dude is suggesting.

They need to find more ego maniacs like maezawa and send em up to LEO hotel ISS before breaking off to build new ROSS while NASA pisses its funds away on remote detonation of grain silos.

Proton and Briz been doing this for years anyway so the only real story here is the cost roscosmos will be saving from not paying rent to kazakh clowns at baikonur.

That's real savings right there

Other people's fuckups are no excuse for your own

PD, you bitch and complain when they fail and now you bitch because they are not sending valuable cargo into space on test launches... make up your mind...

Are they allowed to be cautious for tests or not?

BTW I am learning to become a brain surgeon... I have watched at least a half dozen Youtube videos, so I am not a complete novice... who wants to volunteer their heads for me to crack open and have a go at fixing?

There are more brain surgeons on this planet than there are rocket scientists launching payloads in to space.

It is people like you trying to shut down any discussion that has the slightest hint of criticism of Russian officials that provide ammunition to the actual haters at the other end of the spectrum.

Not launching actual payloads means less stress and better testing, which is the core purpose of the launch.

Sure, they could offset some of the costs of the test by carrying a payload, but that would require payload insurance which adds to the costs... it is not like it is all profit.

Equally, launching actual payloads would require a specific launch trajectory at a specific time which might not be suitable from the launch location they are using... it is OK just to say launch a satellite and they can pay for everything but what satellite.... what orbit... what timing... what is the launch window to get it into the right orbital altitude at the right time...

It also interferes with the launch schedule because the payload has to meet requirements and weight distribution needs and arrive on time to be fitted into the rocket in time for launch... lots of extra bullshit that is not useful for testing.

Some payloads also have acceleration limits which might be problematic.

Space exploration is not going to be profitable for a very long time, they already get buy on a very modest budget... using every single opportunity to make money can lead to accidents and problems that add no value to the programme.

Only outside the actual industry do we have idiotic discussion about sending commercial payloads on test launches.
The word test is voided of its meaning. Product development costs are passed into the developed product price.
Nobody sells prototypes of anything as if they are the final product to recoup the development costs. How can
anyone deny this reality?

Launch delays are also twisted into the equivalent of crashes. This is not useful contribution to the forum but trolling.
Then the trolls act butthurt when they are called out.

GarryB wrote:PD, you bitch and complain when they fail and now you bitch because they are not sending valuable cargo into space on test launches... make up your mind...

Are they allowed to be cautious for tests or not?...

They are should be cautious when using Soviet era deathtraps (which they aren't)

They don't need to act all bitchy when using new platforms that have proven to be able to neutralize stupidity of dumbass gophers who have a habit of hammering components into place upside down and drilling holes in ISS components



This all is just a hail Mary pass by moron gophers who see the writing on the wall and are desperate to delay the inevitable

Every time computer points out their fuckups and stops the launch the more scrutiny they are exposed to

Having new platforms going into mass use is not in the interest of hammer and power-drill happy gophers

kvs wrote:This is not useful contribution to the forum but trolling.
Then the trolls act butthurt when they are called out....

Irony of this statement coming out of your mouth is off the charts

Big_Gazza wrote:Which "death-traps" would they be? Do you mean the soviet-legacy rockets that gave been continuously modernised over the last 30 years, including all-digital control systems, and which haven't had a failed launch for >3 years and 66 missions?...

Death traps in the form for grain silos loaded with toxic carcinogenic flammable explosive liquid which managed​ to kill people either by exploding or leaking fuel despite not even having people onboard

You know, just the most narrow definition of the word

Big_Gazza wrote:No-one has died aboard a Soyuz since 1971, thats over 50 years ago. Compare that to the Murkans losing two shuttle crews......

Russia lost two Soyuz crews, only reason they say they look good is because Soyuz is the size of Shuttle's landing gear and they still managed to lose over half the number of Shuttle's​ crew in just one go

While USA was launching cargo containers Russia was still struggling with cans

Big_Gazza wrote:If that makes Soyuz a "death-trap" what will Musks flying silo look like when it performs lithobraking every time a descent engine fails to perform properly? ...

Other people's fuckups are no excuse for your own (if they were NASA's track record would be spotless)

Especially before they happen

Come to think of it did you consider your course of action and direction your life will take should Musk's phallic thingie you obsessed so hard over fail to crash?

Whatever you decide to do please limit it to yourself

Big_Gazza wrote:Dunno what it is about Roskosmos and your man-crush on Big Rogo that brings out the fire like this. Just accept that he will never be yours and move on with yer life.

Please don't project your barely concealed issues on others, it's already pathetic as it is

And do wipe your mouth, it looks unseemly

They are should be cautious when using Soviet era deathtraps (which they aren't)

Soviet era stuff has a proven track record, the fact that you call them deathtraps reflects more on you... if they were death traps they would stop using them... case in point the US Space Shuttle... worked well for a while and then after a second fatal accident it was decided that it was too expensive to redesign it to make it safe so was consigned to history.

I believe the original estimates were for a failure every 100 flights so it actually did rather better than was expected.

They don't need to act all bitchy when using new platforms that have proven to be able to neutralize stupidity of dumbass gophers who have a habit of hammering components into place upside down and drilling holes in ISS components

They do need to act cautiously when testing new equipment, because it is new.

This all is just a hail Mary pass by moron gophers who see the writing on the wall and are desperate to delay the inevitable

Every time computer points out their fuckups and stops the launch the more scrutiny they are exposed to

This wasn't an assembly line worker who demanded they pull the plug, it was a computer monitoring system that was monitoring the rocket in real time and detected a problem.

If such a thing was in place for the first shuttle accident then quite a few people could have avoided and horrible fiery death.

Certainly the Challenger accident would have stopped the launch because it was too cold, though I am not sure debris damaging the heat shielding on launch could have been detected by a computer system... but it was noticed in the launch video and they did discuss an EVA to inspect for damage but assumed it wasn't serious enough to bother... perhaps caution might have been in short supply then too... there had only been one accident before that with the shuttle and maybe they were cocky...

Either way being too cautious actually often saves lives and prevents accidents... and considering the hissy fits you throw when there is an accident with claims of sabotage or incompetent management, I would think you would be more in favour of more caution rather than less.

Having new platforms going into mass use is not in the interest of hammer and power-drill happy gophers

Even if that were true not launching when something is wrong so it can be launched later when everything is right is still the correct thing to do.

I see it is time to trim the tree again...

Well, I think that after the accident of the new upper stage, all questions regarding why the real payload was still not launched on the Angara should be removed. Because these are test flights, and the risk of failure is much higher.

Scorpius wrote:Well, I think that after the accident of the new upper stage, all questions regarding why the real payload was still not launched on the Angara should be removed. Because these are test flights, and the risk of failure is much higher.

As I pointed out, it still separated. They just need to figure out why it delayed and didn't reach its necessary orbit of said payload. Nothing major nor not first time even with tested.

jesus christ the Rogozin arguements always end up as productive as these kinds of arguements,



Can we make it a new years resolution to not mention him once?

thegopnik wrote:jesus christ the Rogozin arguements always end up as productive as these kinds of arguements,
......
Can we make it a new years resolution to not mention him once?

Take it up with the guy who brought him up, he sure loves him some lard-cum:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t8631p125-nti-rogozin-thread-for-tantrums#350859

GarryB wrote:Time for more weeding.... the new batch of weeds are not worth keeping however and will not be moved.... simply be deleted... like the trash it is.

Done.

I am happy with that.

Any concerns or people upset by all means feel free to send me a private message and we can discuss, but comments and complaints or further arguments and insults are off topic and will simply be deleted... continual posts of abuse/complaints/BS and off topic rubbish will lead to warnings and temporary bans... or worse.

Awww, I rather enjoyed that exchange and think it should have been moved to this thread.

Rogozin derangement syndrome is entertaining.

Rogozin: "it did not happen"

— Shmuel לא לשחיתות ⓥ (@BoredStas) January 5, 2022

Well, there are two blue checkmarks in that tweet (twit) thread. One that looks like a checkmark and the other one.

kvs wrote:Well, there are two blue checkmarks in that tweet (twit) thread. One that looks like a checkmark and the other one.

And they are coming for you specifically out of all people

Run Forest, run!!!

As some people in here were praising St. Rogozin for there being no launch failures since he came in this happens. Tsk tsk.
I did tell you guys it wasn't THAT much of a big deal to have no launch failures when they weren't using any new hardware in the launches.
The minute they use a new upper stage, which is still based on an older one, this happens. Rockets are hard.

Personally I hope they speed up the KVTK upper stage development.