The Pence remark was completely unnecessary and infuriating. I thought this was some educative chain of tweets and it ended in "orang man bad". Very anticlimactic.
It's the _entire_ point of the piece. And it's not really all that much of a political statement. The message is pretty clear: don't send people to die in space for stupid-ass political reasons.
Everyone sent into space was for a political reason. Whether or not you think it's a stupid-ass reason is more of a reflection on yourself than the message.
In this case the craft was not ready, it seemed to be widely known that the person who took that spot would die. I think that is an important contrast compared to "everyone sent into space"
Sure, in the case of Komarov. But that's not what we're talking about in this comment thread - we're talking about the inclusion of a random tweet about Mike Pence that could have been left out without changing the message at all.
As a counterpoint, sending people to space for stupid-ass political reasons resulted in one of humanity's greatest technological achievements that allowed us to put the plaque up there in the first place.
Note the subtle difference between "sending people to space" and "sending people to die in space". (As explained in the thread, Soyuz-1 was hurried to launch for political reasons despite being unspaceworthy)
He is pointing out that there is a difference between sending people to space for political reasons and sending people to space for political reasons in known to be unsafe aircraft knowing that the possibility of death is significantly above average. One is risking someone’s life for achievement and glory. The other is killing someone because your fragile ego can’t take the hit of not being ready on time for some stupid political deadline.
Yea, the point is why is there a random political shot at Pence? It makes no sense. It’s shoehorning a totally petty and not relevant potshot. Every space mission has been “political”, and of course everyone agrees you shouldn’t do a bad job at it.
It's a warning to avoid making reckless decisions purely for political gain.
I feel like that childish "orange man bad" quote comes up as a reaction to anything potentially perceived as negative as if nobody could ever make a valid a comment, observation, write a story, whatever.
Yep, "orange man bad" is a thought terminating cliche [1]. Intended to position the speakers above his or her opponents, but without a hint of self-awareness necessary for efficacy outside of the echo-chamber. The label itself sounds so puerile that it ironically paints the speakers as mindless as the ones they're trying to paint as mindless.
"This is an insult that stupid people think makes them sound smarter than other stupid people," as I've heard before.
"Debunked" is a pretty strong word. The disputed elements of the story are mostly based on the account of one person (Venyamin Russayev, the KGB minder assigned to Yuri Gagarin) and they are contradicted by official transcripts and the memoirs of the people involved.
But, this occurred in the USSR, so I don't think we really know what happened with any high level of certainty.
So, as the article says, the majority of the facts about the story are true, and the things that make it memorable -- the 'embellishments' -- have dubious sources and rely on eyewitness accounts only. Pretty much like most other stories like this (Check out the inaccuracies in the Apollo 13 movie, for example).
Hmm, I've read A Man on the Moon and Failure is not an Option and I don't recall any inaccuracies in the Apollo 13 movie. According to the wikipedia there were a few but it mostly seems like simplifications, not embellishments:
Having read a far amount about the mission prior to seeing the movie, I recall thinking at the time that the movie presented the various hacks that saved the mission as being inventions of the astronauts.
Watch again. The whole scene about building the air filter was portrayed as a hack developed by the ground teams while they instructed the astronauts over radio: https://youtu.be/1cYzkyXp0jg
At the time the astronauts were fixing the problem, neither they nor Huston knew they were venting oxygen, just fuel. That's kind of a major plot point, a driver of much of the tension of the movie, and goes a little bit beyond an "embellishment" or "simplification". There are also some other, similar flaws.
FWIW, the Russian Wikipedia mentions the following: during descent the drag parachute failed to deploy the main parachute, either because they screwed up during manufacturing (there was supposed to be some paper between the parachute and the box which it was in, and instead the box got hot, the paint melted, and the parachute stuck to it; a hypothesis - there is no evidence - but a plausible one), or because of thermal protection, or because the walls of the parachute compartment caved in because of pressure differential. The main parachute did actually deploy later, but got tangled up in the straps of the drag parachute which was supposed to be blown off by an explosive device, which didn't fire.
It is true that the flight was in response to the increased number of US flights over the preceding year. But I wouldn't necessarily say the catastrophe was caused by the rushed schedule here (remember, this was the _very first_ manned flight of the Soyuz), nor would I say that anyone was "saving" anyone else, or that Komarov knowingly embarked on a death mission. To say so would imply mind-reading powers, and I don't know anyone who possesses them, least of all some American dudes who wrote the book to make a buck.
The Wikipedia article also says the Soviets stopped manned flights for a year and a half after this disaster. All three of the hypothetical flaws in the parachute system were preemptively addressed, the Soyuz was considerably re-designed to improve safety, and six additional unmanned flights were carried out to make sure shit like this never happens again.
To this day, only two of Soyuz capsules resulted in crew loss out of 142 launches, and Soyuz is considered the world's safest manned space platform, and also the only one that's operational at the moment.
To "embellish" a tragedy like this is extremely disrespectful and irresponsible. I lived in the Soviet union in 1986 and remember when Challenger blew up Russians reacted with shock and commiseration, not some bullshit "embellishment" that invents astronauts "cursing" as they plunge to their death.
The capsule doesn't even have radio during the stage of the descent, where it is claimed Komarov cursed everyone, especially if it's spinning, as Soyuz-1 was, and there was no recorder left after the hydrogen peroxide fire. From this I conclude that everything that's not supported by the Soviet archive documents is total made up bullshit.
I, too, am only interested in facts, and one fact is that the time of parachute deployment is after the period of ionization blackout. If you can point to a more complete transcript of the re-entry communications, I would be interested.
37 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 38.2 ms ] threadI feel like that childish "orange man bad" quote comes up as a reaction to anything potentially perceived as negative as if nobody could ever make a valid a comment, observation, write a story, whatever.
"This is an insult that stupid people think makes them sound smarter than other stupid people," as I've heard before.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...
2011: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2342677
2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11072718
mirror: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1116939111368097792.html
I'm with the authors, I wouldn't trust a Soviet era transcript of a space mission, anymore I would of a show trial.
But, this occurred in the USSR, so I don't think we really know what happened with any high level of certainty.
How exactly does that debunk the entire thing?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13_(film)#Technical_a...
It is true that the flight was in response to the increased number of US flights over the preceding year. But I wouldn't necessarily say the catastrophe was caused by the rushed schedule here (remember, this was the _very first_ manned flight of the Soyuz), nor would I say that anyone was "saving" anyone else, or that Komarov knowingly embarked on a death mission. To say so would imply mind-reading powers, and I don't know anyone who possesses them, least of all some American dudes who wrote the book to make a buck.
The Wikipedia article also says the Soviets stopped manned flights for a year and a half after this disaster. All three of the hypothetical flaws in the parachute system were preemptively addressed, the Soyuz was considerably re-designed to improve safety, and six additional unmanned flights were carried out to make sure shit like this never happens again.
To this day, only two of Soyuz capsules resulted in crew loss out of 142 launches, and Soyuz is considered the world's safest manned space platform, and also the only one that's operational at the moment.
To "embellish" a tragedy like this is extremely disrespectful and irresponsible. I lived in the Soviet union in 1986 and remember when Challenger blew up Russians reacted with shock and commiseration, not some bullshit "embellishment" that invents astronauts "cursing" as they plunge to their death.
The capsule doesn't even have radio during the stage of the descent, where it is claimed Komarov cursed everyone, especially if it's spinning, as Soyuz-1 was, and there was no recorder left after the hydrogen peroxide fire. From this I conclude that everything that's not supported by the Soviet archive documents is total made up bullshit.
http://russianspaceweb.com/soyuz1.html