EDITORIAL: Putin in Space

EDITORIAL

Putin in Space

Just as there are any number of ignorant Russians who, hilariously, believe their country really only leased Alaska to the United States, there are many who will insist that the Americans never landed a man on the moon (not even once, much less multiple times). Apparently Americans are not clever enough to do so — but more than clever enough to fool the rest of the world into thinking that they did!

Such ignorance, such laughable stupidity, and such mind-boggling contradictions are what emerge from decades of crazed, feverish neo-Soviet propaganda.  Even watching the Soviet system destroyed was not sufficient to convince hapless Russians to reject it.  So right after it fell, the rushed to put the KGB right back in power, in the person of Vladimir Putin — doing so because a man they claimed to hate, Boris Yeltsin, told them to.

The latest instance of Russian brain fever has the population believing that even though Russia, admittedly, has never even once landed a man on the moon, it will build a station and start permanently living there by 2030.

We would find Russian belief in such a notion hilarious were it not for the dire consquences it suggests for the country and its future.

In this issue, our lead editorial documents the appalling poverty faced by ordinary Russians every day of their lives.  Time and again, we’ve shown how the Russian economy is failing and all the basic indicators of national progress prove that Russia is on the verge of collapse.  It doesn’t even rank in the top 130 nations of the world for life expectancy.

Yet Russians somehow think they have billions of dollars to gamble on a ludicrous effort to live on the moon. Even if they somehow managed to do it, how could they possibly reap sufficient benefits to justify the horrific expense involved?

They could not. But Russia, because of its general ineptitude and its pandemic corruption,  is no more capable of actually realizing a project like this that it appears to be of breaking with its failed Soviet past and building a new, hope-filled future.  Likely, Russia will soon abandon the whole idea the way many small children abandon the idea of growing up to astronauts, and we will hear no more of it. The alternative is grim indeed: Russia will press forward and humiliate itself once again before a slack-jawed world, at the cost of many human lives and endless amounts of capital Russia cannot afford to lose.

About these ads

18 responses to “EDITORIAL: Putin in Space

  1. From 2005 :)

    http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/news-according-russia.php

    “Russia flies to Mars in 2014, USA’s Martian mission slated for 2030

    Russia will fly to Mars in 2014, whereas the USA will do it after 2030. The countdown has already started. Technological opportunities of the two countries are more or less identical, but the USA has a significant advantage – money. Russia in its turn has a vital need to take the scientific industry out of stagnation and retrieve the image of a leading technological superpower in the world.”

    The good news? Russia is sending a manned mission to Mars in 2014. The bad news? Russia is sending a rocket full of corpses to Mars in 2014. The real news? Russia will be talking about their Mars mission infrequently and then just stop mentioning it altogether around 2013. Besides, why do they need to go to Mars when they’ve already been to Mars?

  2. I heard on the communist grapevine that they will also be sending a rocket full of corpses to the sun.

    All sane people know this is impossible as the sun’s heat will vaporize the rocket and its contents, but Putin and his lackeys have solved this ‘trivial’ problem by sending the rocket and its contents in the cool of the night.

    Wow, am I mesmerizes by this “will be brilliant” soviet era ‘ploy’. Just cannot wait for these lucky cosmonauts to relate their experiences once they return! I just hope that the sun cools off enough by midnight for these heroes of the “Union of Putin’s Soviet Socialist Russias” to achieve their historic event.

  3. Instead of bashing Russia for its Space ambitions, you guys should root for it. After all, Russia is the only country in the World that has the technology to safely send man into space in a shuttle and return him to Earth alive. The second best power – the USA – has been relying on Russian shuttles to take American astronauts into space.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

    The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster occurred on February 1, 2003, when the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas during re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere, with the loss of all seven crew members

    Space Shuttle flight operations were delayed for two years by the disaster, similar to the Challenger disaster. For 29 months the station relied entirely on the Russian Federal Space Agency for resupply and crew rotation

    ————————

    http://www.space-travel.com/reports/The_US_Has_No_Option_But_To_Use_Russia_Soyuz_Craft_999.html

    The US Has No Option But To Use Russia’s Soyuz Craft

    After 2010, the United States will likely be unable to deliver its astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) on its own. For several years Russia’s Soyuz craft will remain the only vehicle available to do that, and the U.S. may find it hard to do without Russian cooperation.

    The American concern has not a leg to stand on: Russia has always been noted for the scrupulous observance of its commitments. It never broke them even during the Cold War.

    If worst comes to worst, Russia and the European Space Agency could together run the ISS without American participation. Aside from Russia’s facilities for transporting astronauts and supplies to the station, the European Automated Transfer Vehicle – Advanced Return Vehicle (ATV-ARV) system could chip in. Russia and the ESA are also working jointly on a manned transport system expected to be developed by 2015.

    According to Vladimir Solovyov, flight director for the Russian segment, ISS systems are already capable of supporting a six-member crew, and in the future with new Russian modules, of bringing it to 10-member strength.

    ————————

    • Well said, comrade!

    • Hmm, actually Russia has had far more deaths in its space program than the US, and they never launched a shuttle (by definition a reusable launch and recovery vehicle).

      In addition there have been a huge number of near misses with the Soyuz system which don’t really get the coverage they should due to the closed nature of the Russian propaganda system and state.

      Given the fact that each Russian rocket is used once, and each shuttle had to be used multiple times, which is the greater technical achievement?

    • ostap, USA is light years ahead of russia in the space program, this new path in the conquer of space will be taken by USA ALONE. Russia simply doesn’t count any more ….But I admit, I have a great admiration to that little doggie, Laika, the true conqueror of the space…..

    • @ After all, Russia is the only country in the World that has the technology to safely send man into space in a shuttle and return him to Earth alive.

      Oh, comrade. Let’s see:

      US shuttle missions: 133 (and 134th coming on April 29).

      Soviet/Russian shuttle missions: 1 (unmanned, in 1988).

      And the only Russian shuttle was destroyed on the ground (!!) when its hangar collapsed (!!!) in 2002 (8 people died).

      After all, Russia is the only country in the World that has the technology to not only NOT safely send man (Homo Sovieticus) into space in a shuttle but to actually kill him back on Earth, when the said shuttle is destroyed despite not being even used.

    • Also, Russian shuttle aside (used once, killed 8, pretty bad ratio I guess), i’ve got a short film for you – the cosmonaut-industry definition of “safety”:

      http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/8/The-Nedelin-Rocket-Disaster-564144

      Only in this one incident many more people were killed than in all of the American space disasters altogether. Among the dead (probably well over 100) was even Marshal Nedelin, chief of the Soviet Strategic Forces.

      • So, why have the Americans chosen to use Russian shuttles instead of American ones for safety reasons?

        • “Ostab Bender”, aka Total Idiot:

          They don’t “use Russian shuttles”, first of all because THERE ARE NO RUSSIAN SHUTTLES.

          USSR/Russia had only ever just 1 space shuttle. Its name was Buran, it was used only once in its entire “career” (!) before it was destroyed when its hangar collapsed (!!!) killing 8 people in 2002 .

          I already told you, maybe you should learn to read.

          Please tell me: are you really that stupid? If an average Russian is that stupid, its no wonder what happened to their shuttle proogram.

  4. Alaska, really was only leased to America. However, in 1918, with the constituent assembly dissolved the US signed a document which annexed Alaska by rendering all former agreements with the Russian empire void.

    SPACE: The plan is to build a rover base on Mars, not actively live there. Correct yourself.

    • You are GODDAMNED LIAR. READ THE DOCUMENTS FOR YOURSELF, you illiterate freak:

      http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=572

      It is says “CEDED.” That means SOLD FOREVER, it’s a legal word, you moron. You’ve just proven our point!!

      • I genuinely apologize, I was mistaken. But not knowing extensive legal linguistics does not signify illiteracy. Anyway, Alaska has little to do with the matter at hand.

      • It looks like you are not a lawyer either… VA also ceded its territory to create DC, but then there was retrocession. The term itself does not imply anything necessarily irreversible. It does mean voluntary surrender of territory, in the Alaska case, for a consideration.

        • The act of Cession, or to cede, is the assignment of property to another entity. In international law it commonly refers to land transferred by treaty. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines cession as “a surrender; a yielding; a giving up. In contrast with annexation, where property is forcibly given up, cession is voluntary or at least apparently so.

  5. http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/04983/EGU2008-A-04983.pdf

    http://www.detnews.com/article/20110407/NATION/104070376/1020/nation/Russia-picks-up-pace-on-Mars–moon-missions

    I think, comrades, that you’re a bit confused. There’s no plan to build a manned base but rather a plan to build a base which would allow a manned landing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s