You’ve got it backwards. The SLAM was an ultimatum tool: recant or we drop 'em, and look, the warheads are right here above your head, imagine that… he radioactive fallout was one of the drawbacks, in that you could completely destroy a country, even while issuing said ultimatum.
Yeah, but Soviet technology isn’t exactly up to US standards, so the crash of a Soviet satellite and the loss of US gear, aren’t comparable. Don’t forget that NASA had to quickly dump the LM from Apollo 13 into the Marianas Trench, when the mission went wrong. While it was something that they’d planned for, in the event of an emergency, the circumstances of when it happened, were nothing like anyone had imagined (the multiple failures on Apollo 13 had been considered “unsurvivable” prior to the actual incident).
I wouldn’t say it’s erroneous at all. Clearly, the etymolgy of ‘hydro’ is from ‘hydroelectric’, as you described. But the way I hear it from the linguists, the use of the word ‘hydro’ to mean ‘distributed electric power’ is a feature of Canadian English. I would argue that the usage is not ‘because’ of an erroneous assumption that most electricity is supplied by hydroelectric stations, but because the word has simply evolved to take on an expanded meaning. The usage is pretty clear, to me; even the people who would know better use ‘hydro’ in an official capacity. Ontario, for example, has a public utitlity (looking at your locationg tag, I guess you already know this) called “Hydro One”, which generates no hydroelectricity at all – it operates a distribution grid fed by power stations operated by others. (And most of the power suppplied to Hydro One’s grid isn’t hydroelectric.) There a plenty of other examples of utilities so named, and usage by individuals leans the same way: ‘hydro’, in Canadian usage, can mean ‘distributed electric power’, whether it comes from a station like R H Saunders or a station like Pickering.
Agreed that its imprecise, but it’s rather like me saying I’ll be in Toronto for the weekend, when really, I’ll be in Etobicoke. I think it’s valid to use it the way I did. You’re right though, that nuclear plants and hydroelectric dams are usually separate. The only Canadian example I can think of of the two being co-located is OPG’s Des Joachims dam and the now-disused NPD reactor on the Ottawa river – they were very close to each other, and just a few kilometres downstream of AECL’s Chalk River plant.
Another nitpick: I’m not sure it’s valid to say that “out west” is where the power mix is heavily hydroelectric. As far as I know, it’s Quebec that’s the big hydroelectric producer – the La Grande project alone produces almost 10 GW of power, more, I believe, than all the hydroelectric capacity in Ontario.
THAT’S the one! That’s exactly the one! Thanks Lumpy!
Tripler
Now, about them Soviets. . .
That’s a strange statement considering the US has lost 14 astronauts in two accidents, one of them just two years ago. (Not counting accidents during training.) The Russians have only lost four cosmonauts in two accidents, and none in the last 30+ years.
But just once…
I see. This stuff is safe, except for when the Soviets cock-up.
[quote]
"Soon after the satellite’s crash, there was a call from the United States to prohibit satellites containing radioactive material from orbiting the earth. This was followed by similar calls from Canada and countries in Europe. In November 1978, the United Nations authorised its Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to set up a working group to study nuclear-powered satellites. "**
If our systems where so safe, why were we calling for prohibiting nuclear-powered satellites? I presume we were not exempt from this.
I’ll admit that most of my knowledge of Apollo 13 is from the movie, but didn’t they essentially live in the LEM until they got back to earth? According to the movie, without it, they would never have made it back alive. Don’t tell me that Hollywood is playing hard and loose with the facts!!
wow…Now that’s what I call bad coding!
Yeah, but their craft only hold 2 or 3 people (depending upon size), whereas ours hold 7 at a time, a more accurate comparison is how many craft were lost, and why. And also one needs to compare all the gear produced by both the US and USSR to have an accurate understanding of who makes the best stuff. After all, I’ve never heard anyone praising Soviet built tanks for comfort and reliability (but US built tanks certainly get that kind of praise).
Well, that site makes no mention of who it was in America calling for that, and in addition, nuclear power isn’t needed in Earth orbit for things like sats, since they get ample sunlight to use solar cells to power their systems. When you get to missions to the outer planets, though, you need nuclear power because there’s not enough sunlight for the things, and it helps keep the electronics from hitting near absolute zero temps and conking out on you.
The films’s accurate, but the part of the LM they had to dump in the trench would have remained on the Moon, had the mission been successful. It was when they were coming back to Earth, that they had to do manouver’s and dump the LM. Again, while they had figured out that they might have to do this at somepoint, when they were doing the original calculations, they never thought they’d have to do it with such a badly damaged spacecraft, because they always figured that the kind of damage Apollo 13 suffered would be fatal to the crew. Thankfully, it wasn’t.
Fair enough. Wikipedia lists 92 Soyuz flights and 112 Shuttle flights. Each program had two fatal accidents. Statistically the numbers favor the Shuttle, but fatal Soyuz accidents were 1st and 11th flights, suggesting design problems which have since been ironed out.
Moot point. I’ve never heard a foreigner praising American automobiles for quality and reliability, but that says nothing about the capabilities of the American aerospace industry. (And in fact, Japanese launchers don’t have a particularly good track record.)
Okay, I’ll cop to standard usage in Canadian english (irritating to me still). By out west I meant in places like BC where 100% of our power is via hydroelectric facilities (just look at the terrain out there). I’m aware that most of the Canadian power supply is hydroelectric both west and east, but there is still a substantial dependance on Nuclear and Thermal (fossil fuel burning) generating plants in Ontario, as you note. It is an interesting point that the distribution company is named Hydro One, but the primary energy producer in Ontario is [url=http://www.opg.com/about/overview.asp]Ontario Power Generation[/ul], no mention of hydro.
At this point I’ll stop my hijack, it probably is more MPSIMS material at any rate.
-DF
scr4, I had a nice answer all composed for you, but for some damned reason the board keeps eating it, so I’m going to have to do a weird cobble together response and see if that works.
Don’t forget that the Soyuz design is much older and has been used much more often that the shuttle has, so they’ve had ample time to work the kinks out of the design. Not to mention we’re only talking fatal accidents here, and not glitches which have either caused problems or caused missions to be scrubbed. Also the Soviets tended to run on much narrower safety margins than the US during the Cold War, so something US crews might have seen as a hazard forcing the mission to be delayed/scrubbed/whatever would have probably be met with a “Shut up! Do you want to live in Siberia?” response.
Actually, not, if you stop and think about it. If a society is incapable building reliable gear in any area (which the Soviets really weren’t), then it’s highly unlikely that they’ll be able to pull off building decent gear in other areas. Soviet era nuke subs were no prize, and the early models tended to leak radiation rather badly. Soviet launch technology (and Russian to this day) apparently is so bad, that villages support themselves off the debris from failed launches. I’ve not heard of anything similar to that in US circles. As for the Japanese launchers having problems, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of that didn’t have to with JASA (I think that’s what their version of NASA’s called) is the red-headed step-child of their government programs, so they’re having to try and run a program on almost no money.
This thread has reminded me of some crappy SF novel from my distant youth where a Swedish submarine got turned into a spaceship with the addition of a can of Miracle Drive. Doubtless some other Dopers know of it too.
There’s an issue with the hatches - they’re designed to keep high pressure out. The seals would have to work both ways if you want to make your own “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea” Flying Sub.
Actually, the junk which those villages make a living off are from successfull launches, not failed ones. Multistages rockets drop large pieces downrange of the launch site. The USA launches rockets from Florida, and the spent stages land in the ocean and sink. Russia launches rockets overland, and the spent stages crash down in the wilderness and are quickly scavanged for scrap.
Yup. You’re right. I misremembered the contents of the article, and didn’t bother to reread it before I posted the link. My bad.
Still, from the comments in this thread, it seems that while the rocket group in the linked article can achieve a 98% success rate, other parts of the Russian military aren’t so capable.
You mean either JAXA, ISAS or NASDA. And lack of funds may be one of the problems. But that’s my point: if a particular nation can’t produce top quality items in one category, it’s not always because that’s the limit of that nation’s technological capability.
Also I don’t see how track record of NPO Lavochkin (the agency that launched Cosmos-1) tells us anything about the capabilities of Russia’s other agencies (e.g. NPO Energia who launches the Soyuz).
There was also a nuclear powered bomber program in the 50’s; the X-6.
Two engines were actually built (pix in link). You can see them now outside the Experimental Breeder Reactor-1 building at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.