- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
The unmanned craft was due to make a soft landing on the Moon’s south pole, but failed after encountering problems as it moved into its pre-landing orbit.
It was Russia’s first Moon mission in almost 50 years.
Russia has been racing to the Moon’s south pole against India, whose Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft is scheduled to land on there next week.
No country has ever landed on the south pole before, although both the US and China have landed softly on the Moon’s surface.
No report on whether or not Russia was attempting to use repurposed anti-ship missiles like the ones they use to attack schools and hospitals here on Earth.
You must log in or register to comment.
No report on whether or not Russia was attempting to use repurposed anti-ship missiles like the ones they use to attack schools and hospitals here on Earth.
Yeah, Russia should be like heckin’ wholesome NASA and their peaceful apolitical former SS officers who never bombed any hospitals or schools instead.
Ah yea. Who can forget the US operation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim
The US created the first liquid propulsion rocket. While Stalin, oh, imprisoned their scientists in the gulag.
Plenty of SS officers and other Nazis went to Russia to make the R-1 clone of the V2. Which, btw, had a failure rate higher than the US clone.
Ahh yes, bringing German scientists and technical staff to the USSR to learn from them and then repatriating them back to the GDR 5 years later is exactly the same as putting an SS Sturmbanfuhrer who was personally in command of a facility where slave labor was worked to death into leading roles in your space program into the 1970s.
Let’s also just conveniently ignore the fact that the R-2 rocket was developed by Korolev’s team in direct competition with the G-1 rocket developed by a German team working in the USSR. The USSR chose the R-2 over the G-1 specifically because it didn’t want the Soviet space program being led by Germans and by 1950 had repatriated most of the German specialists.
After 1950 the Soviet program was largely indigenous, led by Korolev and other Soviet citizens. All of the major achievements of the Soviet program were led by Soviet citizens, scientists and workers.
Remember that time Americans and West Europeans thought it a good idea to put a literal German Nazi general as head of NATO? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger lol fun times
“We choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy but because it
is hardgives us an excuse to put Nazis in leadership positions.”
Of course the BBC has to throw in that bit of kkkracker cope at the end. Nevermind how challenging a south pole landing would be relative to elsewhere on the moon.
:bathroom:
Well, hopefully India has more success.
Whatever scientific data humanity would gain from such a success is in no way worth the decade of triumphant screeching from Hindu nationalists that would result.
Just bring up China’s Chang’e success
Tbh the only way to win an interaction with a Hindu nationalists is to not interact.
“This is all the West’s fault!”
This but unironically. In general though, there is nothing more galling than liberals complaining about Russia. You made it this way. This is on you. First you destroy the soviet union, then you reconfigure the politics and economy of Russia, and then you have the audacity to complain about the very thing you caused.
“You made me do this” is literal abuser logic.
Don’t compare committing a violent coup against them with not having dinner ready you cynical piece of shit
The soviet union destroyed itself because it was an unstable pile of dogshit.
Most thoughtful liberal political analysis.
Man, we needed you decades ago. Imagine how much money we could have saved on thr cold war. All that threatening to destroy the planet for nothing. The genocides we did? Judt big oopsies
Ah yes, well known liberal checks notes George Bush.
Russia cannibalised itself after the Soviet Union fell, didn’t need any Western help there.
Political Liberal not “social liberal”
Bush was a capital L Liberal Capitalist
You mean economic liberal? Bush was far from politically liberal.
In the sense of “liberal” as used in political philosophy or how the word is applied to party names in most countries around the world, yes Bush was a liberal. Americans tend to use the word differently though, since both major US parties are pro-business liberal parties, of a sort. This maybe applies a bit less to the Republicans today than in did in GHW Bush’s day, although by how much is still up for debate.
