Thank you for the reminder 🤣

At least the cosmonauts weren't expected to just walk home.

@@andrasbiro3007 not walk home, but maybe walk a bit, with Vostok? Since with Vostok they had to eject from their capsule during the reentry process and land by parachute ...

"To fight off bears" we all know it was in case of space madness

That’d be some AWESOME memorabilia to possess; a Soviet Cosmonaut™️ bear fighting kit.

Ooooh I love this idea!! Since Wally/Mercury 13 is involved, it technically is still Vintage enough for her channel!

I thought the same thing!

I second this motion.

@@JamesAustin , I third the motion!

Another vote for this!

Yes , amazing. 🕸️

Welcome to my parlour said the spider to the fly…

If only I was a spider...

You still managed to make that creepy.

@@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 bro what are these comments? Like why are people so creepy

And Thank You For Your Service!

God Bless the US NAVY ⚓️🇺🇸 my favorite branch.

The US Navy did the tasks, but many admirals eventually grew tired of doing it while dealing with numerous other Cold War issues and missions. The Soviet land recovery strategies and tactics seemed more in line with what real space flight should be.

1000 is pretty high by today's standards, too. In the 80s there was the famous build-up to the "600 ship Navy", and it's not close to that now.

@@RCAvhstape I remember that, my dad worked at the shipyard where the four battleships were brought out of mothballs at during that 600 ship buildup and he made a lot of overtime in the process.

@@JohnFourtyTwo The Iowa class are great ships.

@@RCAvhstape Yes they are.👍

"only"

Good point.

I feel like the reused srb stacks are one of the less-covered aspects of sts, at least on KZfaq. Takes comments like these to remind me it was a thing

Scott Carpenter: Cool under pressure. Humming Ricky Nelson tunes. Waiting for the USN. NASA: "You're fired."

Sure the B29 didn't have an unlimited budget also? It was the only thing in WW2 that had a higher pricetag than the Manhattan Project, it was the single most expensive project of the war.

That's the dream. We're decades away from that sort of scale at best, but that's the dream.

Coles is a book store in Canada - they sold the Coles Notes summary of novels. Heck, I thought Coles had gone under years ago...which tells you the last time I was in a bookstore.

The bulk wasn't warships. In another post someone explained that and listed the different types of non warships involved and how many of each.

FWIW: I noticed that as well.

Came for this

It's 15. From a NASA-focused "Fandom" wiki: "The Gemini 9A mission was supported by 11,301 personnel, 92 aircraft and 15 ships from the U.S. Department of Defense."

yep, who cares.

What has SpaceX done to make splashdowns and recoveries more efficient? Better navigation/guidance/electronics for the returning capsules? Better sensors, recovery ships, or techniques from surface operations, making it possible to forgo the need for a fleet?

@Bobb Grimley I realize that. I did actually watch the video, and am aware of the focus of this channel. But was curious since the other poster mentioned the recovery ships for SpaceX there. Just thought to ask in the case there was any information to be had on efficiencies today, in light of the resources laid out by Amy in her video. Frankly think such a comparison is a valid topic here, and not just some effort to promote one space launch company.

@Bobb Grimley Because they are doing splashdowns again. Maybe think of it this way, comparison of splashdowns today, vs what was done 60 to 46 years ago. Not sure why you are bothered by that. Its a legitimate question on a comparison, that makes space history relevant. Raising the topical in a historical discussion, that is relevant, is not exactly an over the top act.

@@michaeldunne338 the difference between SpaceX and the old Nasa missions is that now we completely understand what's happening. You can simulate a lot. And AFAIK the Dragon capsule is actively steering its way down, so that your landing position is extremely precise. Also SpaceX is using these boats not only for crew capsules but also for cargo capsules and fairing recovery. So they can use these ships for many different purposes. But also I guess that the Navy had been using that much ships because they had them. For the Navy it hadn't been additional costs if they had been on some dumb exercise or if they had been part in a spaceflight mission. So I guess that for Nasa it had been really easy just demanding several ships. And the Navy surely was happy to help out and practise some recovery stuff. It will be interesting to see what Nasa will use for the Artemis missions.

@Bobb Grimley Maybe because you didn't watch the entire video? Near the end Amy says in future tense: "With the return of splash downs we're going to see a return to water based support for space flight, so we'll have to wait and see if get the wild Mercury levels or the lower late Apollo numbers of ships on hand" .. I assume that she was referring to Orion here, but as a couple of Crew Dragon splash downs have already happened, which Amy should have mentioned for completeness, I think Joel's comment was very relevant and on topic here.

Weirdo

Please insert 6 Rubles for the next three minutes.

and he had to talk fast to prevent a rural farmer from shooting him as alien invader or western spy ;)

Crazy! I looked up the details, this was with Vostok-1 on April 12, 1961: Gagarin later recalled, "When they saw me in my space suit and the parachute dragging alongside as I walked, they started to back away in fear. I told them, don't be afraid, I am a Soviet citizen like you, who has descended from space and I must find a telephone to call Moscow!" He landed at 51.270682°N, 45.99727°E - at least it's not in the middle of a lake like Soyuz 23.

@@desmond-hawkins Surely the farmers could just have looked at the giant statue and monument that is at that spot and verified that Gagarin was an official space dude?

@@rlaxton666 How impressive is it that he *nailed* the landing so hard that he touched down exactly at this spot? All in a capsule without an engine running or control surfaces to direct it, it had to be done purely on timing from orbit. A testament of the superiority of Communist Russia, no doubt.

Yeah. I was waiting to see if she would show the tattoo at that moment. She’s gotten almost, but not quite, too classy.

MOCR HAS gotten lazy; now they can do the calculations on one of their 2 monitors in front of them. Slide rules force you to actually THINK 🤔.

The changes in design for the shuttle were so many that the initial idea of a safe, plane-like craft was lost. Recall that the failures of the shuttles were due to one of two factors: failure of solid rocket booster or the orbiter being hit by debris from the external tank insulation that was above the orbiter. Initial designs had the orbiter stacked above the lifting vehicle and the lifting vehicle did not use solid rocket boosters. The changes were due entirely to budget concerns. The Space X and Boeing designs are to save money and, frankly, to have everyone feel better about the safety issue. Note that Virgin uses the spaceplane design, admittedly for a suborbital flight, while Musk’s Starship uses an interesting ‘in between’ design of a heat shield, ‘bellyflop’, and powered landing. Personally, I think that the spaceplane and Starship designs will win out in the long run due to the fact that water landings, while cheap, do have recovery issues and do not allow for the best landing security. I noticed that Space X landings had quite a few pleasure craft surrounding the landing area as the splashdown area was kept close to shore to reduce the complexity of the recovery ships (read ‘cost’, again) and to avoid the dangers of the open ocean. However, there may never be a time we will see a ‘standard’ re-entry vehicle design.

For SpaceX that's just a temporary solution, Starship will land next to the launch pad and won't require much support. And the Space Shuttle wasn't a complete failure either. It was far more capable than a capsule and it's problems were mostly due to the implementation, not the idea.

@@andrasbiro3007 Starship is not going to replace Crew Dragon for flights to/from the ISS.

@@Gerard1971 It will, simply because it's going to be vastly cheaper. And not long after that it will be used to build a new space station. It would be stupid not to.

It's a really cool design. I heard that there is even this one space geek who had it tattoo'd to their arm! Imagine that!

Of course. I remember a cover of "Popular Science" magazine showing a Gemini capsule gliding to a landing on skids under the Rogallo wing.

@@christophermarsh6983 space geeks rule! Congrats to who ever had that tattooed on their arm!