Why do people always do cannonballs into pools, lakes, and oceans, and never from windows and overpasses into the concrete?
Wake up sheeple
Submitted 1 day ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to [deleted]
https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/8ca5ae2e-7d4a-469e-8f45-01160c0a6daa.jpeg
Comments
MithranArkanere@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
FreeAZ@sopuli.xyz 8 hours ago
I mean, people do that occasionally, but for completely different reasons.
Nomorereddit@lemmy.today 1 hour ago
Uhuh, tell that to the cosmanauts.
smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Water big. Easy hit.
waterSticksToMyBalls@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
The nasa broadcaster called it a perfect bullseye landing about 5 times. A perfect bullseye, hit em right in the Pacific ocean.
mkwt@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
They later said it was less than 1 mile away from the target spot.
A big benefit of the ocean is if the capsule loses all attitude control, it can still reenter and survive. But it will be a “ballistic reentry”, much more punishing with the g forces, and also about 1500 miles short of the target zone.
The Pacific Ocean makes it easy to ensure that those backup contingency landing sites are also safe landing sites.
felsiq@piefed.zip 23 hours ago
I mean they generally do aim for a specific spot so the ships can be nearby to pick it up, so even aiming for the ocean a perfect bullseye is a valid thing to say lol
jared@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Bullseye
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Bonus: You pee into the water and the fish have to just be there. Because fuck fish.
PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Just show this dumbass how landings happen for Russians on land. There’s a reason why no one does it multiple times.
SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Flat earth-ism started as very elaborate satirical performance art. Now thanks to 50 years of Republicans cheapening public education, a plurality of Americans actually believe this shit and want it taught in the schools.
zikzak025@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
I have had the displeasure of knowing several people like this. In the post-truth landscape we find ourselves, there are really people out there who will call your denial of their alternative facts “unscientific” because they think that science is just about questioning everything, and they know their perspective is the right one.
Therefore, when their high school science teacher (who obviously hated them in particular for their good Christian beliefs) insists on ideas like the Earth being round, or the existence of climate change or—heavens forbid—evolution, she’s obviously just trying to brainwash her students to believe her liberal agenda.
Octagon9561@lemmy.ml 6 hours ago
To be fair the Soviet cosmonauts did land in the Kazakh steppe. I mean sure the landings were probably hard but they didn’t die.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 4 minutes ago
Well, the Russians had a sea, but they emptied it. So land it is.
horn_e4_beaver@discuss.tchncs.de 5 hours ago
This was because they had rockets that fired precipitously close to the ground which cushioned the landing to something like 20 mph IIRC. If those rockets failed for any reason there would be a very big splat.
Treczoks@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
In Russia, people have always been expendable.
eyes@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
They did have to give them a special gun so they weren’t killed by bears though.
1dalm@lemmy.today 10 hours ago
Several capsules are designed to effectively and safely land on land.
quips@slrpnk.net 10 hours ago
Including the soyuz which to this day routinely lands on land
Spezi@feddit.org 10 hours ago
But the landing needs active thrusters to soften the blow. This introduces more complexity and also adds more danger as there needs to be extra fuel on board.
rumba@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
And the space shuttle which did it for decades
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
Water is as hard as concrete from a large height.
They splash down in water because there is less chance of hitting something.
ptu@sopuli.xyz 10 hours ago
Due to its low density and viscosity, water cushions the spacecraft enough that there is no need for a braking rocket to slow the final descent
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
You are talking about surface tension. The importance parameter is speed not height and “like concrete” is a drastic simplification as both behave very differently on impact.
Notably whereas high divers have reached speeds of 60 mph the Artemis II splashed down at around 1/4 that speed a speed you too can obtain by jumping from about 10 feet up.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 day ago
What the fuck is the first person insinuating? What would always landing in the water “prove”??
Diddlydee@feddit.uk 1 day ago
I think she’s saying ‘pay attention’ because she is used to people drifting off mid-sentence
generallynonsensical@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Baahahaha…thank you. I needed that today.
Carmakazi@piefed.social 1 day ago
You can’t easily go out to see a splashdown in the middle of the ocean, therefore space travel is fake.
bountygiver@lemmy.ml 23 hours ago
Except for all the private boats parked right outside of the restricted area watching with binoculars.
aski3252@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
They say Arthemis landed on EARTH, but it actually landed on WATER (no earth far and wide). If they lie about something so obvious, what else are they lying about??
Signtist@bookwyr.me 22 hours ago
She probably assumes the landing location is entirely random, which is ridiculous to anyone who has even the slightest understanding of the amount of planning needed for space travel, but those people and the people who believe space travel is fake are not the same people.
HeroicBillyBishop@lemmy.ca 12 hours ago
…ok, but what is the post getting at?
Like what conspiracy is this supporting?
That they are more easily faked on water?
hansolo@lemmy.today 12 hours ago
Yes, because the area gets a no-fly zone and navy ships go to get the capsule, it makes it “easy” to fake because the government controls the situation. Yes, this ignores a lot of other independently verifiable data, because that doesn’t confirm biases. Yes, it ignores all the Soyuz landings over land. Yes, it ignores the facts that the Soviets and Russians do and did the same thing, as if a highly-planned re-entry might just happen in anyone’s rye field. Yes, it’s stupid. Yes, it’s on purpose.
GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca 7 hours ago
gagarin just parachuted out of a plane and told that farmer he went to space
SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Why would that be any different over land? Wouldn’t they land in government-controlled land? The conspiracy isn’t unique to water… or am I missing something?
NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
I though “woke” was the term that implied people being asleep, or are they use them interchangeably now?
wieson@feddit.org 17 hours ago
Woke means you’re awake to the injustices in society
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Yup. Being woke means you care about others around you. Which the right undeniably hates.
Grass@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
wasn’t woke used as a slang for denoting good things in the past?
ugjka@lemmy.ugjka.net 10 hours ago
It started in afro communities and “woke” meant they were socially conscious and aware of racial injustice and systemic oppression
nexguy@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Water = inside blood Land = outside blood
angband@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
So does a low iq mean if you notice something, anything, you think it is clever, like a little child?
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
They never land back on land? Really? Tell that to Russia, they always land the Soyuz back on land.
starman2112@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
I spent so much time playing Kerbal Space Program in the early days that my asshole still puckers when I see a return vehicle heading toward the water
theblurstoftimes@leminal.space 21 hours ago
Just launch these fuckers into space. I’m fine with not shooting trash at the sun because it’s too expensive but we should let make an exception for people like this. If they’re so smart I’m sure they’ll figure out a way back.
Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 21 hours ago
Seems a bit harsh, and I agree!
TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
What… are they even trying to imply?
ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 1 day ago
The ocean is flat
Mirshe@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
This mission especially brought the “space travel is fake” crowd out. The rocket launch explodes over a deserted area, nobody’s onboard, all the missions are faked, and the splashdowns are in restricted waters to sell the simulation.
Usually this is on top of “well you can’t survive the Van Allen radiation belts”, as if radiation safety and shielding is not a problem we understood and solved before we even lit off Mercury.
Ultimate reasoning for it is either a vague notion of “control”, bread and circuses, or “they do this to defy God”, because space isn’t real and the Firmament lies above the sky.
OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Why does EVERY rocket have thrusters… PAY ATTENTION…
expatriado@lemmy.world 1 day ago
she’s got a good point, should we called waterers not landers
David_Eight@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Except for every time they used the Space Shuttle lol
ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Space shuttle says hold my beer I got this
bitjunkie@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
The shuttles landed on runways…
melsaskca@lemmy.ca 11 hours ago
I like how conspiracy theories are now slightly sarcastic, signifying the underlying bullshit underneath.
Gork@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
boing boing
I would add a spring emoji but the UNICODE Consortium has not deemed it important enough to include one in the character set.
crank0271@lemmy.world 1 day ago
But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
What I found funny is them getting plucked out by helicopter, why didn’t they drive a boat out there?
melfie@lemmy.zip 11 hours ago
But SLS uses Space Shuttle engines and that landed in a runway.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
This doesn’t add up.
If I jump off a sufficiently high bridge into water I get crushed? What’s the velocity of the capsule?
heartpunk25@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Actually, they need to check in with the wizard mermaids in Atlantis that made the whole thing possible.
Egonallanon@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Odd thing is there are landers that have come down in land, Soyuz in particular comes to mind and there might even be some US have some examples in the past also.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 23 hours ago
Can confirm, I get way more booms on land than in water in Kerbal Space Program
UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 1 day ago
Russian capsules have returned to land since their very first launches.
The decision has more to do with geopolitics than physics. Russia does not have a robust Navy with access to equatorial waters on which to land a spacecraft, the US does. Given the historical accuracy of landing a capsule it is actually a hell of a lot easier to drive a big ship to the eventual location than it is to drive a big truck into the middle of a desert. The reason western nations return capsules to the sea is because its easier to recover them there.
Both approaches have technical challenges. Returning to land requires a slower landing speed (although as a percentage of the starting velocity of a spacecraft its a pretty insignificant difference) and landing on the sea requires the carrying of flotation devices and designing a capsule with buoyancy in mind.
In other words this post is completely inaccurate.
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
For a while (maybe still) Russian rockets even had a shotgun on board after wolves got to a landing first.
mkwt@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
It was a three-barreled gun that fired shotgun shells, rifle rounds, and rescue flares. 10 rounds of each type of ammunition were supplied. The stock could be detached and used as a machete.
For a while, these guns were on every Soyuz capsule that docked with ISS, and they were under the operational control of the Soyuz commander. I’ve read that they may have been retired in 2007 because Russia finally ran out of the very unique ammo.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Did the cosmonauts fend off the wolves, or did they just stick the wolves in their suits and pretend that they were on the mission the whole time?
mkwt@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
The Russian system has a braking rocket that fires at the very last second to soften up the landing. On one early Soyuz mission, this rocket didn’t fire, and the solo cosmonaut suffered substantial injuries from the landing.
The Orion capsule hits the water at the final parachute speed of 20-30 mph without injuring the crew. But as you state, they also have to design the capsule for flotation and egress in potentially rough sea state.
Boeing Starliner is designed for a land landing, but it uses deployable air bags instead of a braking rocket. It’s not clear that Starliner will ever fly again after the RCS thruster problems.
Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 21 hours ago
It’s such a weird flip of philosophy given we’ve all heard the classic story of the US spending millions on developing pens that write in space while the Soviet Union just issues pencils.
Choosing a retroburst system over trusty parachutes is wack.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
I’m upset that you didn’t mention Cosmonauts are equiped with an on board shotgun to fend off bears.
Agent641@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Moon bears?
Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip 21 hours ago
Low key, we gotta pack some shotties in ours. Space race to the death!
Ariselas@piefed.ca 1 day ago
I listened to Chris Hadfield describe coming home in a Soyuz capsul and it rolling a few times after hitting the ground. Land works but water sounds more comfortable, as long as you don’t get sea sick on top of it all.
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Water isn’t like in the video games. It’s still a hard landing that you wouldn’t survive if you were going too fast. There’s just much more margin for error trying to hit the ocean vs. a plot of land.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works 20 hours ago
When they were covering the Artemis landing, they mentioned that just returning to earth from weightlessness makes them pretty nauseous, so they get motion sickness meds before landing anyway. Ibuprofen or anti inflammatory meds too, since 1 G is hard on joints after a few days without it.
mimavox@piefed.social 15 hours ago
Imagine surviving a whole ass moon flight just to perish at sea because no one comes to get you..
notoftenthat@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
They had only imagined the moon flight…
The space race has a lot of “learning by doing” with some pretty icky lessons learned along the way.
Ref
bluesheep@sh.itjust.works 22 hours ago
Does landing on the sea really require that much more braking when compared to land? Sure water has some give but I’ve always understood that, from a large enough hight, due to surface tension landing on water is the same as landing on concrete. But I ain’t no physicist and by no means of the imagination a rocket scientist so I might as well be very wrong here lmao
turmacar@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
One of the advantages of water is even if your target area is measured in square miles it’s all roughly at sea level. If you miss your target area on land you have to account for that and trees and wildlife and hopefully not buildings.
Like the above said, you can do either, it’s kind of a wash. But a water based landing does simplify some things.
tarsisurdi@lemmy.eco.br 1 day ago
another thing that’s also not considered here is the fact that astronauts parachute out of the capsule before impact
paranoid@lemmy.world 1 day ago
… What?
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 day ago
False. They teleport.
teslekova@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
No no no. They dive, so as to hit the water with the least surface area.
tortina_original@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Nonsense.
They have ejection seats.
brownsugga@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
yes the post may be inaccurate but i doubt the dumbass they were responding to could have even read HALF of your comment