On one hand, landing a spacecraft remotely is hard at the best of times. On the other hand, going by what we’ve seen of the state of the Russian military, I’d put money on someone involved in the project having replaced some expensive components/materials with junk, pocketed the saving and put it into real estate abroad. Spacecraft blow up all the time, out in space nothing can be proven, and if you don’t, someone else will.
“The apparatus moved into an unpredictable orbit and ceased to exist as a result of a collision with the surface of the Moon,” read a statement from the agency.
ffs that’s a really wordy way of saying “it crashed.”
“ceased to exist” - No, it still exists, just in more pieces than when it left the earth, and in a much larger area than originally intended. Still exists, though.
Although Russia can go kick rocks and gargle some deseased old mans balls for invading Ukraine, it still sucks that they crashed the lander. On the other hand, I kinda hope for some sort of new space race where hopefully something good comes around, not just the old nukes-in-space shit…
On one hand it’s sad that so much time and effort has been destroyed. That the hopes and pride of so many well-meaning Russian scientists has been dashed. That the science lost.
On the other hand, Russia launched this thing during their invasion of, and war against, tbe Ukraine in order to demonstrate that they’re big enough and smart enough to do two things at once. To claw back some of the respect that has been lost by not having taken the Ukraine in three days…
I heard the word ukraine used to mean like wastelands or swamplands or something like that. And all the Russians would call it that as an insult when it wasn’t an independent nation yet. So when they did become one, the kept the name but dropped the the. So, Ukraine is a prideful name for a strong country. The Ukraine is an insult.
So because you’re right, I’m not allowed to be right at all? I never said my reason was the sole reason. I brought up a single point, and your article backed me up.
You may be more right, but I’m not wrong
Edit:When Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, it was referred to as “the Ukraine” because it was a region in a larger country, according to linguists and historians. It would be the equivalent of saying “the Northeast” or “the Rockies” in the United States, said Michael Flier, a professor of Ukrainian philology at Harvard University.
Russians used the construction “na Ukraine,” roughly “in the Ukraine,” while it was part of the Soviet Union, he said.
Read your source my dude
Edit: the man changed his comment so now it looks like I’m arguing the same thing with him.
So because you’re right, I’m not allowed to be right at all? I never said my reason was the sole reason. I brought up a single point, and your article backed me up.
You may be more right, but I’m not wrong
Edit:When Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, it was referred to as “the Ukraine” because it was a region in a larger country, according to linguists and historians. It would be the equivalent of saying “the Northeast” or “the Rockies” in the United States, said Michael Flier, a professor of Ukrainian philology at Harvard University.
Russians used the construction “na Ukraine,” roughly “in the Ukraine,” while it was part of the Soviet Union, he said.
Add comment