Comments by "Kora Na" (@korana6308) on "The Space Race" channel.

6:40 as a linguist and etymologist, I would just like to add my 5 cents to this... Sputnik = s - put' - nik. The main word is "put'" , which in English took it's form in "path". Russian "put'" and English "path'" is of the same origin. "S" just means "with" or more precisely " co - " (like co host). And "nik" is just a case sensitive ending. So, Sputnik = co path entity (follower).
100
Something tells me that the Chinese will land first...
17
Good point however you are thinking too far into the mission. The main question arises much earlier... First they need a reliable Starship rocket, which they don't have at the moment (and it's not even designed for the Moon yet)... but more importantly, we need a proof of the concept that you can refill a rocket reliably 20 times in the orbit... That question arises way earlier before any of the Moon landing can even commence. Can they overcome this hurdle?
8
@THX..1138 are you trying to say that it's not possible or something? honestly it's hard for me to say because western people are so deluded on the western propaganda like this video as well.
7
They didn't restructure the core part of the program, they've pretty much just delayed it. For it to work, they would actually have to restructure it.
6
You are partially correct. Reworking a mission from it's current state could make it plausible and successful. However you are missing a key crucial part. The reworking process takes time and money... Which the US probably doesn't have at this point. And would probably delay the program by 10 years... whilst Russia and China would already be landing on the moon. Though, but to be honest, I think they would eventually have to restructure their program anyway... I believe that the US (and it's allies) is capable of landing on the moon, however not with the current Artemis program... I'm sorry, but I just don't see it working.
5
@Russian_Mike I meant entity of a follower not a follower itself. "Fellow traveler" is a more definitive and narrow term, doesn't fit a broader definition that it implies, that I've originally provided. posledovatel' = po - sled' - ovat' - el. po - pile up / over/ onto. sled = related to the English word to "lay" , sled = layed down footprint. [ovat'] - establishing an action / verb. [el'] - case sensitive ending. Posledovatel' - is someone who follows on your footsteps (also figuratively). Sputnik - is someone who follows your path with you. Posledovatel - is someone who is going to be behind you. Sputnik is someone who is just by your side. Like your wife is your life's sputnik. And your pupils or students are your "posledovatel's"
4
Thank you for this video! Finally we are being honest with each other. 👍👍
3
or may be you are.
3
The question is not as to why there are some but why y. t. doesn't want to do anything about it. I've reported it many times over and over again. And it doesn't do anything about it ( mind you it would be very easy to do something about it because they are very generic every time, and from the same profiles with the same pfp). Yet they remove and c. Ensor me and my message 90% of the time...
3
@markorsrpska7230 yep. It's the same in other Slavic languages. That form [ "sa" putnik ], is a derivative of a "so - ", as far as I can tell, and that diphthong sometimes get's reduced to a single letter "s". In Russian it's the same with other related words, like "Soputstvuyushij" (related - usually a thing, but could be a companion). So a "Soputnik" is like a full form of the word "sputnik" which is just not used anymore in modern day Russian, even though it is a more grammatically correct term, it's outdated.
2
It's the other way around.
2
@MrNeonz-fk2ky Just some basic knowledge ( which for some reason you are prohibited from knowing). The American program side is called the "Artemis accords" which had formally started in 2020. And the Russian + Chinese is called the ILRS "International Lunar Research Station" 2021. So the second Lunar race had officially started a couple of years ago. By the US (+everyone else) in 2020 and by Russia + China (+everyone else) in 2021. Though the actually phase building of the Lunar base starts in 2025. After which it would take 10 years to actually build it. And China wants to land humans on the Moon before that point. The program is much more detailed and though through. It's just not being talked about in the w...
2
@LordFalconsword eh? what???
2
For anyone wondering , no. Even with potential Artemis 2 and 3. Neither of those is viewed as potentially landing on the Moon. At best just a bypass of the Moon. Most likely Artemis 2 is uncrewed and Artemis 3 is crewed. If even that.
2
Russia is going to improve on it's Soviet period and return to Venus.
2
the so called "free world" is banning an alternative opinion. I've never been more not free than in this supposed "free world" of the west.
1
@CLipka2373 Different sounding words can't mean the same thing etymologically apriori. Sputnik is accentuated as someone(thing) following you along the path. Satellite is someone(thing) who "fulfills goers" , there's no mention of a path in that word. That's why it used to mean a bodyguard/companion in ancient Latin (with no predetermined path). The words sit / sat /set are related, but if you want to relate it to Slavic/Russian words it would be something close to" siad' leti" = " sit/sat/set [and] fly (let)".
1
@kasparsiricenko2240 follower wasn't implied in it's full sense, but rather as a directional relation to someone/thing. Just like putting some salt on your stake at the end, and you are now trying to argue that your stake is not salt... And I never implied that stake is salt, just a directional meaning of a word, that it was salt and not paprika, or sugar , or lemon juice etc. So at this point that would be engaging in a demagogy... but I must say that follower etymological meaning is close to the "co" entity relation.
1
@kasparsiricenko2240 you could also use the word companion if you like, but companion has a closer relation than just a follower.
1
As a pioneer? everything.
1
@X-boomer not really. It can match some things but not much more. Russia has a history of space stations, including the current one ISS , China had only launched their space station a few years back. And Russia is launching a new space station in 2028. So not much difference here. In terms of rockets it had managed to copy old Soviet Design rockets, which is again great, but Russia is one step ahead with it's Soyuz 5 rocket and Angara rockets, which is a new gen of space rockets, etc. More so Russia has the experience of space exploration and relations. And that experience which China doesn't have is valuable.
1
@X-boomer what do you mean nobody wants to use anymore? Russia literally had signed a partnership with China on it's moon exploration. Nobody can replace Russia. So ofcourse it's experience is valuable. I'm not diminishing Chinas achievements also. But it's going to be a pretty equal partnership. With some Russian technologies that you can't get anywhere else in the world.
1
@MrNeonz-fk2ky that's the problem that people get detached from the reality, brewing in their own western narrative bubble. Not realizing of the progress that China and Russia are doing together. They do have a Lunar base program and it is much more advanced and thought through than the one from the US. Nothing of it is copying the west. They're literally approaching it differently and are much more capable than NASA and the US in that regard. But unfortunately people that brew in their own western media bubble of information don't realize that.
1
@MrNeonz-fk2ky and ofcourse I get censored... so can't even let you know the truth lol.
1
@SillyMrGoose Thanks I wrote a really long comment, and youtube censored it.
1
@MrNeonz-fk2ky I think so too. But it's obvious to me that it would happen in 2030s. Though just to be clear, it's not your fault that you are not aware of this, it's the media reporting... which are very selective in their reporting, in order to frame a certain perspective...
1
He has one thing going for him though. This is only the V1 design rocket. Which is not supposed to be successful in the first place and is supposedly there just for the test. They are building the first two V2 design rockets right now as we speak. Which are the actual rockets which would be capable for the mission and are supposed to work. However there are ( just like with the first rocket V1 design), no guarantees that it would work. As that design hasn't been built yet in metal, let alone being tested... Too many questions and ifs...
1
@Asterra2 Your point of view is narrow. We literally have this Space Shuttle and the Soviet Russia Energia Buran program which had spectacularly failed, and didn't achieve the original intended goal of being a reliable and cheap way of a cargo ship. Same as the "freedom station" which they later had to join Russian space stations etc. Same as the any other reliability vehicle like the Delta Clipper etc etc. The list goes on on and with projects failing at different stages of their development and not achieving their desired and/or original goals. Same thing with the Artemis mission. There are some things which just can't be done for one or the other reason. No matter how much you wanted to land a man on the Moon in 1800's, even if the whole world united. They wouldn't be able to do it. There's a certain acumen in the technology development and it's understanding that has to be developed and nurtured in order for a programs to be a success and achieve all of the desired goals, and not many programs even if they are backed up by the big and mighty corporations or countries can be actually achieved. Same thing with the Artemis program... unless they massively rework and restructure it.
1
@TheSpaceRaceYT The problem is multiplex though. They can definitely make a large rocket with infinite money being thrown into it. Eventually they will figure it out. But the question is the overall design for the Moon mission, which doesn't have high hopes... What is not being talked about in the press, is that Elon is trying to make a Swiss knife sort of a rocket. Which would be capable of 1) carrying cargos from one point of the planet to the other. 2) a rocket that can get into the orbit, 3) a rocket that can stay in the orbit and refill itself reliably, 4) a rocket capable of interstellar missions, 5) a rocket that can get on the moons surface, and get back. That's a whole slew of things which with each iterations requires a different rocket design. And on top of this, they have a complicated problem with the supposed 20 refuellnigs in LEOt, and if anything goes awry they would have to launch 20 more rockets... I believe they can build a large - heavy lift rocket, that can get you reliably into space (perhaps even reusable). I question the mission and it's goals in everything else, besides building that heavy lift rocket.
1
Откуда тебе знать, что они его так не звали? Могли ж назвать Лунтик. Это прозвище всеравно, возможно неофициальное, могли прозвать , как угодно.
1
You mean Germany and USA as Germany and Japan in WW2?
1
@matthewbartley2746 mate you've been fed up on the western bs propaganda too much. Welcome to the reality check. Rus. nuclear power plants are the most advanced and the most reliable in the world. The ISS is actually a Russian program of "Mir 2" that has been powering the the whole station. It is connected to the Russian service module this whole time and has been as reliable as it gets throughout this whole time. Also the Chinese is the only nation in the world that has a space station. There's only 2, the Chinese one and the Russian one - the ISS ( which was joined by USA in the 90s), there's nothing more reliable and advanced in Space than Russia and China at this point.
1
Mate. China is the only nation that has a space station, aside from the ISS. People need to wake up and open their eyes. Ya'll been lied to by the west.
1
1 rocket every 3 days??? what??? Do you realize that it means at least 1 launch per 3 days ( at least because it's supposed to be "reusable"...)
1
Mate the Kyshtym tragedy was dawn of nuclear development, and it's not related to the nuclear power plant generation. Russia has a superb record on it's nuclear power plant exploitation. The Chernobyl accident was the only exception which happened in ukr. mind you, but we will not be getting into it now... The Chernobyl had 2nd gen nuclear reactors, Russia now is building 4th gen. Nothing like Chernobyl can happen again, due to many factors and protective measures.
1
It didn't say. The next Space station for Russia is called "ROS"
1
Thank you for mentioning China, but skimming on Russia seems unfair. In my opinion Russia has the best potential for the best space station (ROS) along with it's interplanetary exploration mission program called Zeus.
1