I stopped cosmonauts from carrying guns (2014)
spectrum.ieee.org
spectrum.ieee.org
> Leonov and Belyayev could have likely been recovered by a helicopter with the use of a rope and ladder or rescue basket but Soviet Leader Leonid Brezhnev strictly prohibited cosmonauts to be rescued with those methods.[why?] This resulted in Leonov and Belyayev spending a total of 3 days, two nights, in the forest before finally being recovered
So, yeah, but this paints a different picture. Perhaps dropping a gun from the helicopter would have sufficed too.
> During this time helicopters dropped supplies for the cosmonauts including warm clothes, boots, water containers, and more. Helicopters also dropped doctors and technicians close to the landing site so they could trek to the landing site and support the cosmonauts. Others were also dropped by helicopters to start clearing a landing pad that was closer to the capsule. With more resources and supplies after their first night the landing site was more sustainable. This included a fire, a makeshift log cabin and they were even brought cheese, sausage, and bread for supper.[20] Finally, after spending two cold nights in a dense forest, Leonov and Belyayev were able to ski 9 kilometers with the help of some rescuers to reach the helicopters landing site
> A farmer and her granddaughter, Rita Nurskanova, observed the strange scene of a figure in a bright orange suit with a large white helmet landing near them by parachute. 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!"
I think you're going way, waaaay far beyond the evidence to suggest that these farmers though Gagarin was a space alien. That's a funny little narrative, but I don't think it's remotely necessary.
These remote Soviet people weren't likely any stupider than you or me... Less educated, sure--but they knew what human beings looked like, and were aware of the fact that airplanes existed. This was more than a decade after WWII ended, after all.
I can think of a hundred perfectly terrestrial reasons why these isolated, remote farmers would have good reason to be apprehensive in this situation... I'd imagine they get almost zero visitors, so the sight of any strangers would probably be the big news of the year--let alone a military aviator parachuting down in bright orange clothes.
In fairness, I should confess that I'm pointing this out because it kinda bugs me for us to be looking down on these folks, as if they're children or simpletons. At the very least, that narrative seems to serve our own egos, more so than any interest in accuracy.
People didn't know what to think, and the Soviets were far more secretive of their space program than the Americans were - Their successes were announced after the fact, their failures were quiet. I would not have blamed anyone in rural Siberia for not recognizing a cosmonaut in a spacesuit/jumpsuit as "human".
I think the US in 1938 was maybe in a distinct situation, though... For one, the US in the 30s may have been primed to thoughts of space aliens by the consumption of mass quantities of SF--radio serials, films, books, etc.
Also, the real-world news in 1938 was pretty tense, and very heavy on the specific theme of invasion... WWII was already swinging in the Pacific, and everybody in Europe was expecting the shooting to start soon. Here in the US, there was a general sense that we'd get violently drawn into it, sooner or later.
So I dunno... You definitely moved the needle for me on this one, but I'm still pretty skeptical that some isolated Siberian farmers in the 1960s would go straight for the "space aliens" explanation. Maybe I'm just rationalizing my earlier post--I'd be the last to know.
There is no doubt those people saw StarWars in some way or the other and they definitely saw stormtrooper armour in some time in their lives. Yet...
[0] https://globalnews.ca/video/6908239/woman-in-star-wars-storm...
Rather than space aliens, I find it far more compelling to consider that:
• Russia had been severely traumatized by WWII, less than a generation earlier. Tens of millions died in combat and of starvation.
• After WWII, Russia awas again severely traumatized by Stalinism and his political purges. For a decade, anyone who was even suspected of stepping out of line was oiable to get imprisoned or just executed.
• During the 1950s and early 1960s, the CIA was attempting to train Russian expatriates in the West to return to Russia as spies and organizers of underground resistance in the event WWIII broke out. The program was a complete disaster... The CIA trained and equipped dozens of young men, and then PARACHUTED them into Eastern Bloc countries,after which none of them were ever heard from, ever again. (It's assumed they were all immediately caught and executed.)
So in the early 1960s, when some dude in a parachute lands in your village, I think it's far less speculative to assume that they were afraid Yuri Gagarin might be a Western spy.
No need for space aliens... And no need to insult the intelligence of these Russians by lumping them in with ol' Karen up in Lethbridge, who was such a simple rube that we all laugh at her for calling the police on a Stormtrooper.
Honestly, I see why the "space aliens" narrative is appealing: It's funnier! It's hilarious to imagine old timey Russian villagers, hiding in fear of space invaders.
Unless anybody reading this happens to be Russian, in which case we'd be making up silly stories that mainly serve to depeict their parents or grandparents as a bunch of simple, stupid, gullible pigeons.
And I just don't see the point in that whole line of thinking, when we already have much more plausible theories, already.
Bunch of people, who lives in the deeps of an agrarian country (and TV isn't available yet), sees something extremely out of regular order of things. And that is coming for them! Of course they would be afraid of this totally unfamiliar experience.
Some notes:
I'm not sure how far those people were from the point where Gagarin ejected, but they probably heard some strange sounds before the encounter.
Parachutes were a known thing by that time, though if you never seen it on the ground before you probably wouldn't recognize it as such.
Pilots were still flying in a pilot's flight gear[0], at least in the collective consciousness. Someone/something in a big round helmet and a bright orange suit doesn't register as a pilot's flight gear nor as something have seen before. You can see how (a decade before) some people perceived the "space suits", unsurprisingly - just a like a winter soldier gear. *grin*
By the '60s the understanding on how a space suit should look emerge, but it still was quite off the real deal: [2] (Be sure to check mini-Godzillas attack at ~1:00!)
As you can see [3] there were a bright red CCCP label on his helmet. Looks like that didn't helped much.
[0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pilot_Boris_Safonov....
[1] https://youtu.be/Q59hwGqL3Q4
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjnZ3Nc8VZ4
[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gagarin_suit.jpg
Now you got me curious. Who are these dangerous taiga people?
> The location in which the capsule touched down was too dense for a helicopter to land and recover the crew. Leonov and Belyayev could have likely been recovered by a helicopter with the use of a rope and ladder or rescue basket but Soviet Leader Leonid Brezhnev strictly prohibited cosmonauts to be rescued with those methods. [why?] This resulted in Leonov and Belyayev spending a total of 3 days, two nights, in the forest before finally being recovered. The cosmonauts did come partially equipped for this situation taking a survival kit which included a knife and a pistol.
(Loving the why)
However "we went to space but our cosmonauts got eaten by bears on landing" would be pretty high on the "black eye" scale.
There is a known danger of bear attacks[1] and we have a safe & effective countermeasure. Why not be prepared?
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bears-eat-wealthy-coupl...
I don't understand why some people refuse to accept this is a matter of tradeoffs and the presence of a gun isn't an absolutely good or bad thing.
Edit: I also realized that an external firearm container would likely imply the handgun would be exposed to the vacuum of space and the temperature swings involved. Given that Soyuz capsules can be in space for months at a time, there would have to be considerable re-engineering of the firearm and the ammunition in order to accommodate this proposed change.
Also, bears don’t have can openers.
It does not seem likely that a crashed cosmonaut would encounter hungry bears or wolves, but I can see why they might want to take precautions.
So you open the door, you see a bear, it sees/smells you and starts running, and you close the door just in time to avoid being immediately eaten. Now what?
> Also, bears don’t have can openers.
Bears are the can openers.
Their closest Grizzly encounter was a bear that stumbled across them, and charged at their lead skier from ~200m out. The guide shot the bear twice, but it still managed to get within 20m of the group before it dropped.
Here in the US, I know two hikers who've been attacked by Grizzlies in the Rockies, and another guy who got jumped in Alaska. All three survived, but required medical evacuation and hospitalization... The guy in Alaska nearly bled to death from a broken rib tearing into the blood vessels feeding his kidney.
So I'm not sure what the likelihood of bear attacks would be--but it does happen, and the consequences can be quite severe.
The point is the best gun is the one you have with you at the time.
Why is banning them worth celebrating?
I don't think we should rejoice in limiting their ability to protect themselves from something that may kill them.
For what purpose though? It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to fire a gun in a spacecraft. Firing a gun on an EVA would run into two main issues. One, the gun is likely to jam or not even work - metal has a tendency to spontaneously weld in the heat and vacuum of space. Two, orbital mechanics means that hitting a target is not as easy as pointing and shooting. The bullet won't simply go in a straight line, and the person firing it is going to get knocked back and probably lose control.
Would the gun be smart to use inside a space craft? No. Would the gun work as intended inside a space craft? No. Could it possible cause damage that would kill everyone inside? Maybe.
Would it work as a tool to control others regardless? Yes.
It seems like you're being willfully naive or are just pro guns everywhere. Even space.
There is something about it just so frustrating in his writing, he's so proud to have been a pest about it; the author is an American and NASA doesn't want images of cosmonauts with guns, cool. That's as far as that should have ever gone.
But don't impose your qualms on your Russian colleagues. Seriously? They were reunited with the earth with the intent to survive in less than ideal conditions, after being in SPACE of all places. Come on.
Hoplophobia: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoplophobia
Which is to say: it’s not worth celebrating, but someone afflicted with hoplophobia might think that it is.
Even Elon Musk is involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_satellites
The Soviets mounted a 23mm cannon on one of their early stations.
Long before the Space Force.
https://swfound.org/media/9550/chinese_asat_fact_sheet_updat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_forces,_units,_a...
Velocity is tightly coupled to altitude when orbiting.
See this Space.SE post: https://space.stackexchange.com/q/44622
Or just play KSP :)
Note also that this effect is a lot stronger in KSP than in real life, since Kerbin has a much smaller radius than Earth and therefore orbital periods are shorter (assuming the same altitude).
The problem with guns is that they are designed for one clear purpose, someone that gets into some mental problem may see one and get ideas.
That said, I have no idea why astronauts need guns; they’re unlikely to encounter hostile humans or animals and shooting isn’t a practical hobby in space. Maybe in case they land in a bad neighborhood or wilderness? In that case, why not just store the guns on the outside of the landing module, making the guns difficult (and obvious) to access while in space.
> That said, I have no idea why astronauts need guns; they’re
> unlikely to encounter hostile humans or animals
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP-82_Cosmonaut_survival_pisto...
I imagine that many of these things would involve either:
1. More steps/time to execute than pulling the trigger on a gun, thus leave more time for the rest of the crew to react.
2. Or require more planning than pulling the trigger on a gun and thus more chance to rethink one's plan + a chance to recover from that mental health problem as well as higher chance that the rest of the crew will be able to assess the mental health problem and treat it.
At either case, I don't see how _having access_ to a device that can functions as a death switch would not be considered at least a meaningful risk to the space vessel or its crew.
It wouldn't be difficult to have the gun be completely unavailable until landing.
I'm not sure how starting a fire would be non-obvious but, in general, fire prevention, detection and suppression a risk that space crews are well trained to deal with, regardless of sabotage.
> It wouldn't be difficult to have the gun be completely unavailable until landing.
Agree, but:
1. That is not the case that's described here.
2. My argument was to counter the claim that having access to a gun onboard a spaceship does not significantly increase the overall risk to crew members.
But at least, unlike you, they're not being a complete jerk and adding nothing.
What is their fair contribution? Bears? In space?
If they read the article there was a suggestion to put the weapon in a place that was not accessible until landing.
What I'm missing?
I think you’re thinking of submarines, where the higher pressure outside holds the hatches shut.
Yes, the plane door eventually pivots out of the hole and hands on the outside but it first had to move inside the cabin a little bit
Exactly this, and this is why it was a Soviet/Russian practice - their spacecraft make ground landings, instead of splashing down at sea. In fact, when the Voskhod 2 navigation system failed, it landed in a wilderness area so remote the men on board had to spend two nights in the snow before rescue. One of these cosmonauts was Alexei Leonov, who went on to a leadership position in the cosmonaut program: the survival gun was his initiative.
And yet, in countries with higher levels of gun ownership, lethal assault occurrences are higher.
I understand that some people like guns, but their lack of acceptance of the consequences is childish. I guess that so many shootings were kids die have created a cognitive dissonance on many gun owners. They want to see guns as "only for good" meanwhile kids die.
I saw this reasoning and thought, "OK, what about the survival knife, or potentially lethal pieces of rope, or in fact any small pointy thing like a screwdriver?" Also consider that they are in a fragile environment where a deranged individual could do considerable damage with just bare hands.