this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2026
417 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

20609 readers
155 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 68 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I'm not really sure that's the main reason. In case of a chute failure you're going to have a bad time in either case.

Russian capsules land on land.

I think it's just a lot more easier to recover, when there's no landscape around that you need to traverse

[–] mercano@lemmy.world 98 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Russian capsules launch from the Kazack steppe. In the event of a launch abort, like there was in October 2018, you need to have a capsule that can land on land.

American capsules launch from Florida and fly over the ocean. In the event of an abort, they need to be able to land at sea.

They both took their abort modes and just made it the standard way to land after a mission.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like the real reason right here. The sea landing surely is a lot easier and quicker to recover as well.

[–] Krzd@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

It's also much easier to hit what you aim for
water -> water
Land -> oops, that's a tree, and that's a boulder, and that's a lake.
Although recovering the people is much easier on land, most of the time you can land a helicopter near the capsule, recovering the hardware is generally more difficult

[–] ferrule@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago

Also where they are taking off and landing in Russia is a big flat wasteland. It's the ocean of the land. There isn't a lot of empty space in the US unless you are either in the desert or in the places we grow corn and wheat. Less shit to crash into when it's water in the US.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Makes perfect sense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 months ago

This seems to make the most sense, so no matter whether it is true or not, i decided to trust this

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

There are so many things that you can land on land that will absolutely ruin your day. A large boulder, a large tree, a cliffside, a building, something flammable, near an angry hungry bear... Astronauts coming back to Earth after spending a significant amount of time in microgravity are also mostly helpless until they adapt to Earth's gravity again. The open sea is seen as safer in the American school of thought.

[–] 0ops@piefed.zip 29 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I read that as "safer than an American school" and I'm like well yeah, low bar

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Did you see the Principal that tackled a shooter the other day? Bravo!

[–] Droechai@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a school administrator

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

In fairness, if you can throw a person at a person, one or both of those people are probably going to think twice about crossing you.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

The capsules can do a water splashdown with parachutes alone.

The capsules that land on land all seem to have some additional system to slow down in addition to the parachute. Boeing Starliner has airbags that deploy around and below the heat shield. Soyuz has a braking rocket system that fires immediately before impact.

[–] megopie@beehaw.org 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So, the issue does come down to the chutes. A chute capable of reducing decent speed to 10m/s is significantly larger than one capable of getting the speed to 60 m/s. Impractically large on a weight constrained thing like a space capsule.

The Soyuz uses a small set of retro rockets to reduce speed in the last few seconds before touch down, and even then it’s like being in a car crash.

On the Vostok capsules the astronauts didn’t even land with the capsules, they just bailed out and parachuted down.

Landing in the ocean is significantly more comfortable and less complicated.

[–] Azzu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Your comment sounds good at first, it's just that they splash down in water at 7.5m/s.

[–] megopie@beehaw.org 3 points 2 months ago

The nasa blog on the final day said. “At 5,400 feet, Orion’s drogue parachutes were cut and the three main parachutes deployed, reducing velocity to less than 200 feet per second and guiding Orion on its final descent and splashdown.”

Which is to say “less than” roughly 60 meters per second. Somewhere else on the site I couldn’t find again they mentioned it being a touch down speed of 20 miles per hour, which is a fair bit slower at about 9 meters a second, but that’s still a car crash if you’re hitting a solid surface.

The point remains. Getting a large object like that down to a soft, non injurious, speed is not practical with just a parachute. Other techniques must be employed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 6 points 2 months ago

I imagine a lot of factors... but yeah that's a big one, no mountains, no buildings, no population centers, you can miss by 100 miles and just add some time to the recovery.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works 43 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Pay attention to what? Why would you say that and then proceed to say nothing?

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 months ago

Because it allows conspiracy theorists maximum flexibility to wrap whatever pseudoscience into whatever objections they get as replies.

[–] underscores@lemmy.zip 16 points 2 months ago

Conspiracy theorists on the far fringe are all about knowing more than you, being smarter than you for noticing the obvious when you can't.

Them saying "pay attention" doesn't mean "there's something here that you are missing". It means "I am projecting that I know more than you". This is why they don't elaborate.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 months ago

It's 'think for your self'. Its a command, an open ended command.

Which they say with authority, because they fashion themselves as thought leaders (cough cult leaders cough) and have literally delusional levels of self confidence and ego.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 42 points 2 months ago

Its called landing, not watering ffs.

[–] charokol@piefed.social 26 points 2 months ago (5 children)

What is she even getting at?

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I was about to say, what is even her point?

[–] kinkles@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 months ago (3 children)

You’re obviously not paying attention

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well, I am broke. Is this a weekly charge, or daily?

[–] Opisek@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Depends. Do you have ADHD? Then it's a lifelong recurring payment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Janx@piefed.social 3 points 2 months ago

Sorry, what were we talking about? Something about pain and tension?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Diddlydee@feddit.uk 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

She's stupid, so don't worry about it. Or she's saying 'pay attention' as she's well versed in people drifting off when she speaks.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 11 points 2 months ago

A lot of conspiracy narrative is just pointing out things that seem odd and that's enough evidence, you don't need a conclusion

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. I’m ready for the wacked-out conspiracy shit.

[–] Silic0n_Alph4@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

It’s because the ocean doesn’t exist.

say that the astronauts landed in the ocean because they don’t want us to realise that there is no ocean. NASA landed on the moon and faked the “”””””””splashdown“””””””” (which was filmed by Kevin Reynolds at a soundstage on Specific Boulevard) just to keep people from realising THE TRUTH..!!!.!!.!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!

Pay attention.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 5 points 2 months ago

Probably something along the lines of how the reptilians live in underwatwr cities thus landing in the ocean makes it easier for them to swap out astronauts.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Also

We did land on land

For like forty years we did that exclusively

It's called the Space Shuttle and it's pretty cool

[–] bluemellophone@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Ignoring that the Soyuz is a more traditional capsule that does land on land, with timed rockets to slow their descent just before impact.

Let’s just say landing on water is better, based on the medical injuries different astronauts have suffered riding home on the Soyuz. Several American astronauts have experienced bruising and joint/back pain from the hard “bone-jarring” landing.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

That's true. Honestly I remember being a kid, learning about the Soyuz recovery system and being shocked. A 20mph collision with the ground (without the baking SRs, 5mph with them) doesn't sound like much, but it can still ring your bell pretty good.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

True.

While the USSR has a history of ignoring human safety, I suspect a large factor for landing on, well, land is the fact they have very few ports open year-round, unlike the US

[–] bluemellophone@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Another commenter said that capsules are primarily designed for their abort landings. The US launches crewed missions from Florida, so the abort landing options are mostly in the Atlantic (on water landing). Russia launches from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, so their abort landing options are mostly over Northern Asia (on land landing)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago

Water big, easy hit, soft splash.

[–] Photonic@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No, no she’s on to something. If they don’t touch down on land why is it called a landing and not a sea-ing.

Checkmate atheists

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 8 points 2 months ago

Because sea-ing is believing, and they know that we should only WANT to believe, but not actually believe.

[–] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I recently left a job where my coworker was the absolute dumbest motherfucker I have ever met, but at least he was willing to listen to people with differing opinions. I think I managed to pull him a little left, at the very least he started out going "the people in charge generally know what is best for us even if they sometimes dip into things themselves" and ended with "fuck ice, they're fascists acting exactly like the nazis did and the shitbags in charge are enabling them at every turn, the whole system needs reset" which is a pretty big leap, IMO.

One thing I couldn't budge him on was the moon landing. It doesn't matter that I have assisted in a laser range-finding experiment using the retro reflectors left on the moon, thus confirming to myself that we HAVE been there.

It didn't matter how much I explained the Apollo missions, how much I explained why things behave in space the way they do, how much I explained why NASA essentially hd to rebuild a moon mission from the ground up, or any number of things. He still firmly believed it was all bullshit and we never went there.

I would always end the conversation about space stuff with "the biggest reason to me is that the USSR never came out and said 'this is fake, here's proof they faked the landing' and basically gave up not long afterward, and they clearly had spies and intelligence capable of infiltrating NASA systems and obtaining classified information, just look at the Russian space shuttle. If they knew we faked it, they would have every reason in the world to embarss us by revealing our lies to the world" and he would always agree on that point. Still fake to him though

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] agedcorn@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What I never understood is why the unloading process is so needlessly complicated. After splash down, why not attach a cable and hoist the capsule onto a ship for unloading?

Instead, it's always this long spectacle of multiple back-and-forth boat trips, inflation and attachment of rafts and 'porches', and several helicoptor trips to a ship.

Just build a recovery ship that can park right over the capsule and hoist it on deck.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tehdastehdas@piefed.social 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Water isn't soft - high bridge jumpers die on impact.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mad_Punda@feddit.org 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s called splashdown for a reason. I guess on land it could still be a splashdown?

[–] notabot@piefed.social 7 points 2 months ago

Unfortunately, on at least one occasion it was. Cosonaut Vladimir Komarov was killed when the main parachute failed on his Soyuz 1 capsule. Probably the worst part was he knew, before launch, that he would probably die: CW:An all around grim story, and a picture of his, unrecognisable, charred remains

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

It's actually because astronauts are all dolphins

[–] Renat@szmer.info 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But why they landed so close to California?

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

It's obviously because they are all a bunch of woke snowflakes who want to make us all gay! Wake up, sheeple!

load more comments
view more: next ›