[threwrfaway]

I think you're confusing me with the OP, which in fairness I didn't read.

Nothing in the Russian space program in the last few decades have been as dangerous as Boeings little fiasco. Yes, the modules have long term problems, but they're built by the Russians because they have the most experience in space living quarters.

Look at space mission fatalities, the least Soviet/Russian one was in 1971 and that includes the 90s.

Thats 55 years

The US since then has had two shuttle disintegrations, the latest in 2003 when the US gave up launching astronauts for a few decades.

Space is hard.

[sigmoid10]

>the OP, which in fairness I didn't read.

Why are you commenting then if you don't even know what the topic of the conversation is? Just to distract from the issue with unrelated facts to defend mother Russia's image? Do you even realize how much like a propaganda troll account you sound?

[threwrfaway]

You didn't even know who you were replying to!

You spewed BS about the Soyuz, which isn't part of the ISS.

Well if minor Soyuz problems are in play, I raise you two Shuttle disintegrations and a Boeing craft since the last fatal Soyuz accident in 1971.

You know instead of throwing "Russian troll darts" try practicing "strategic empathy", instead of letting your emotions blind you about engineering principles. Sone pointers:

- Space is hard.

- The Russians are good at it.

- So are we.

- The Russians are better at keeping people alive in space.

- We're better at sensors and materials.

- Historically Russian launches are cheaper (thats changed)

- Historically we've had money to launch more (that's changed)

Kindest Regards,

American materials engineer (guess who I work for)

[sigmoid10]

You didn't even know what the topic of the conversation is!

And you just keep digging yourself in instead of admitting you were wrong. But everything you say makes you look more desperate.