 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / August 2004A iinteresting idea!
We aerent allowed to buy hardware from russia because of those plants they build for bad purposes. Russia does it to make money. So what we do is tell Russia clean up your act and stop immediately building them. How many $$ were you selling? We will buy that many dollars worth of space hardware and launch services:) Paid for NOT by the US space budget:) But by anothetr budget line for general world stability.Diplomatic type thing! True it would take time to ramp up production... But that gives us time to plan future uses! Now I wonder what that could buy us? Extra soyuz at station NO TROUBLE! Finish station NO TROUBLE! New station at a better location NO TROUBLE You get the general idea, and whats best is its not paid for by space dollars! Now US cointractors wouldnt be happy:( Except although it would decimate over time launch services like booster building we use the current space $ for building the probes that go on top of the now plentiful progresses.Plus it gives us soyuz for crew rotation and a early shuttle retirement. heck build progresses in russia and ship to KSC for launching lots of robot probes. WIN WIN FOR EVERYONE! Russia behaves itself Less chance of terrorism Keeps russia busy doing something productive Replaces shuttle fast Space operations increase dramatically:):) Doesnt hurt US companies (since the same money build probes rather than boosters) Now if this did occur, having a plentiful supply of progresses and soyuz what sorts of jobs could we do in space? HAVE A GREAT DAY! > We aerent allowed to buy hardware from russia because of those plants they > build for bad purposes. Interestingly, while the government of the U.S.A. can't, the 'private' sector can easily can. Are you sure that this ban wasn't done to limit the power of the U.S.A. government? > Russia does it to make money. I don't think so, if the target is money, they probably would rather sell 'expensive' space hardware to the U.S.A. government space programs. Russia seem to do built the plants because THAT is what they're ordered to do. The question is, who ordered Russia to do that? Chances are, the same people who ordered the U.S.A. government to do not buy Russian space hardware because the Russian government build those plants. > So what we do is tell Russia clean up your act and > stop immediately building them. That is what the U.S.A. government did. > How many $$ were you selling? Don't think that money is the target here, the actual target seems to be to sour the relationship between countries. Heck, if the target is money, why Russia bother doing small thing to a small country when they can sell more stuff to an even bigger country? Another example is Japan, Taiwan, and China in regarding the Shinkansen case. Why the heck would Japan risked the opportunity to make big bucks with China by making a small buck with Taiwan? I assume that the people behind this is the same too. > WIN WIN FOR EVERYONE! The problem is that... 'they' don't want everyone to win, that's why 'they' are always make sure that people will fight each other. Why do you think the Olympic games in Greece was done? To make people fight each other! > HAVE A GREAT DAY! > We aerent allowed to buy hardware from russia because of those plants > they build for bad purposes. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > services:) Paid for NOT by the US space budget:) But by anothetr > budget line for general world stability.Diplomatic type thing! Of course, if you had even a shred of historical awareness, you would know that this was exactly the line of reasoning that led the Clinton administration to invite the Russians into ISS in the first place, way back in 1993. Russia was already proliferating to Iran at the time; inviting them into ISS was seen as a kind of "midnight basketball" to provide them financial incentives to stop doing so. Obviously, it didn't work. Russia gladly took the US money and continued to proliferate to Iran anyway. They knew they could get away with it because the US stupidly put them in the critical path of station assembly. The US belatedly learned Rule One of Blackmail: Reward a blackmailer, and your reward will be more blackmail. Hence, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000.  SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. There is a good article in New Yorker a couple of months back that details effort of the IAEA to get the Iranians to play ball. Most of the communications from Iran are subsequently found to be half-truths, overly literal, obfuscation. I am not greatly impressed by the sort of immature bullshit that the Iranians employ...not really very clever. Well, more clever than Bob Haller. Unsophisticated, not completely stupid. The article further descibes how there is not a distinct central authority in Iran; each dept makes up its own rules as it goes along, so one can have the energy ministry leaning anti-bomb, while the technology ministry is pro-bomb, and so on. >> We will buy that many dollars worth of space hardware and launch >> services:) Paid for NOT by the US space budget:) But by anothetr [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > them into ISS was seen as a kind of "midnight basketball" to provide them > financial incentives to stop doing so. No, of course, if you had even a shred of the aforementioned awareness, you would know that Russian participation in ISS was an absolutely required pre-condition for this progect to receive financing from the Congress. The logic was very simple: US will initiate and finance its own share in a Russian-led project with the only purpose to give a second-life to its aging and more and more obviously aimless Space Shuttle program. (And, as always, get some bragging rights. Sometimes it looks like it is considered to be even more important.) That's actually the main reason that prevents US from buying space hardware from Russia: it will eventually defeat the main purpose with with US got itself into the project in the first place. As long as there are forces in the US lobbying for keeping the shuttles on life support, there will be no purchases from Russia. > Obviously, it didn't work. Russia gladly took the US money and continued to > proliferate to Iran anyway. They knew they could get away with it because > the US stupidly put them in the critical path of station assembly. Russians are not "in the critical path of station assembly". They are "station assembly". Actually, without Russians the actual assembly would be out of question completely, since the project wouldn't be more than some guy's pipe dream. SignatureBest regards, Andrey Tarasevich > Russians are not "in the critical path of station assembly". They are > "station assembly". Actually, without Russians the actual assembly would > be out of question completely, since the project wouldn't be more than > some guy's pipe dream. Sorry, no. Only in your wistfully deluded post-Soviet fantasies. "The project" was Space Station Freedom and I was working on it at the time. Detailed design was complete, Critical Design Review was complete, hardware was being fabricated and if the Russians hadn't sold NASA on use of the FGB, Lockheed could have (and would have, I'm sure) fab'd another Service Module(*) or two to provide the same functions - google for the details if you're really interested. Russian participation was ALWAYS political. It was NEVER technical. In fact, moving the orbit to its present inclination was due to Russian inability to launch substantial payloads to the SSF orbital inclination from Baikonur. That change both *allowed* Russian participation in the first place and enhanced its role at the same time by reducing STS payload so as to require more Russian launches. It would really help your credibility to know what the hell you're talking about before you post. (*) Rumored at the time of the LMSC proposal to be a modified version of the core spacecraft bus in use for their NRO payloads. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." ~ Robert A. Heinlein <http://www.angryherb.net> > ... >> Russians are not "in the critical path of station assembly". They are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Russian participation was ALWAYS political. It was NEVER technical. Well, while despite what you are trying (or are required) to say, it is an obvious fact that russian participation was always heavily technical. I can only offer a patronizing smile in response to those who claim the contrary _today_. Nevertheless, the first part of my message (that you convenietly omitted form the quote) clearly explained the _political_ portion of russian role in ISS. Lockheed could have dreamt about fabricating anything as much as it wanted, it could have buried itself in "designs", but the project would never have taken off (i.e. there would never be any financing for american portion of ISS program) without russian agreement to participate. That was the political role Russians played in the project. Not some stupid iranian plants. > In > fact, moving the orbit to its present inclination was due to Russian > inability to launch substantial payloads to the SSF orbital inclination > from Baikonur. That change both *allowed* Russian participation in the > first place and enhanced its role at the same time by reducing STS > payload so as to require more Russian launches. I don't see how this support your view, since it supports mine as much as it does yours. > It would really help your credibility to know what the hell you're > talking about before you post. Likewise. SignatureBest regards, Andrey Tarasevich > Well, while despite what you are trying (or are required) to say, "Required"? By whom? The KGB or its Russian Federation successor organization? Sorry, again, no. You may have experience in some authority dictating the contents of your posts but I do not. > it is > an obvious fact that russian participation was always heavily technical. > I can only offer a patronizing smile in response to those who claim the > contrary _today_. What were you working on in the summer of 1993 when Russia was invited aboard the program? Me, I was designing life support equipment now in use on the U.S. Lab and Nodes. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. > Nevertheless, the first part of my message (that you convenietly omitted > form the quote) clearly explained the _political_ portion of russian > role in ISS. Lockheed could have dreamt about fabricating anything as > much as it wanted, it could have buried itself in "designs", Every time an American spysat overflies Holy Mother Russia, you can thank Lockheed and the core spacecraft bus which could easily have been used in place of FGB. Not much "dreaming" there. > but the > project would never have taken off (i.e. there would never be any > financing for american portion of ISS program) without russian agreement > to participate. Oh, please. The U.S. Congress had already provided probably $3 - $4 billion on SSF by then - with hardware flying now to prove it - before Russia was invited to join. > That was the political role Russians played in the > project. Not some stupid iranian plants. Sure. Better to have them building space stations that they couldn't afford on their own than to be helping Iranians building nuclear-capable missiles. Too bad they decided to do both. The Lockheed Service Module would have been cheaper in terms of both dollars and political capital. > > In > > fact, moving the orbit to its present inclination was due to Russian [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Likewise. I do know what I'm talking about because I was there working on the the American portion of SSF (which was quite a bit more complete than you seem to think or will allow). You - obviously - were not. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." ~ Robert A. Heinlein <http://www.angryherb.net> >>> We will buy that many dollars worth of space hardware and launch >>> services:) Paid for NOT by the US space budget:) But by anothetr [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > absolutely required pre-condition for this progect to receive > financing from the Congress. Nope, it's your awareness that's faulty, not mine. The sole political pre- condition of *whatever* space station plan NASA came up with in 1993-94 was that it save money. Congress didn't particularly care *how*. The idea of a Russian partnership was a bit of a political Rorschach test; the perceived benefit depended on who was doing the perceiving. While publicly sold as a cost-saving move, the Clinton administration saw it as a way to back- channel Russian aid without going through the State Department; Congress saw it as a way to keep the Russian aerospace industry out of mischief, especially with regard to Iran; and NASA saw it as a way to get permanent manned capability sooner, not to mention making the project politically invulnerable. In the end, the only perception even partially correct was NASA's: adding the Russians did indeed make ISS politically invulnerable, by solidifying support among congressional Democrats who had previously been hostile towards Space Station Freedom. The other *real* benefit of Russian involvement was to increase the redundancy in the station design: each nation's systems have so far nicely compensated the weaknesses in the other's, and has made the station capable of surviving supply disruptions by either of the two countries (Russia 1998-2000; US 2003-2005). > Russians are not "in the critical path of station assembly". They are > "station assembly". Incorrect. Two-thirds of the current station mass and almost all of its electrical power are from the US. The remaining Russian hardware for ISS is vaporware, nothing more; the US hardware is sitting complete at KSC, simply waiting for a ride. > Actually, without Russians the actual assembly > would be out of question completely, since the project wouldn't be > more than some guy's pipe dream. I am coming around to the opinion that it should have *remained* some guy's pipe dream. Had the program been cancelled in the 1993-94 timeframe, NASA would have been forced into the kind of institutional reform that we are only now seeing in the wake of the Columbia accident. NASA would probably be better off for it today. (Don't think that Russia would have benefited from this, either: absent ISS, Shuttle-Mir would not have continued beyond the first docking in 1995. That would have meant no $400 million transfusion to Mir, no Spektr module, no Priroda module, no docking module - and quite likely, a Mir deorbit due to lack of funds in the mid to late 90's rather than in 2001.) SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >Subject: Re: A iinteresting idea! MORAGAWEBCAM I BEEN IN THE US GROUPS FOR 20 MONTHS AND 200 POST AND NOW IM HERE IN THE AUS GROUPS FOR 20 MONTHS. st. mary's college webcam http://149.137.107.8./home/homeJ.htm id: Guest pass: Guest |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.