 |
 | 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 2008Experts: Reliance on Russia makes NASA weak
Thu August 14, 2008 LONDON, England (CNN) -- Experts are growing increasingly concerned that the United States will have to rely entirely upon Russia to take astronauts to and from the international space station for at least five years. Observers say the situation is all the more worrying as after NASA announced a delay in the launch of its next-generation Orion spacecraft. NASA's dependency upon the Russian Soyuz space capsules and rockets to carry astronauts to the station is the result of a five-year gap between the scheduled retirement of the shuttle in 2010 and the debut of its replacement in 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/08/14/nasa.russia.soyuz/index.html  Signature"Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English, they'll learn English; you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish." Barack Hussein Obama > LONDON, England (CNN) -- Experts are growing increasingly concerned that > the United States will have to rely entirely upon Russia to take > astronauts to and from the international space station for at least five > years. Which experts is the CNN entertainment network allegedly reporting on ? From the onset of the CEV program announcement (coinciding with Shuttle retirement) there was to have been a gap with US manned space program. The USA government quickly mitigated this by removing restrictions that prevented the USA from buying russian services. And isn't Soyuz now a cooperative commercial effort between Russia and Europe ? Seems to be that Soyuz is as commercial a manned space service as there can be. They got tourists up, and sell seats to anyone who is willing to pay. The USA has already learned that it can't rattle China's cage because the USA depends on China for so much (think of all the Wallmart employees in the USA) and more importantly, China owns much of the USA government's debts. Perhaps the USA needs to learn to stop rattling Russia's cage if it wants to ensure Russia doesn't get mad at USA and stop selling a service the USA will need. Note that the USA just bribed Poland to install missiles next door to Russia. Look at how the USA reacted when Sovient Union signed a deal to install missiles next door to Florida in Cuba some decades ago. Once/If the USA again has manned launch capability, then it can start to rattle Russia's cage. If ESA develops a manned version of ATV and allows the USA to buy seats, then the USA can rattle Russia's cage. But as long as the USA has decided to depend on Russia, it should be careful about not making Russia mad. Then again, space programme is not important in USA politician's minds, so they don't think about the impacts their rethoric will have on the space programme. Sad but true. I was shocked to hear the Shrub apparently taking sides with the initial aggressors last week, such knee jerk reactions get them into trouble a lot. The fact that a certain small state was attempting to drive ethnic Russians back into Russia when Russia saw red seems to have been forgotten! Ethnic cleansing by any other word. Anyway, getting back on topic. Maybe the US should sell a couple of Shuttles and the hardware jigs to Japan, who seem to be making a lot of noises about getting to the iss recently. Brian SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> LONDON, England (CNN) -- Experts are growing increasingly concerned that >> the United States will have to rely entirely upon Russia to take [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > so they don't think about the impacts their rethoric will have on the > space programme. > Anyway, getting back on topic. Maybe the US should sell a couple of > Shuttles and the hardware jigs to Japan, who seem to be making a lot of > noises about getting to the iss recently. You're really funny. It would be cheaper just to keep flying the shuttle past 2010. This would also be a great time to cancel Ares I in order to pay for continued shuttle operations. It's becoming obvious that Ares I is a real dog and that a "man rated" EELV would be faster, better, cheaper, and safer. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein >It's becoming obvious that Ares I is a real dog and that a "man rated" EELV >would be faster, better, cheaper, and safer. I think you'll find that the Delta IV is already effectively 'man rated' anyway - compared to the shuttle and certainly compared to the Ares1 - it's a smoother ride, is already proven and, in my opinion, safer as it doesn't us a solid main stage. Have a look at the Soyuz - it's size and mass let it fit inside the payload fairing of the Delta IV Medium - capable of over 8 tonnes into LEO. Rather than designing the Orion, maybe they should design an Americanised Soyuz. If the mass of the orbital module were combined with that of the re-entry module, you'd easily get six crew spaces. It would basically be as if the Soyuz Service Module were combined with a bi-conical CM. > >It's becoming obvious that Ares I is a real dog and that a "man rated" EELV > >would be faster, better, cheaper, and safer. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > module, you'd easily get six crew spaces. �It would basically be as if the > Soyuz Service Module were combined with a bi-conical CM. you really dont need to carry 6 people, aers was upsized to make it impossible to use a existing expendable of any type. it may cost a bit more but were better off launching more often, with fewer people.... as shuttle taught us the cost is mostly infrastructure, the marginal cost for more flights isnt that great >>It's becoming obvious that Ares I is a real dog and that a "man rated" >>EELV would be faster, better, cheaper, and safer. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > basically be as if the Soyuz Service Module were combined with a > bi-conical CM. A US clone of Soyuz isn't a great idea. For starters, I don't like the fact that the orbital module and descent module are separate modules. More complexity, more separation events, more things to go wrong. The Apollo CM design isn't a bad one for a capsule. You get a lot more lift than the Soyuz design, which means it's easier to get lower G's during reentry, especially when you're coming back from the moon at much higher velocities than you do with a LEO reentry. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > Thu August 14, 2008 > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/08/14/nasa.russia.soyuz/index.html This should come as no surprise to anyone who reads this group. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
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
|
©2010 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.