-
We need Russia for ISS - ESA
by
Sergi Manstov
on 09 Dec, 2005 12:08
-
-
#1
by
Martin FL
on 09 Dec, 2005 13:37
-
I wish them luck. I do feel we've done a dis-service by them both, but it had to be done. The decision to go with the ISS was a mistake in the first place.
-
#2
by
Mark Max Q
on 09 Dec, 2005 17:12
-
That's good news about the Kliper.
Check out this picture I found on the CNN site. Seems to look different, with wings!
-
#3
by
Davros
on 09 Dec, 2005 17:28
-
Hmmm. The Klipper shown on the Buran thread appears to be a full scale model and has no wings at all. It is not a space plane. I'm pretty sure it is a Soyuz type re-entry with paracutes, so why wings?
-
#4
by
Bruce H
on 09 Dec, 2005 18:08
-
Mark Max Q - 9/12/2005 12:12 PM
That's good news about the Kliper.
Check out this picture I found on the CNN site. Seems to look different, with wings!
Looks like an old artists impression.
-
#5
by
Zachstar
on 09 Dec, 2005 23:56
-
With the chance of 0 shuttle flights in the future I do hope they can work together on this.
Till we can get the new modules up with the SDLV (whatever A5 Soyuz 3 and Proton cant launch) I fell the least we can do is ferry them up to the station.
-
#6
by
hornet
on 10 Dec, 2005 02:03
-
i dont think that the esa should be saying that without russia the iss would fail lets make a list of what they have launched and added to the station yes they have built stuff but lack the ability to send it up and assemble it themselves therefore they need BOTH nasa and russia making it the INTERNATIONAL space station
-
#7
by
lmike
on 10 Dec, 2005 02:49
-
You are right, the ISS requires both to work. Russia for the maintenance crew swap and support, CRV, and some portions of the ECLSS, some of the reboost and some of the science. The US for construction, some of the science, full 6 crew support, some parts of the ECLSS (e.g. CO2 scrubbers), power generation, power distribution, orientation, 6 crew living quarters, down mass return, 24hr telemetry/command uplink (via the TDRSS...), some of the reboost (with the shuttle), ground logistics for all of that, and, of course, money... None of it is cheap. Whether it's all worth it is another question... If either of those 2 participants withdraws, the station is doomed. If ESA/Japan withdraw it becomes really pointless, too, because they've got the most science stuff planned.
-
#8
by
realtime
on 10 Dec, 2005 17:35
-
Yes, ESA needs NASA to finish the ISS, but it didn't have to be that way. If the EU had really cared about such things they would have developed heavy lift and boosted some modules themselves instead of carping about it now. Instead, most EU politicos seem to think space exploration is foolish.
-
#9
by
lmike
on 10 Dec, 2005 19:50
-
While I agree that making the things to be only shuttle launcheable was a stupid idea, It's not just the construction. US participation is vital for day to day operations as well. I'm stressing it because it's a common misconception that the US 'must' just finish the station and then it's free to go to the Moon or wherever. If folks at the ISS MCC in Houston pack up, throw the Off switch, and go, the American Segment goes offline, and the station is borked. Low on power, tumbling, with comm link functioning only for a few hours. Running this whole thing 24hrs a day is expensive. Someone would have to pick the tab for that. And that's what the US has been (quietly) doing. NASA is really deep in this thing.
-
#10
by
Sergi Manstov
on 12 Dec, 2005 05:15
-
realtime - 10/12/2005 12:35 PM
Yes, ESA needs NASA to finish the ISS, but it didn't have to be that way. If the EU had really cared about such things they would have developed heavy lift and boosted some modules themselves instead of carping about it now. Instead, most EU politicos seem to think space exploration is foolish.
Maybe ESA didn't think NASA would turn and run. The question is why should ESA have built their own heavy lift if they had NASA agreeing to do that with the Shuttle? In case NASA turned and run?
Next time nations will know. That is why they are looking to ally with anyone other than the US for the Moon and beyond.
The problem now is for Griffin, who on the other thread seems to think ESA and others won't laugh when he tries to convince NASA's Moon plan is something to join.
If that falls away because the then US president decides to invade someone else and spends all the money on that, should ESA and others have built their own Moon rockets?
Maybe this time they will!
Did ESA meet with NASA? No, they met with Russia. Isn't it obvious to NASA they are being left out in the cold by everyone else? Russia is happy to assist in sales as it makes good business sense, but apart from this, what else is there? Is NASA really that self arrogant?
-
#11
by
Chris Bergin
on 12 Dec, 2005 16:05
-
I have zero tolerate for what followed the above post.
If anyone has a problem with any member of this forum, or any article written by any writer of this site, address it to that person on PM, or talk to me.
If anyone has a problem with the font style, the images, or even the colour scheme of the site, talk to me.
I will not allow this forum to turn into a bickering schoolyard fight - and if you've got a problem with that, talk to me.
-
#12
by
realtime
on 13 Dec, 2005 06:12
-
The phrase "cutting and running" is inflammatory language and is indicative of the bitter and petty politics that always seems to swamp these discussions. It is my opinion that such highly charged rhetoric should be avoided in polite company.
Europe is not "all in" as they say when playing poker. If they were, they would have developed their own capability. Would Russia rely on another country for access to space? Never. Yet Europe does.
A tragedy befell NASA when Columbia was lost. They have been trying to recover ever since. They have received little slack but plenty of abuse from its partners. This is not constructive.
Now NASA is getting back on its feet, and the hand of cooperation is offered once again. I understand ESA's reticence and it will take time to reestablish trust, but I believe NASA, ESA and yes, even Russia will eventually find it in their best interests to reconcile.
-
#13
by
Dogsbd
on 13 Dec, 2005 11:49
-
realtime - 13/12/2005 2:12 AM
The phrase "cutting and running" is inflammatory language and is indicative of the bitter and petty politics that always seems to swamp these discussions. It is my opinion that such highly charged rhetoric should be avoided in polite company.
I agree, and that is why I reponded as I did... and maybe my response was too harshly worded but regardless my response was deleted; Sergis' inflammatory language that lead to my response remains however. Curious.
-
#14
by
lmike
on 13 Dec, 2005 12:04
-
Eh... Nice agitprop. The "cut"? "run"? The ONLY reason NASA has spent billions upgrading the STS past Columbia (and is continuing with it at all) was so that the US can fulfill its 'international obligations' on the ISS (which I personally think is wrong, but that's besides the point) 7 lives were lost which is also partially due to ISS construction pressures on the program (see the CAIB report) The amount of effort the US has put into the ISS and is continuing to do so (+plus paying for the FGB, and giving FREE rides to the cosmonauts on shuttles in the PAST) on daily basis ought to be sufficient get at least a modicum of respect from you.
As to the ESA standing in this... you've got to be kidding me, ESA has a represtentative at NASA just like at the RSA, as well, and they talk and discuss things, including the lunar program... and they seem to be interested in the only Lunar program on the table.
If that falls away because the then US president decides to invade someone else and spends all the money on that, should ESA and others have built their own Moon rockets?
I do have a comment on this you won't like, but... why drag this into non-space related politics?
-
#15
by
Sergi Manstov
on 13 Dec, 2005 13:48
-
I did not mean to cause offense, I am sorry.
