On 22 Feb 2006 08:07:37 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...

The fact is that the U.S. space shuttle is a flawed system
that has failed to maintain a U.S. human presence in space,
in stark contrast to Russia's Soyuz system.

Yes, too bad the Russians haven't been able to live up to their promises for
number of Soyuz and Progress craft.

And NASA has lived up to its promises?

Nope. But our failure to live up to obligations shouldn't be reason to
excuse others of the same failings. Where, afterall, are the six
Progress flights per year Russia agreed in 1994 to provide? Where is
the Universal Docking Module, the Docking & Stowage Module, and the
Russian Research Modules, all of which would have made life easier on
ISS during the Shuttle's unfortunate standdown. NASA's failings are
largely because its launch system killed a crew. Russia's failings
seem to be large because they can't be bothered to fund what they
promised to fund. Russia has done some serious screwing around, and
you seem to want to kiss the ground they walk on.

The U.S. gave up on
living up to its ISS commitments back in 2001-2002, when
Goldin's NASA overran the ISS budget so badly that Congress
said "enough". NASA has not, and never will, provide full
crew capability, has not provided a rescue craft, etc. Meanwhile,
the U.S. is talking about abandoning ISS altogether in a few
years.

Well, not before its scheduled EOM in 2015, anyway. Post-2010 NASA
seems to be heading toward using commercial suppliers for cargo
delivery. If they were planning to abandon ISS altogether in a few
years, the Shuttle would certainly have been cancelled after 107. And
there is no reason to believe that termination of NASA operations on
ISS will mean the end of US presense there. US interests could quite
easily be turned over to some commercial operator by then.

Today, Russia is the partner pulling the weight on ISS. During the
past three years, Russia delivered six U.S. astronauts to ISS at
no charge on six Soyuz flights (along with seven Russians, three
Europeans, and one space tourist). During the same period,
Russia, with no major hiccups,

I wouldn't say that. TMA-1 came dangerously close to killing its crew
when it faulted to a ballistic entry. The last TMA gave mission
control a good scare during undocking, too. Russia told us, when they
deigned to tell us anything that is, "oh, don't worry, just minor
problems." But isn't this pretty much what NASA was saying about foam
falling off the External Tank before 107?

Brian