Rubbing our liberty-loving noses in it!

They say:

quote
For thirty years, shuttles provide not only access to space for humans,
but the overall delivery to orbit payloads, without which large-scale
construction of the International Space Station is unlikely it would be
possible. Mankind has paid tribute to the role of U.S. ships in space
exploration.
end quote

That's quite fair from them.

The cold war is over Pat, just understand that they see themselves
vindicated somehow, that their "old" Soyuz goes on flying. I would
bet the U.S. would do the same in a similar situation.

How many bad jokes I have heard about the russians here?

The dirty Ruskies couldn't wait for the Shuttle to touch down, to begin
denigrating it compared to the "reliable" Soyuz.
A translation of the Roskosmos article about it:
http://tinyurl.com/448ct5r

"Beginning of an era "Soyuz"
July 21, 2011 ended with the last flight of the program "Space Shuttle".
At 13.57 Moscow time the shuttle "Atlantis" with NASA astronauts,
Christopher Ferguson, Sandra Magnus, Rex Uolheymom and Douglas Hurley
has landed on the runway spaceport them. Kennedy at Cape Canaveral. At a
time when the ship touched the chassis of the Earth, ending the era
shuttles.
Flying away from the ISS, the astronauts 'Atlantis' left aboard the
station a reminder of this era - a small copy of a winged American
spaceship. This was announced today in his blog cosmonaut Alexander
Samokutyaev Space Agency.
On Earth, U.S. cruise the spacecraft will now be seen only in museums,
the United States.
"Discovery" transferred to the National Air and Space Museum in
Washington. "Endeavour" to complement the exhibition park, located near
the California Research Center. "Atlantis" will be on display at the
Kennedy Space Center, NASA. The test sample "Enterprise" does not make
any of the flight deck will be located on an aircraft carrier-museum
"Intrepid" in New York.
Today's landing of the American "Atlantis" was certainly one of the most
significant milestones in the history of space exploration. For Russia,
this new phase of work on the ISS program, in which a "Soyuz" No stunt
doubles.
At least until 2016, astronauts partner agencies will fly into orbit on
the Russian "Soyuz".
For thirty years, shuttles provide not only access to space for humans,
but the overall delivery to orbit payloads, without which large-scale
construction of the International Space Station is unlikely it would be
possible. Mankind has paid tribute to the role of U.S. ships in space
exploration.
But why is comfortable and beautiful "birds" go, but the "old Russian"
Soyuz ", as they are called foreign media are?
The answer is simple - reliability, not to mention profitable.
The definition of "old" has nothing to do with reality. "Unions" are
constantly being upgraded. Starting next year, the ISS will be flying
ships new versions are equipped with digital systems. At present, the
second "Union" series "TMA-M" is flight-design tests.
Furthermore, even if in the coming years will be an alternative to the
Russian manned "Soyuz", it will take a long time before it is proven
that the new ship will be able to provide the necessary level of safety
for manned space flights.
From now on in the world manned space begins the era of "Unions" - the
era of reliability.

Press Service of the Russian Space Agency"

I think we all know what's next - FLUORIDATED WATER ONLY ON THE ISS!
THEN OVER THE WHOLE CHASSIS OF THE EARTH! ;-)

Pat

On Jul 22, 10:53*am, jacob navia wrote:

The cold war is over Pat, just understand that they see themselves
vindicated somehow, that their "old" Soyuz goes on flying. I would
bet the U.S. would do the same in a similar situation.

But the U.S. *wouldn't* do the same thing as the Russians.

Can you imagine NASA being satisfied with using the same
Apollo design (with evolutionary upgrades) for over 4 decades?

I can't. NASA would've pushed for a bleeding-edge technology
(and more costly) replacement. If not the Shuttle, then something
else.

On 7/22/2011 9:53 AM, jacob navia wrote:

How many bad jokes I have heard about the russians here?

Not half enough!
But let us see "Putin's Army" and their hooligan stripper ways:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG2XV2n9efc
These little straw-sucking sluts, these tyrant-toasting teases, have
already made impotent, or even killed, many men - due to prostate cancer
- as Pravda warned us:
http://english.pravda.ru/society/sex...2-impotence-0/
Pravda! Still "The Thinking Communist's" choice after all these years! ;-)

Patsky (Secret Party Name: Zinc)

Pat Flannery wrote:

But yeah, you're right...we would still have built something new after
that, probably the same Shuttle.

If I've understood s.s.h correctly over the years, what really
screwed shuttle was the cross-range capability demanded by the
military and then not used.

On 7/22/2011 1:37 PM, wrote:

Can you imagine NASA being satisfied with using the same
Apollo design (with evolutionary upgrades) for over 4 decades?

I can't. NASA would've pushed for a bleeding-edge technology
(and more costly) replacement. If not the Shuttle, then something
else.

At least if we'd gone with the General Electric design, it would have
been a lot more versatile than the Apollo CSM, and might well have been
in service longer:
http://web.archive.org/web/200901050...t/apollod2.htm
But yeah, you're right...we would still have built something new after
that, probably the same Shuttle.

Pat

On 7/22/2011 4:55 PM, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

But yeah, you're right...we would still have built something new after
that, probably the same Shuttle.

If I've understood s.s.h correctly over the years, what really
screwed shuttle was the cross-range capability demanded by the
military and then not used.

That and the huge cargo bay to house photo-reconnaissance satelites,
which needed wide mirrors and long focal length to get the desired
resolution of targets on the Earth's surface.
The Air Force got dragged into the program despite not wanting any part
of it, preferring to keep using their Titan III rockets for reconsat
launches. But by having them involved, the high R&D costs of the
Shuttle could be partially offset by using both NASA and AF funds. But
the AF demanded the delta wings for cross range on "once around" polar
satellite launches, and the big cargo bay for their satellite as the
price for them of getting involved; the "once around" missions (get up
there, dump off the satellite, and land all in one orbit) were because
the Soviets thought the Shuttle might be used as a bomber for a surprise
attack on them, and were making threatening noises about shooting it
down with a ABM if it ever flew over their territory.
The Air Force figured out a launch trajectory southwards from Vandenberg
AFB that would get the satellite in the desired high inclination orbit
without passing over the USSR, but it meant as the Earth rotated the
Shuttle would have to enter the atmosphere to the west of its launch
site, and needed the cross range to get back home as it maneuvered
during reentry.

Pat

writes:

Can you imagine NASA being satisfied with using the same
Apollo design (with evolutionary upgrades) for over 4 decades?

Because Apollo would've been totally wrong for that role. Soyuz, on the
other hand, is perfect for what it did (and still does) all that time.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On 7/23/2011 3:15 PM, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
writes:

Can you imagine NASA being satisfied with using the same
Apollo design (with evolutionary upgrades) for over 4 decades?

Because Apollo would've been totally wrong for that role. Soyuz, on the
other hand, is perfect for what it did (and still does) all that time.

And was designed to do all sorts of different missions right from the
outset, even serve as a space fighter with the reentry module on the
front, joined to a living/weapons module behind it via a hatch in the
heatshield.

Pat

On Jul 22, 11:53*am, jacob navia wrote:

The cold war is over

The old cold war is over. Putin and Medvedev invaded Georgia, and
decided to start a new one.

John Savard