I can't stop laughing over the Shenzhou launch

jeff findley wrote in message ...
(Bo) writes:

I have been giggling over the Shenzhou launch, in regard to the spot
light it also casts on the ISS, International Space Station.

You're under the influence of something, right? Either that or you're
about 12 years old, right?

The funny factor is that the #1 ISS membership requirement is that one
does not challenge our strategic and scientific dominance. Neophyte
nation? No problem!

Since the ISS is still likely to exclude China, the title
"International" would be an oxymoron and a hypocrisy, regardless of
political and/or security reasons.

Why isn't a project that involves the US, Russia, ESA, Japan,
Canada, and etc, international? Do tell.

It is also 'international' if say, ESA were not a member.

Is there any solution to integrate China to preserve the ISS'
legitimicy and still maintain politically correctness?

What are you talking about? Next you'll be telling everyone that ISS
isn't truly "international" unless we directly involve every single
country in the world. I wonder what Afganastan can do to participate?

The keyword is 'capable country'. When and if Afganastan becomes
stable and do not potentially challenge our dominance, I don't see why
not.

Jeff

OMG! Even the Economist teases the word "international"
http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=2137993

"China's possession of its own manned space programme will also
increase pressure on the Americans to allow China to participate in
the allegedly ?International? Space Station. This is something the
Chinese have long coveted but have not, so far, been allowed to do. "

Firstly, you're assuming China wants to participate in ISS. Frankly,
their actions indicate they're working on their own to demonstrate
what they can do on their own. This is a decidedly different approach
than say the ESA has been taking for decades.

Secondly, ISS is struggling to survive. Adding another partner this
late in the game may not necessarily help. In fact, it may actually
hurt the program, unless the new partner participates in only
peripheral ways, which I doubt China would want.

Thirdly, you've got a really warped view of what "international"
means. You assume that ISS is open to any and all participants. It
isn't. It's an exclusive club and you've got to be invited in order to
participate.

Jeff

"Bo" wrote in message
m...

The funny factor is that the #1 ISS membership requirement is that one
does not challenge our strategic and scientific dominance. Neophyte
nation? No problem!

DFTT - Don't Feed The Troll

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

The U.S. Government is in the
peculiar position of toppling foreign
governments in the name of democracy.

Oh, how democractic!

Secondly, ISS is struggling to survive. Adding another partner this
late in the game may not necessarily help. In fact, it may actually
hurt the program, unless the new partner participates in only
peripheral ways, which I doubt China would want.


I don't buy that argument. If china were to provide a second "Soyuz" capsule
to bring crew size up to 6, would the ISS partners refuse ? (ok, so one or twp
of those 6 would be chinese)

If China were to provide a hab, would other partners refuse ?

Remember that to the USA, "assembly complete" has now been reduced to 3
crewmembers. Hab and CRV are still distant dreams. And when you consider the
huge debts accrued recently, I doubt the USA government will be in a position
to start increasing budgets anytime soon.

When Japan joined the ISS, did it have much more experience building space
modules than China currently has ? Europe may have built Spacelab, but they
had never built something like ATV before. Yet, that was included in the grand
scheme of things.

So, just because China hasn't built a module yet shouldn't be a show stopper,
in principle.

Now, in practice, I think that China would have to show that it has built
sufficient knowledge/expertise to be able to deliver on promised modules/services.

In article ,
Andrew Gray wrote:
In article , jeff findley wrote:

Thirdly, you've got a really warped view of what "international"
means. You assume that ISS is open to any and all participants. It
isn't. It's an exclusive club and you've got to be invited in order to
participate.

Out of interest, who *are* the station participants? ESA (or at least
individual parts of it), Canada, the US, Russia & Japan; are there other
smaller nations providing some funding/equipment in return for getting
experiments flown? Enquiring minds, and all that...

See http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/...ers/index.html

USA, Canada, Japan, Russia, Brazil, and 11 of the ESA
nations (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. It would appear that
Austria, Finland, Ireland, and Portucal are not involved.

Nick

In article ,
Bo wrote:
OMG! Even the Economist teases the word "international"
http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=2137993

They also concluded the article by commenting on the future
of the Chinese space program:

"Perhaps the Chinese should quit while they are ahead.".

As usual with the Economist, the article is well worth reading.

Nick

The ISS is a Tonka toy. You can always break it up and rebuild. The RSA has
already taken this into account within the design strategy.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

(Bo) writes:

The funny factor is that the #1 ISS membership requirement is that one
does not challenge our strategic and scientific dominance. Neophyte
nation? No problem!

I see your point but chose to disagree with it. If this were really
an issue, Russia would never have been brought on board. Russia is,
after all, the dominant player in space stations, automated rendezvous
and docking, long term human presence in space, and many other areas
relevant to ISS. The only thing they currently lack is money.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

player in snipautomated rendezvous


Would question the degree of difficulty in camparing the rendezvous and
docking of an 18 wheeler like the shuttle and the SUV supply ships.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Russia has been a declining power whose projected future economic
growth is unimpressive. Without a strong economy in the coming
decades, they cannot afford competition. Thus they are quite benign.

jeff findley wrote in message ...
(Bo) writes:

The funny factor is that the #1 ISS membership requirement is that one
does not challenge our strategic and scientific dominance. Neophyte
nation? No problem!

I see your point but chose to disagree with it. If this were really
an issue, Russia would never have been brought on board. Russia is,
after all, the dominant player in space stations, automated rendezvous
and docking, long term human presence in space, and many other areas
relevant to ISS. The only thing they currently lack is money.

Jeff