US to use Ariane launch vehicles?

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in
:

The U.S. sees Europe increasingly as
a potential rival and in that light in would be better if the U.S.
would go it alone.

Correction. Europe is increasingly seen as an enemy in the American quest
for global empire. Cooperation efforts regarding Ariane are nothing more
than an easy way to feign multilateralism while tying down European space
resources so they cannot be used for independant space projects, such as
Galileo, that the Americans regard as a threat.

It is essential to realize that all American external policy is now
dedicated towards the expansion of empire. Delaying human space
development while advancing American military space development is a key
portion of this as space is one of the few arenas where humanity can
challenge American goals.

--
Coridon Henshaw - http://www3.telus.net/csbh - "I have sadly come to the
conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny
reality." -- Charley Reese

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:24:35 +0100, "Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:


None. But the Adminstration wants this to be an international effort.

Cite?

None. Just pure logic. Ariane isn't American, so the citing in the report
of
possible use of an Ariane would indicate the Adminstration doesn't want
to
do this alone (read: pay for the program all out of its own pockets).

My take on the report is that the US would use Ariane (for ATV) and
Russia (for Soyuz) to continue ISS support. I see nothing about
Moon/Mars being an international effort.

Maybe we both interpreted it differently but I read into it that the CEV
*could* be launched by an Ariane. The CEV is a vital part of the
moon-effort. So go figure...

"Al Jackson" wrote in message
m...
(vthokie) wrote in message
. com...
From nasawatch.com:

"To pay for the new effort -- which would require a new generation of
spacecraft but use Europe's Ariane rockets and Russia's Soyuz capsules
in the interim -- NASA's space shuttle fleet would be retired as soon
as construction of the International Space Station is completed"

What capability does Ariane offer that we can't provide with our own
Delta 4 or Atlas 5?

Here is an odd thing.
If one counts the time between reitring the Orbiters and a new USA manned
space craft, it looks as if only Russia and China will have manned space
craft!
Not clear what the time delta would be, 5 years?

I don't believe (although I may be wrong) NASA will mothball the Shuttles
immediately after Bush's announcement. OTOH, the Shuttles are eating up
enormous amounts of money. But mothballing the Shuttles will leave the U.S.
without a manned space program for at least 5-6 years. Bad, but a similar
gap existed between the last Apollo (Soyuz-Apollo; 1976) and the first Space
Shuttle flight (1981).

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 05:55:48 GMT, Coridon Henshaw
) wrote:

The U.S. sees Europe increasingly as
a potential rival and in that light in would be better if the U.S.
would go it alone.

Correction. Europe is increasingly seen as an enemy

Europe is increasingly seen as a bunch of spineless, ungrateful
simpletons who incessantly argue about crises instead of doing
anything about them. Europe has a fondness for preaching about
"peaceful solutions" but when peaceful solutions fail (which they
invariably do), pick up the phone and call America demanding to be
rescued from their own stupidity.

in the American quest for global empire.

If America was out for global empire, Europe would not be free today.
There was no particular reason, for example, that the United States
had to give Paris back to the French in 1944. We just did. Now the
French whine about American arrogance and "empire", and wonder why the
Americans roll their eyes in disgust about them.

Cooperation efforts regarding Ariane are nothing more
than an easy way to feign multilateralism while tying down European space
resources so they cannot be used for independant space projects, such as
Galileo, that the Americans regard as a threat.

Galileo is a threat because Europe has shown repeatedly that it
doesn't have the backbone to make difficult decisions when danger
appears on its doorstep. Galileo will be used by Europe's adversaries
against it, it is only a matter of time.

Brian

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:26:04 +0100, "Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:24:35 +0100, "Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:


None. But the Adminstration wants this to be an international effort.

Cite?

None. Just pure logic. Ariane isn't American, so the citing in the report
of
possible use of an Ariane would indicate the Adminstration doesn't want
to
do this alone (read: pay for the program all out of its own pockets).

My take on the report is that the US would use Ariane (for ATV) and
Russia (for Soyuz) to continue ISS support. I see nothing about
Moon/Mars being an international effort.

Maybe we both interpreted it differently but I read into it that the CEV
*could* be launched by an Ariane. The CEV is a vital part of the
moon-effort. So go figure...

http://www.space.com/news/bush_update_040109.html

"The Crew Exploration Vehicle would be launched aboard existing
expendable rockets such as the Boeing Delta 4 or Lockheed Martin Atlas
5."

Brian

In article , Brian Thorn wrote:

in the American quest for global empire.

If America was out for global empire, Europe would not be free today.
There was no particular reason, for example, that the United States
had to give Paris back to the French in 1944. We just did.

Um. Whilst the gist of your thesis shouldn't really cause me to expect
much from your examples, this really isn't the best one - the Second
French Armoured Division might have had odd questions to ask about
having to give Paris to the Americans so it couldn't be given back to
them...

--
-Andrew Gray

"Al Jackson" wrote in message
om...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
.. .
"Al Jackson" wrote in message
m...
(vthokie) wrote in message
. com...
From nasawatch.com:

"To pay for the new effort -- which would require a new generation
of
spacecraft but use Europe's Ariane rockets and Russia's Soyuz
capsules
in the interim -- NASA's space shuttle fleet would be retired as
soon
as construction of the International Space Station is completed"

What capability does Ariane offer that we can't provide with our own
Delta 4 or Atlas 5?

Here is an odd thing.
If one counts the time between reitring the Orbiters and a new USA
manned
space craft, it looks as if only Russia and China will have manned
space
craft!
Not clear what the time delta would be, 5 years?

I don't believe (although I may be wrong) NASA will mothball the
Shuttles
immediately after Bush's announcement. OTOH, the Shuttles are eating up
enormous amounts of money. But mothballing the Shuttles will leave the
U.S.
without a manned space program for at least 5-6 years. Bad, but a
similar
gap existed between the last Apollo (Soyuz-Apollo; 1976) and the first
Space
Shuttle flight (1981).

Well there will be at least 13 more Orbiter flights, till ISS Core
Complete, but seems pretty sure they won't fly after 2010.
But who know's when the CEV would be ready?

The U.S. already made the unilateral decision to scrap ISS after 'Core
Complete'. Who says they won't make take another unilateral decision to scap
ISS *NOW*? With these neocons in power, I wouldn't dare striking a wager.

Andrew Gray wrote in
:

In article , Brian Thorn
wrote:

in the American quest for global empire.

If America was out for global empire, Europe would not be free today.
There was no particular reason, for example, that the United States
had to give Paris back to the French in 1944. We just did.

Um. Whilst the gist of your thesis shouldn't really cause me to expect
much from your examples, this really isn't the best one - the Second
French Armoured Division might have had odd questions to ask about
having to give Paris to the Americans so it couldn't be given back to
them...

That's circular, I'm afraid. The Second French Armoured Division was only
in Paris in the first place because the US allowed them to enter first, for
obvious symbolic reasons. Had the US wanted to take Paris, it simply would
have held the French out.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in
:


"Al Jackson" wrote in message
m...

Here is an odd thing.
If one counts the time between reitring the Orbiters and a new USA
manned space craft, it looks as if only Russia and China will have
manned space
craft!
Not clear what the time delta would be, 5 years?

I don't believe (although I may be wrong) NASA will mothball the
Shuttles immediately after Bush's announcement.

You're wrong. Even the scant details in the UPI story make clear the
shuttle fleet will be retired after ISS assembly complete. (How they
*define* assembly complete is left vague...)

But mothballing the Shuttles will
leave the U.S. without a manned space program for at least 5-6 years.
Bad, but a similar gap existed between the last Apollo (Soyuz-Apollo;
1976) and the first Space Shuttle flight (1981).

ASTP was 1975, actually, so it was six years.

And those at NASA who were there for that last gap remember that the worst
part of it was not simply not launching anyone for six years, but the
dispersal of the experience base from Apollo because people got laid off or
left for new careers during the downtime.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

(Zzed) wrote in
om:

(vthokie) wrote in message
. com...
From nasawatch.com:

"To pay for the new effort -- which would require a new generation of
spacecraft but use Europe's Ariane rockets and Russia's Soyuz
capsules in the interim -- NASA's space shuttle fleet would be
retired as soon as construction of the International Space Station is
completed"

What capability does Ariane offer that we can't provide with our own
Delta 4 or Atlas 5?

as nobody answered your question correctly, here is the right answer.
Ariane ATV offers the capability to zero the budget for ISS launch
support costs.

Umm, by my count, Sander Vesik, Brian Thorn, and I gave that answer first.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.