From Russia, Without Love

....is the title of this week's Fox News column, in which I discuss the
difference between the Russian and American space programs, and
propose moving ISS into a useful orbit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102931,00.html

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

...is the title of this week's Fox News column, in which I discuss the
difference between the Russian and American space programs,

A meaningless discussion since it compares a Russian self-evaluation
with a critical external review of the American program. Apples and
oranges.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

...is the title of this week's Fox News column, in which I discuss the
difference between the Russian and American space programs, and
propose moving ISS into a useful orbit.

Thanks for the ad.


Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent

Even if the Russkis could launch Soyuz out of Kourou to an ISS at 28
degrees, there's no way they could dock with ISS without visibility to
Russian ground stations, which all are at 51.6 degrees or higher
latitude.

Besides, in a world where the US can't even send one pound to ISS, the
idea of sending multi-ton propellant tanks to dock with ISS is
ludricrous.

Well, I guess there must be some way to get ISS away from the grubby
hands of those capitalist Russians, so they can't pull any more Dennis
Tito stunts.



h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message ...
...is the title of this week's Fox News column, in which I discuss the
difference between the Russian and American space programs, and
propose moving ISS into a useful orbit.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102931,00.html

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:37:40 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Even if the Russkis could launch Soyuz out of Kourou to an ISS at 28
degrees,

Why in the world could they not?

there's no way they could dock with ISS without visibility to
Russian ground stations, which all are at 51.6 degrees or higher
latitude.

Really?

Besides, in a world where the US can't even send one pound to ISS, the
idea of sending multi-ton propellant tanks to dock with ISS is
ludricrous.

Buy them from the Russians. It could be done with a few dozen Progess
M1s.

Well, I guess there must be some way to get ISS away from the grubby
hands of those capitalist Russians, so they can't pull any more Dennis
Tito stunts.

laughing

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Rand:

"Dozens" of Progress M1s?

Launching Soyuzes out of Kourou?

Wow!

I hope you don't expect the Russians to pay to move ISS out of 51.6
degrees. Oh, no! You want to steal *my* money to pay for your scheme!
This one is worthy of Gosplan.


h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message .. .
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:37:40 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Even if the Russkis could launch Soyuz out of Kourou to an ISS at 28
degrees,

Why in the world could they not?

there's no way they could dock with ISS without visibility to
Russian ground stations, which all are at 51.6 degrees or higher
latitude.

Really?

Besides, in a world where the US can't even send one pound to ISS, the
idea of sending multi-ton propellant tanks to dock with ISS is
ludricrous.

Buy them from the Russians. It could be done with a few dozen Progess
M1s.

Well, I guess there must be some way to get ISS away from the grubby
hands of those capitalist Russians, so they can't pull any more Dennis
Tito stunts.

laughing

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 07:54:00 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand:

"Dozens" of Progress M1s?

Launching Soyuzes out of Kourou?

Wow!

I hope you don't expect the Russians to pay to move ISS out of 51.6
degrees.

Of course not.

Oh, no! You want to steal *my* money to pay for your scheme!
This one is worthy of Gosplan.

Why is that worse that stealing your money to pay for the current
scheme?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Why is that worse that stealing your money to pay for the current
scheme?



That's hardly an argument in your plan's (or for that matter, the whole
ISS operation's) favor, is it?

Pat

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:37:40 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Besides, in a world where the US can't even send one pound to ISS, the
idea of sending multi-ton propellant tanks to dock with ISS is
ludricrous.

Buy them from the Russians. It could be done with a few dozen Progess
M1s.

For large values of "a few", perhaps. If Ed's figure of 322 tons is
accurate (it should actually be a little low, since the Progress reboost
engine has an Isp of only 302 s), that's in the neighborhood of 150
Progress M1s. That will cost well over your $1 billion figure. Close to ten
times that, actually, if the Russians' quote to NASA of $65 million per
Progress is still good.


--
JRF

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

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:23:35 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Jorge R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Besides, in a world where the US can't even send one pound to ISS, the
idea of sending multi-ton propellant tanks to dock with ISS is
ludricrous.

In a world where the US can't even send one pound to ISS, it's absurd
to talk about having US space station at all.

(I know that wasn't your comment, Jorge.)

Buy them from the Russians. It could be done with a few dozen Progess
M1s.

For large values of "a few", perhaps. If Ed's figure of 322 tons is
accurate (it should actually be a little low, since the Progress reboost
engine has an Isp of only 302 s), that's in the neighborhood of 150
Progress M1s.

I think it's 305, but who's counting?

I'm not actually proposing that it come all the way down to
twenty-eight degrees. Even forty would be a vast improvement, and
that would be half of whatever cost it is.

Ed will have to show us his calcs to determine whether or not they're
right.

That will cost well over your $1 billion figure. Close to ten
times that, actually, if the Russians' quote to NASA of $65 million per
Progress is still good.

I'll bet that bulk buys would drop the price. Of course, the problem
is that 1) they'll be unwilling to do it if it cuts them out of the
loop in the future, which could be obviated by them closing the deal
and getting serious about Kourou and 2) the fact that once the station
starts to move downward, they wouldn't be able to get to it any more
from Baikonur to complete the job...

It's really a package. I was being a little tongue in cheek when I
talked about a divorce. It's contingent on them developing Kourou
capability, so they can participate as well in a sensible station
location, and help get it there.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: