|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official: Russia cuts off US access to Space.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sanctions.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10828964/Russia-to-ban-US-from-using-Space-Station-over-Ukraine-sanctions.html The seeds came when Space Station Freedom was cancelled in favor of the ISS. (The US paid a lot of the cost of building it, including spotting a lot of Russia's share of the cost.) It would be very nice if we had ARES right now! Wonder if the dorks in DC will get it together (good luck) and build it now? Get on your horses, DC! Manned space flight is the outreach - People watch NASA for Buck Rogers, you can't have him grounded and hold a crowd! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official: Russia cuts off US access to Space.
On Wed, 14 May 2014 07:09:46 -0700 (PDT), "David E. Powell"
wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sanctions.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10828964/Russia-to-ban-US-from-using-Space-Station-over-Ukraine-sanctions.html The seeds came when Space Station Freedom was cancelled in favor of the ISS. (The US paid a lot of the cost of building it, including spotting a lot of Russia's share of the cost.) It would be very nice if we had ARES right now! Wonder if the dorks in DC will get it together (good luck) and build it now? Get on your horses, DC! Manned space flight is the outreach - People watch NASA for Buck Rogers, you can't have him grounded and hold a crowd! It's so good to know that the United States has become dependent on Russia for rocket engines. Something that the US was always good at making. What happened? Boeing and Lockheed couldn't find a factory in china to make their rocket engines for them so now we have to buy Russian engines? And I posed a question a while back could the Russians deny us access and take over the ISS. I was told no. Apparently they're doing just that. And we have no recourse? That's just great. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official: Russia cuts off US access to Space.
On Wed, 14 May 2014 07:09:46 -0700 (PDT), "David E. Powell"
wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sanctions.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10828964/Russia-to-ban-US-from-using-Space-Station-over-Ukraine-sanctions.html The seeds came when Space Station Freedom was cancelled in favor of the ISS. (The US paid a lot of the cost of building it, including spotting a lot of Russia's share of the cost.) It would be very nice if we had ARES right now! Wonder if the dorks in DC will get it together (good luck) and build it now? Get on your horses, DC! Manned space flight is the outreach - People watch NASA for Buck Rogers, you can't have him grounded and hold a crowd! Can Russia utilize the ISS for long without the US being involved? Can we shut down American modules? If they took it over and we eventually had a means to get our astronauts up there would there be a battle over the station. I know it sounds like fodder for a sci-fi action movie, but just wondering the ramifications of Putin's posse cutting us off. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official: Russia cuts off US access to Space.
ISS is aging, we would be far better off to perhaps harvest some parts and deorbit the rest.
If its run too long one day will see a major disaster. a truly bad day. we must end dependence on russia. make it illegal to do any business for anything space related.. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official: Russia cuts off US access to Space.
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
... In article , says... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sanctions.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/10828964/Russia-to-ban-US-from-using-Space-Station-over-Ukraine-sanctions.html The seeds came when Space Station Freedom was cancelled in favor of the ISS. (The US paid a lot of the cost of building it, including spotting a lot of Russia's share of the cost.) It would be very nice if we had ARES right now! No, it wouldn't. Ares is a launch vehicle. The US has plenty of launch vehicles which can deliver payloads to ISS. What the US lacks are ISS module(s) to replace the Russian modules. Specifically, the US lacks a propulsion module (and other bits of functionality). I wouldn't worry too much about that. We can resurrect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_Propulsion_Module in the worst case. We can also perhaps rely on modified Falcon and ATV in the meantime. On the other hand, my understanding is the Russian modules are tight on power w/o the US. And on the gripping hand, Russia loves its money. So we'll see how long this all lasts. Wonder if the dorks in DC will get it together (good luck) and build it now? Get on your horses, DC! Manned space flight is the outreach - People watch NASA for Buck Rogers, you can't have him grounded and hold a crowd! SLS, Ares V's congressionally mandated replacement, isn't doing terribly well. Costs are high and schedules are long. If you're looking for SLS to "save" ISS by 2020, I'd start looking elsewhere. Hello Mr. Musk, we'd like to talk about some bulk purchases.... Jeff -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official: Russia cuts off US access to Space.
In article , rfdjr1
@optonline.net says... Can Russia utilize the ISS for long without the US being involved? Can we shut down American modules? If they took it over and we eventually had a means to get our astronauts up there would there be a battle over the station. I know it sounds like fodder for a sci-fi action movie, but just wondering the ramifications of Putin's posse cutting us off. The two things the US provides that would be deficient on the Russian side might be power and attitude control gyros. Not only does the US side have the biggest solar arrays, but if they are no longer actively controlled, they could cast shadows on the Russian arrays. As far as control gyros, this might be a big problem if they're turned off. Without them, the Russians would be forced to expend quite a bit of fuel to run attitude control engines. This might mean that Progress vessels would need to send up more fuel. In the past, Progress vehicles were occasionally modified to carry much more fuel than normal. The Russians might have to resort to that for some Progress flights dedicated to delivering fuel and providing attitude control. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official: Russia cuts off US access to Space.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official: Russia cuts off US access to Space.
In article , rfdjr1
@optonline.net says... It's so good to know that the United States has become dependent on Russia for rocket engines. Something that the US was always good at making. What happened? Mostly, this is due to lack of investment. In other words, the unwillingness for the US government to fund engine development coupled with the lack of private investment in the same. Add to that the desire to help convince the Russians to take control of former USSR nuclear weapons in exchange for cold hard cash for their space agencies (engines and ISS participation like Progress and Soyuz flights). This created an environment ripe for the US to buy "cheap" Russian engines without regard to the long term consequences. Boeing and Lockheed couldn't find a factory in china to make their rocket engines for them so now we have to buy Russian engines? And I posed a question a while back could the Russians deny us access and take over the ISS. I was told no. Apparently they're doing just that. And we have no recourse? That's just great. Sure they could, but at increased cost due to the way EELV's were being funded (i.e. the US government paid quite a bit of that bill). The government was already balking at the high cost of EELV development, so I'm sure that this seemed like a good idea at the time. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
It's Official: Russia cuts off US access to Space.
In article om,
says... On 14-05-14 10:09, David E. Powell wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sanctions.html If Russians stop sending soyuz/progress, then Europe can build a "permanent" ATV that is refualable and dock it to the rear of the station. There would still be 2 "russian" ports in case they are needed. They could, but the cost would be high. Plus you'd have to refuel it with another ATV anyway, so why not just replace it with a "fresh" ATV every time? It isn't clear to me that the CMGs would work on Z1 if they ditched the russian segment without adding some counter weights. "Counter weights" makes no sense. This is microgravity, remember? The attitude engines used to desaturate the CMGs are quite necessary. It is far more likely we will see SpaceX or the other guys deliver some solution to this. It should be possible to use a Cygnus and/or Dragon variant to provide attitude control. But that's likely to get NASA all "up in their business" with oversight, driving up the costs significantly. Also, it is also quite possible that Russia would agree to donate its segment to the ISS consortium. Considering they have yet to hand over the "control codes" for the Russian built parts of ISS that the US paid *cash* for and claims it owns, I seriously doubt that would happen. If at all, that message from Russia may be the kick in the derrière the USA needs to rebuild its manned space programme and accelerate funding of SpaceX and the other guys. Possibly, but only if the Congresscritters agree. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. The work being done by Boeing apperas to just be Pork without expectation of any deliverables. What "work" is that specifically? Boeing does a lot of things for the US Government, including their work on a "commercial" capsule for commercial crew (I believe it's called CST-100). Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[CM] in hindsight, NASA budget cuts stupid to rely on Russia | Siri Crews | Misc | 0 | April 4th 14 12:57 AM |
On top of it he's been terrorizing the official name of my father. That's not my official name. | gb6726 | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 22nd 07 01:09 PM |
Astronaut cuts her hair in space for charity | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 1 | December 26th 06 09:58 AM |
News - Russia, China May Sign Pact on Joint Moon Exploration - Official | Rusty | History | 28 | October 2nd 06 11:54 AM |
Pravda: Space cooperation with the USA to ruin Russia's space industry | Jim Oberg | Policy | 4 | February 14th 05 05:08 AM |