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!

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).

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.

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

"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

In article ,
says...

"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.

And redesign it for launch on an expendable, since it was originally
designed to be carried to ISS in the shuttle's payload bay. This would
be non-trivial since launching something into orbit is the *easy* part.
Rendezvous and berthing/docking with ISS is the *hard* part. The US
currently only has Cygnus and Dragon doing that today. I'm not sure
either is well suited for delivering a fairly massive module like the
ISS Propulsion Module.

Cygnus would be a better bet if you ditched the pressurized module and
replaced it with the propulsion module. But that would likely require a
bigger launch vehicle than it currently uses. Anything is possible,
given enough time and money.

We can also perhaps rely on modified Falcon and ATV in the meantime.

You mean Dragon. ATV would mean building more of them, which Europe
might not be willing to do since that would cost quite a bit of money to
restart ATV "production".

On the other hand, my understanding is the Russian modules are tight on
power w/o the US.

Power and attitude control with the CMGs.

And on the gripping hand, Russia loves its money. So we'll see how long
this all lasts.

I'm thinking this whole thing is yet another play by the Russians for
more cash. With commercial cargo in full swing and commercial crew on
the way, the cash payments for Progress and Soyuz flights will be coming
to an end.

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....

Tell that to DOD who seem to be giving SpaceX grief over certifying
Falcon 9 v1.1 for EELV class launches, instead giving ULA a huge "block
buy" of EELV cores using a non-compete contract. This would appear to
be a no-no according to government procurement rules with Falcon 9 v1.1
having made several successful flights.

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

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.

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

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:20:25 PM UTC-4, wrote:
while back could the Russians deny us access and take over the ISS. I was told
no.

Not by me.

Apparently they're doing just that. And we have no recourse? That's just
great.

Well not so fast. As I understand it the Russians are dependent upon NASA ISS mission control for supplying power to their modules. At least until they can fly their own modules that would make the Russian modules self-sufficient in power.

We, US/NASA are dependent upon the Russian modules for navigation/station-keeping. And, unlike our Russian friends, no plans on the drawing boards for replacing those modules.

But this kind of back-and-forth bickering is ultimately pointless. In this case I believe possession (occupation) is 9/10ths of the law.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/file...ps505cef1c.jpg

Dave

Maybe the US might want to consider throwing some bucks at Bigelow and SpaceX?

Naaaah...

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.

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..