Soviet Space Battle Station Images Published

An anonymous reader writes "Images of the Soviet Union's laser space battle station Skif and its prototype Polyus have been published on the web. Polyus-Skif was the Soviet response to the American 'Star Wars' program of the 1980s. The Polyus was launched in May 1987 but a faulty sensor caused it to de-orbit into the South Pacific. More information can be found at Encyclopedia Astronautica."

Comments

...but a faulty sensor caused it to de-orbit...

[DaneelGiskard]

...yes, I would pretend this as well ;-)

Re:...but a faulty sensor caused it to de-orbit...

[Anonymous Coward]

With a name like Skif that would link it to Zack Branigan. It was fated to de-orbit.. err crash.

Re:...but a faulty sensor caused it to de-orbit...

[CrowScape]

No, it would link it to the Arilou Lalee'lay, indicating that the Soviets had a secret deal with them to obtain a quasispace portal generator. I always knew Falayalaralfali was Red!

Re:...but a faulty sensor caused it to de-orbit...

[Digital Avatar]

Well, what with the Ur-Quan on their way, they had to do something. Now all we need to do is wait for the nuclear exchange to occur in the middle east, call it The Little War, and we'll have the whole fucking thing.

Wow

[The-Bus]

I especially like this picture, which seems to almost be a spy shot froma James Bond movie, or as one of the posters commented, "Looks very Thunderbirds-ish."

Re:Wow

[SuperBanana]

Dunno about that, but this reminds me of Bill Cosby's skit, "200MPH", where he jokes about Carol Shelby.

Shelby catches Cosby driving "one of them ferrin cars", and swears he's going to build Cosby a custom Cobra, the best that ever was. "Its gonna have du-al exhaust, du-al sup'chargers, du-al steerin' wheels, du-al fire extinguishers...du-al everything. I dunno how it's gonna work but goddangit everything gonna be DUAL".

Don't anybody show Shelby that picture :-)

Re:Wow

[Rorschach1]

What I find interesting is the marking on the side that says 'MIR-2'. I guess it would have been launched just after the original Mir station. Seems a little ironic to name a battle station 'Peace', though I guess it can be translated as 'Earth' too.

The picture of the launch vehicle being erected is classic. Looks like either the world's largest surface-to-air missile or a 1950's idea of a rocket ship.

Re:Wow

[HeghmoH]

Russian launch practices are fascinating. They basically cart the rocket out on a huge truck, turn it upright, and fire it off. They routinely launch in horrible weather. By comparison, the US space program uses an incredibly slow and expensive system to take the things to the launch pad while they're upright. They launched one time when it was a tad cold and the entire thing blew up. On the other hand, Apollo 12 was struck by lightning twice during the launch, and went on to land on the Moon.

Re:Wow

[osu-neko]

Seems a little ironic to name a battle station 'Peace'

Kinda like calling an ICBM a "Peacekeeper missile".

Re:Wow

[blincoln]

Seems a little ironic to name a battle station 'Peace', though I guess it can be translated as 'Earth' too.

If you read the linked articles, this is discussed. One of the components was re-used from the planned MIR 2 project.

Re:Wow

[RedWizzard]

The Soviet's had a lot of failures though, more than the US would accept. E.g. the four N1 moon launcher failures, and the failure of this mission. The other thing to keep in mind is that the majority of the Soviet space program was military in nature (only 20% of mission were non-military), and the Soviet military are far more willing to take risks on conditions to meet deadlines than NASA.

Re:Wow

[mikerich]

The Soviet's had a lot of failures though, more than the US would accept. E.g. the four N1 moon launcher failures, and the failure of this mission.

The Soviet mentality was to fly the hardware and then debug it. It allowed them to get rockets developed relatively quickly and without building expensive test facilities. This all worked fine for the earlier rockets like the R7. However when it came to the N1 the lack of a test stand for the first stage proved fatal for the programme. The Proton also had a troublesome birth with stages cracking on the pad or disintegrating in flight - that probably lost them the chance to send a cosmonaut around the Moon before the Americans as well as a couple of unmanned lunar landers.

Having said that, the N1 was probably ready for flight by the time of the fifth (cancelled) test flight. And the first launch of Energia was a massive success - the Soviets had never tried launching a liquid hydrogen rocket before, nor had they attempted a largely automated launch procedure. With the exception of a couple of minor problems that delayed Energia, the launch was a triumph - so much so that they were prepared to risk launching Buran live on television without further tests. The Communist Party then had a fit of nerves and cancelled the live broadcat.

The Soviets had to launch in poor conditions - their polar orbiting satellites were flown out of Plesetsk in the Arctic and even Baikonur has a lousy winter. With the relatively short lives of their satellites they needed to keep launching. By keeping their rockets simple, heavy and reliable it allowed them to conduct blast offs at -20C, in fog, blizzards you name it...

Best wishes,
Mike.

See a picture...

[Anonymous Coward]

here, just in case that one gets Slashdotted. It's already starting to look beat-up.

Re:See a picture...

[syrinje]

A-ha! All these years I was wondering where Lucas got the idea for a spherical deathstar design with a concave depression - and now I know - thank you, thank you, thank you, dear AC - NOT!

Re:See a picture...

[fr2asbury]

I always thought he got it from the AT&T logo, or was that vice versa? ;-)

Re:See a picture...

[cerebis]

As encountered by the Starship Enterpoop?

Hahaha

[metlin]

Interesting comments.

And they said that movie with Clint Eastwood in space was farfethced. Hah!

*ahem*

We do have a cowboy in office, don't we?

Re:Hahaha

[kfg]

We do have a cowboy in office, don't we?

Nah. The guy who just shovels shit isn't properly refered to as a cowboy.

KFG

Re:Hahaha

[Jakosa]

We do have a cowboy in office, don't we?

No not really. He's all hat and no cattle!

Re:Hahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we have a cultured, educated New Englander who took on a cowboy personnae to win the hillbilly vote.

Born in Connecticut, raised in Massachusets, educated at Phillips Andover and Yale. My question to you is: where did the accent come from?

Re:Hahaha

[SlashN]

Just be glad he isn't ultra right wing Amish.

-SlashN

Is Wily Coyote trying to eat the road runner or have sex with it?

Re:Hahaha

[Rocky1138]

Wasn't that movie called Firefox? Conspiracy theorists abound.

Re:Hahaha

[CaptainAvatar]

No.

Re:Hahaha

[Rocky1138]

Yes. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0790 75116X/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-9805707-9527825 ?v=glance Although not the exact movie that was talked about, this is the movie I thought they were referring to.

Re:Hahaha

[Rocky1138]

Whoa. Slashdot totally fucked that one up :)
Click here for the Firefox movie.

Re:Hahaha

[CaptainAvatar]

Yes, I knew what movie you thought they were talking about :) But IIRC, he didn't even go into space in Firefox, just flew a very fast plane. Sorry, just being pedantic.

Old Soviet Overlords

[qbzzt]

I for one am glad not to worry about our old soviet overlords. Seriously, in the eighties it looked like the USSR was almost as strong as the US. Isn't it great that that dictatorship spent itself into bankruptcy?

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[gad_zuki!]

>Isn't it great that that dictatorship spent itself into bankruptcy?

On a completely unrelated note Bush just signed a bill putting the US 800 BILLION in debt.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[AeternitasXIII]

Soviet propaganda did a really good job of pumping up their apparent strength, but their economy was in dire straits since the mid-1970s. By the time Carter and Reagan had maneuvered the US into backing Iraq vs. the nominally Soviet supported Iran, the Soviets were already well on their way to bankruptcy. The Star Wars program and the resultant Soviet reaction to it probably only hastened the demise of the country by a year at most, according to many economists.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[smartin]

Isn't it great that that dictatorship spent itself into bankruptcy?

Hmm, George W Bush, a .4 trillion dollar deficit and growing. Which country are you talking about?

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Bastian]

Ya know, the Bush administration really fascinates me. It really shows that although the Cold War is over, the USA hasn't lost its Cold War modes of thought. We're spending so much money and pulling so many dumb stunts in part because we seem to think that we're still standing off against some monolithic enemy that spans 10 time zones. (And yes, I mean to say "we." Don't forget who vote him in.)

I mean, this is the administration that was honestly pushing for the ballistic missile defense shield. And I think that this idea that the only way to make sure a country isn't going to stab us in the back is to make sure it is a republic comes straight out of a 15 years obsolete line of thinking that says that anything that isn't a democracy is going to be much more vulnerable to falling into the USSR's camp.

You step back for a moment, and it almost looks like the USA is some poor traumatized vet who still sometimes sees visions of a battlefield from long in the past and dives under tables to take cover from imaginary grenades and the like. Only you can't take time to feel sorry for him, because for all his raving lunacy, he's still the guy holding the biggest gun in the room.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[krymsin01]

Old ideas don't disappear, they simply shift.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Lisandro]

Even while it was an awfully managed country, economically, the Russians pulled out some impressive engenieering feats, specially in the field of aeronautics. In the cold war days, it was all about conquering space, for some reason, and the USSR was right there - neck to neck with the USA. And they had the military power indeed, so they were, arguably, powerful.

If anything, the fall of the USSR saddened me for that very reason. It seems the true technological progress comes in times of war, even when it's a "cold" one.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[BgJonson79]

On a completely unrelated note, the United States is not a dictatorship and Bush is not a dictator... he's just not a good president.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[dr_dank]

Soviet propaganda did a really good job of pumping up their apparent strength, but their economy was in dire straits since the mid-1970s

So they really didn't get their money for nothing and their chicks for free?

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[16K Ram Pack]

Really? What one is that?

(Briton just enjoying the spectacle of the USA falling apart).

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

you're off by a 0 - the actual number is 8.18 trillion

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[isolation]

I am in South Carolina and if you judged me as retarded without meeting me I might do something just to spite you. The last time I checked Michigan was not some great utopia anyway.....

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

(Briton just enjoying the spectacle of the USA falling apart).

One of my friends moved here from England and regularly flies back and forth. From what I hear you shouldn't be throwing stones.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[TheGavster]

I mean, this is the administration that was honestly pushing for the ballistic missile defense shield.

Because its not like there are countries with nuclear weapons on ballistic launchers out there, or anything.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

So your saying your both just a bunch of retards?

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Mant]

And I think that this idea that the only way to make sure a country isn't going to stab us in the back is to make sure it is a republic comes straight out of a 15 years obsolete line of thinking that says that anything that isn't a democracy is going to be much more vulnerable to falling into the USSR's camp.

The thinking seemed to be that what you really wanted was a good old fascist dictatorship. The US was more than happy to help destabilse democratic socialist governments, or ally with fascist regimes that overthrew them (e.g. Iran, Argentina, Chile).

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Meredeth]

Yes. A previous poster mentioned a large rocket prototype exploding on the launchpad and killing 150 people. That rocket was supposed to do the same job as the saturn rocket, but failed due to vibration problems ( I think it had 11 engines ). Energia is the rocket that they wanted to build in the 1960's. Its a fantastic design. It can loft Buran into space, or just a giant container, so it can lift quite a bit more than the shuttle could. If the russians can ever fund a major mars mission, Energia can launch just about anything they can think of.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[MajorDick]

Agreed the Energia is the best design out there at current, I keep hearing people talk about re-building the Saturn V program , WHY ? Yes it was good, but the Energia is much better for the same given role (and a heck of a lot shorter too:)

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

The more impressive that USSR did this after being burned to the ground and loosing 28mil people (approx 20% of population) in WW2.

So soviet system was not that bad all around ;)

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[hachete]

I agree that the Russians are truly remarkable weaponsmiths however back in 46/47 when the UK actually led the world in aeronautics, Avro *gave* the Soviets the Nene jet engine to fit in the first Soviet fighter. Ah, those were the days!

If it was up to me, the MOD (UK Ministry Of Defence) would buy only German or Russian weaponry. Espeicially German subs as ours seem to catch fire a lot.

The CIA made sure they upped the ante by over-estimating the size and capability of the Soviet threat, although this was probably a mirror op.

h

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[duffbeer703]

Ballistic missile defense makes alot more sense today than it did during the Soviet era.

The Soviets had something like 12,000 warheads pointed at the US. A ballistic missile system that intercepted 98% of them (which is nothing like the actual ABM system being tested) would still leave two hundred or more nuclear detonations in the US.

If you consider the current threats from relatively poor states in the Middle East, North Korea or China, ballistic missile defence makes a hell of alot more sense. Even China only has a couple hundred ICBMs, and a credibile defence renders those launchers obsolete.

The popular notion that the demise of the Soviet Union has resulted in nuclear weapons going away is a dangerous illusion.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Twanfox]

How much use would that ballistic missle defense shield have been against our own aircraft? Oops, none at all! Damn.

How much use would that ballistic missle defense shield have been against a dirty bomb? Oops, none again! Hmm.

How much... hopefully you see the point. Many of the tactics of terrorist warfare do not make use of major weapons or missles and rockets. Not only does that tie them into one area, but that requires an infrastructure on the order of an entire nation to support and build. That is usually not something terrorists generally have the support of.

If terrorists strike again, then they are likely to make use of the loose security we have within our free society. Fertilizer bombs, dirty bombs (throw nuclear fissionable material all over the place), grab a few more planes, etc. We have enough 'non-standard' armaments within the US that they hardly have to even consider building their own, they just have to buy or steal it from within the US. (Now, this is not to say we should be ever fearful of the next joe that wants to take our lives, meerly to be aware of the reality of the situation.)

Now I ask you, what use is a ballistic missle defense shield when the threat to human life comes from inside that shield? If your answer is none, why should we invest billions in something that is not likely to be used?

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Peyna]

The problem with throwing an ICBM into the air, is that everyone will know where it came from, and you'll have them coming right back at you.

Build a weapon inside the country you want to attack, set it off, never claim responsibility. Then no one knows who did or how to get them back for it.

These types of threats are a lot more scary than China or North Korea throwing nukes around. They know we'll just throw some back at them. When we don't know who attacked us; or it wasn't a country, but a small group of people scattered around the earth, it's a lot harder to take any kind of retaliatory action.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[gadget junkie]

"Now I ask you, what use is a ballistic missle defense shield when the threat to human life comes from inside that shield? If your answer is none, why should we invest billions in something that is not likely to be used?"

....I think this might be a reasonable answer. And while what you say about finding bomb material within the target is valid, smuggling a nuke is not as easy as it may seem.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

The more impressive that USSR did this after being burned to the ground and loosing 28mil people (approx 20% of population) in WW2.

So soviet system was not that bad all around ;)

Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler. Stalin and Mao killed more people than any other two people in all of history. "not bad"?? Just HOW evil can you get? The soviet system is so bad NO people (the public, the citizens) who have tried it want it. NONE.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[zulux]

Hmm, George W Bush, a .4 trillion dollar deficit and growing. Which country are you talking about?

You made a funny!

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Rorschach1]

"the Russians pulled out some impressive engenieering feats, specially in the field of aeronautics"

Alas, photographic technology doesn't seem to have been a priority. Half the pictures I've seen of the Russian space program look like they could be shots of the Loch Ness Monster.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[mwood]

No accident, that. The strategy is known as "arm the enemy to death." If your economy can support a faster arms race than the other guy's for longer, you win.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[BobTheLawyer]

why isn't it?

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[mwood]

"all about conquering space, for some reason."

Yes. Remove crew capsule; attach MIRV bus. Or do engine research for peaceful purposes, have engine knowledge for any other purposes. See the reason? Both sides got a lot of understanding and hardware that were useful for things other than planting the flag and collecting rocks.

And yes, the Soviet Union's science and technology people were darned good, and still to be respected no matter where the borders are drawn today.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Boronx]

So why are we still running?

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[hoofie]

would buy only German or Russian weaponry

Hmmm...you mean like the Torpedo's in the Kursk, which used a technology the Navy stopped using as the risk of explosion of the propulsion system was too great ?

As for the sub fire, there is no final cause released yet, although there is some evidence of a second fire being caused by an oxygen canister igniting.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[YrWrstNtmr]

A ballistic missile system that intercepted 98% of them (which is nothing like the actual ABM system being tested) would still leave two hundred or more nuclear detonations in the US.

assuming that:
a) they all were fired
b) all those fired actually left the silos
c) all those actually launched were accurate to their targets (a scenario that has never, for obvious reasons, been tested)
d) that there was no fratricide between incoming missiles (again, never really been tested)
e) all the warheads actually fire as programmed
f) none were held back for a possible second strike
g) all those that get through a-f are targeted at different locations

In the immortal words of Gen. Buck Turgidson:
"I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed up, but 10-20 million tops, depending on the breaks."

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[duffbeer703]

The actual number doesn't really matter... the idea is that it is an unacceptably large number.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Lisandro]

Well, to be fair the Russians do have that other torpedo that works a tad better :)

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[demonbug]

When we don't know who attacked us; or it wasn't a country, but a small group of people scattered around the earth, it's a lot harder to take any kind of retaliatory action.

Somehow I don't see this as being a problem for our current administration - Bush would just launch against whatever targets popped into his head (Iran, North Korea, California - you know, the axis of evil). God'll sort them out afterwards.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Scrameustache]

The problem with throwing an ICBM into the air, is that everyone will know where it came from, and you'll have them coming right back at you.

Build a weapon inside the country you want to attack

Or sneak it real near to the country you want to blow up, like with a submarine, see? And you asplode that country with no place to track the missile back to then its own waters.

Of course, it won't be all that hard to find out who's got subs with nukes in 'em, but the whole "tracking the launch" thing is null and void.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[YrWrstNtmr]

Correct. 1 is an unacceptably large number.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[mkramer]

In addition to aerospace, they made some amazing breakthroughs in submarine design as well, which cost them an unbelievable fortune.

The US certainly had the quiet sub well before they did, but by the time the Soviets brought a quiet sub out to play, it was leaps and bounds better than ours. Thankfully they were never able to afford to build too many of them.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[RedWizzard]

A previous poster mentioned a large rocket prototype exploding on the launchpad and killing 150 people. That rocket was supposed to do the same job as the saturn rocket, but failed due to vibration problems ( I think it had 11 engines ).

You're confused. You're thinking of the N1 launcher (the Soviet moon rocket). It had 30(!) engines in the first stage. The failure of the N1 5L mission in 1969 did destroy one of the launch complexes at Baikonur, but it didn't kill 150 people. It's detailed here. The vibration problem happened in the N1 3L, and was due to small metal particles in one of the gas turbines. The rocket failed some 68 seconds into the mission, and crashed 45 km down range. The 150 people died in an accident in 1960, also at Baikonur, but this was a ballistic missile prototype (R16). From astronautix.com:

This On 24 October 1960 the first R-16 prototype was fuelled and on the pad, awaiting launch. An electrical problem developed, leading to a hold. Marshal Nedelin, commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces, ordered the engineers and technicians to fix the problem without the long delay of defuelling and refurbishing the missile. He personally had a deck chair brought out to the pad so he could watch the work first-hand. At 18:45 local time a spurious radio signal ordered the second stage of the rocket to fire while workers swarmed around the missile in its gantry. The missile exploded, killing a good part of the Soviet Union's rocket engineering and management talent. Among the dead were Nedelin, Konopalev (designer of the missile's guidance system), Grishin (deputy chairman of GKOT), Nosov (chief of launch command at Baikonur), and OKB-586 engineers Kontsevsky and Lev Berlin. 74 people were killed immediately, and 48 died in the ensuing weeks from burns or contact with the toxic and corrosive propellants. The total included 38 civilian engineers and 84 officers and enlisted rocket technicians.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[dajak]

So why are we still running?

That strategy is known as "arm yourself to death."

But seriously, the "strategy" of "arming your enemies to death" presupposes that the Soviets are nice and rational people who will choose surrender over Armageddon. I hear nobody suggest that we should arm Osama to death.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[cheekyboy]

Money isnt real, its all fake, the central banks can make as much as they want, currently at 5-7% of outstanding 'cash' out there is made each year out of thin air. Thats where russia failed, it wasnt internationally liquid enough, but the question is, did russia 'fail' on purpose to make USA think it was 'down' when it really was centralizing more and being more internaionally friendly. Whos to know if the whole cold war thing was a fake.

TOO MANY SECRETS!! make us live in a 'fake' world of illusions.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Alex Belits]

This is the second most illogical statement that American believe in (first place still belongs to the invisible omnipotent man in the sky, who invented moral and ethics, like Al Gore invented the Internet).

Even the linked articles show enough evidence to conclude that until the moment of USSR dissolution, the last things its government had to worry about is the amount of money (that they printed -- no FR and a pyramid of crooks), manpower (that was, according to the same "economists" under-used), or natural resources (that USSR exported). USSR government was scared shitless by the first economic recession in the post-WWII history, and being incompetent, it decided to do a complete overhaul of the economy, along with some political changes that made sense at the moment.

Since US is now in a deeper recession than one USSR had in 80's, I guess, we will see, how US government, lead by Bush who is even dumber than Gorbachev, will handle the same situation.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Alex Belits]

Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler.

Prove it, dumbass. All credible data shows otherwise.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[dajak]

Even while it was an awfully managed country, economically, the Russians pulled out some impressive engenieering feats, specially in the field of aeronautics.

Do you think the US would fare better with a centrally planned economy?

The economic growth statistics of the Soviet Union are impressive by international standards. The Soviet Union "collapsed" with a much bigger economy than it started with. What really happened is more complicated than that. Soviet leadership lost confidence in the future and was no longer willing to turn on the people on behalf of the revolution.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Chris_Rank]

I can't even begin to comment on the stupidity of some of these statements. The best one by far:

Since US is now in a deeper recession than one USSR had in 80's, I guess, we will see, how US government, lead by Bush who is even dumber than Gorbachev, will handle the same situation.

So the U.S. is in a recession? Deeper than the USSR in the 1980's?! Please take an econ class and prompty shut the fuck up about subjects you obviously have no command of.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[gadget junkie]

the radioactive elements within the nuke can be detected via non invasive tests.

One of the worst nightmares of the cold war was the possibility of building a fusion bomb without a fission bomb to act as a primer for the fusion element, because such a bomb would have been virtually undetectable.
Think "diplomatic luggage " here. We're talking about the possible decapitation of a government, simply by detonating such a device in the capital city. Luckily it seems that such a device was never proofed.

Going back to the main topic, I always thought that Fractional Orbit Bombing system had been outlawed by the SALT treaties.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Peyna]

Well, my whole point was that this defense system is only effective against things that are shot into the air, have a stable trajectory, and are in the air long enough to realize it's something we need to shoot down.

It's so easy to circumvent such a defense system, that it's almost pointless to build it.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[AK Marc]

On a completely unrelated note Bush just signed a bill putting the US 800 BILLION in debt.

Uh, I think you misspelled 8 trillion. Another 800 billion to the huge debt run up by Reagan and Bush Sr. Clinton left Bush with a surplus and a plan to pay off the debt. Bush cut taxes for the rich and borrowed 800 billion to pay for the tax cuts for his friends.

If you want lower taxes, you should demand higher taxes. carying a debt means that you are paying 25% more than you have to just to cover interest. Pay it off now, save a lot in the long run.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[jafac]

Baathist propaganda did a really good job of pumping up the apparent strength of the Iraqi arsenal too. Or a really bad job, depending on how you look at it.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Teancum]

I'm not totally sure where you got your world history lessons from, but Iraq was the Soviet ally and Iran was the U.S. ally. For the Iran-Iraq war it was pretty much a field test of Soviet weapons vs. American weapons, with Iran possessing many U.S. made weapons bought primarily by the Shah.

Keep in mind that before 1979 Iran had a very strong working relationship with the USA. Most major multi-national companies had some sort of branch office in Iran, and there was substantial "westernizing" activities like radio stations playing American music, shopping malls, and even missionaries from American churches running around converting people to Christianity. I personally know some people who were civilians working in Iran when the U.S. embassy was sacked, and they have some very interesting stories about how they got out of the country...some by the skin of their teeth.

Iraq has been largely equiped with Soviet equipment including MiG aircraft and Russian built tanks that were even used in the Iraq war, with many Russian RPGs that are still being used against the U.S. Army even today. Saddam Hussein also had several pictures of Stalin around his palaces, and considered Stalin to be his "hero" of what a good leader should be like. Saddam did a pretty good job of following his example, didn't he?

I will admit that during the Reagan administration there were some minor attempts to become friendlier to Iraq, but to call Iraq a U.S.-backed country totally misses the mark. Up until the fall of the Berlin Wall were there substantial number of Soviet advisors in Iraq, and Iraq was always influenced by Soviet policy much more than American. Keep in mind that there was an East German embassy in Iraqi occupied Kuwait, to give a historical timeline to events in Soviet Russia. And clearly Iraq after the Gulf War was never a U.S. client state by any stretch of the imagination.

Soviet Russia did try to support Iran, but keep in mind that while the USA was the "Great Satan", the USSR was called and considered the "Lesser Satan", according to the Iranian government under Kohmenni, and to kill a Soviet soldier was just as worthy as killing an American. While somewhat diminished, Iran still has this same attitude, even about the Russian Republic.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Twanfox]

Funny thing right now is that much of the border isn't well guarded. For example, Oregon has miles upon miles of coastline that anyone can come ashore on, carrying whatever they like, and there are not nearly enough highway patrol members around to watch it all. Once it is within the borders, while it is still detectable fairly easily, most materials can be shipped around without too much of a hassle.

Besides, it doesn't even have to be anything fancy like Plutonium or Uranium. It could be sufficient quantities of radioactive dye or other such materials. All it has to do is be radioactive and be in sufficient quantities to cause illness over a wide area. Dirty bombs don't actually make nuclear explosions.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Scrameustache]

It's so easy to circumvent such a defense system

It never occurred to me that this is a defense system. I had a vision of a russian general writing his name in giant burning letters (only visible from space) across Boston...

...ok, maybe just his initials.

I was thinking "offense", see.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Peyna]

I was referring to George Bush's attempts to implement Reagan's Star Wars plan.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[hachete]

If you read further, I said German submarines. And probably torpedoes. The last decent torpedo the UK produced was the Mk8 for WW2. The RN used Mk 8s to sink the Belgrano.

Since the 2WW, Brit torpedoes have been expensive and unreliable: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTBR_PostWWII.htm We - or at least Marconi or Plessey or whoever the du jour incompetents were - seem to have a problem producing the things.

In 1984, we'd spent 5 billion on the Tigerfish, Spearfish and Stingray and that's *before* the "get it right" consolidation programs of the 90s. And that's to get it up to success rate of 80%. Umm. I'd like my money back and Marconi/Plessey hung out to dry, thankyou.

At least we had the sense to buy US cruise missles.

I'd go for Russian aeronautical engineering *any* day.

I have to go now. My keyword usage has probably set off alarm bells somewhere...

h.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

Gorbachev was no stupid man. You, on the other hand...

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Lisandro]

I remember a show aired once on either History or Discovery channel, i can't recall, about the developement of nuclear subs in the cold war.

Basically, the US wanted to learn about how the Russian subs were built, so they sent a spy wearing shoes with sticky soils, so small metal fragments would return with the spy, undetected. They found that the hull of their subs was made mostly of titanium alloy. US oness were made of steel, welded by hand, by a crew that had to work in very difficult conditions - working in constricted spaces and sometimes having to check their weld joints with mirrors. They thought titanium was too expensive and very difficult, if not impossible, to weld correctly.
Turns out the Russians had built a special hangar with pressurized gas that allowed the metal to be welded. They actualy developed a new metal welding techinque just to build those hulls, which of course had a resistance unseen at the time.

Also, check my link, a few parent posts above, about their supercavitating torpedoes, which they have working right now. Those travel underwater at 10m/sec, and for a sub it would be like dodging a bullet.

Yes, those guys are a force to be reckoned with.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

Since US is now in a deeper recession than one USSR had in 80's,

For the last few years the US economy (measured by GDP) has been growing. In fact, it has been growing faster than than Japan and faster than the Euro-zone.

I don't like the US deficits. But it is ridiculous to say the US is in recession.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

"back in 46/47 when the UK actually led the world in aeronautics, Avro *gave* the Soviets the Nene jet engine to fit in the first Soviet fighter"

Wrong on just about every count.

The UK government sold 25 each Derwent and Nene engines to the Soviets. Note that Britain was economically devastated after the war, and any source of foreign currency was welcome. It was felt that the engines, being centrifugal flow, were an obsolescent technology and so wouldn't help the Soviets that much.

Turned out they were good enough to power Mig15s in Korea!!! (and Mig17s in Vietname into the '70s)!

The first Soviet jet fighters (Mig9 and a Yak I can't think of) used ex-WW2 German turbojets.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

And there was more to the Soviet system than Stalin. He died in 1953 and the system survived another 35 years or so. And don't forget the early period under Lenin.

Stalin was a monster. The other soviet leaders were dictators, but nothing like in his league.

BTW, I've been struck by comments by older Russians both in print and media that things were better under Communism than they are now.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Meredeth]

Cool. Your right, I was thinking vaguely about the type designation, which my brain translated into 11 engines. Thanks for the extra info.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Alex Belits]

I lived in USSR then, and I am in US now, so I certainly can make comparison much better than propaganda workers that write your "economy" classes.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Alex Belits]

GDP can be manipulated easier than Enron accounting, and the current government looks quite proficient in this form of art.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Alex Belits]

Yes, he is (he isn't dead yet). And he definitely wasn't any smarter in 80's than he is now. Also he had shitty education, no understanding of economy (less than all his predecessors, Khruschev and Brezhnev included, Chernenko excluded), used his own retarded-sounding pronunication of various words, and was eager to leap ahead when it suited his understanding of ideology without doing any analysis... Hey, wait! Bush can be described in exactly the same terms! US has a bright future, indeed.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[dcam]

His remark may depend on a couple of things:

1. Do you include figures from before WW2? This would include the 'Kulaks' who starved or were sent to Gulags in the 30s. AFAIK there are no accurate figures for this.

2. Do you include figures for Russian soldiers who died through mismanagement?

I personally don't know if either of these figures would be large enough to have an effect.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Alex Belits]

First of all, a person who writes "GULAG" in plural has no business discussing Russian history. This is as bad as "rumors on the internets".

"Kulaks" were sent to exile and prison camps, and that definitely was one of the worst things Stalin did, however their numbers at any time were around a million-something people, of whom less than half a million died before WWII -- and that includes natural mortality among the exiled. Still horrible, but hardly Hitler's scale, where count was in tens of millions.

I understand that some "historians" are eager to pin all WWII deaths on Stalin, however this is just stupid. It was Nazi war, Hitler was the aggressor, and it was German military that attacked USSR, after conquering Europe, so every soldier who died in a battle, and every civilian killed on the occupied territory by Nazi was his responsibility. Without Nazi, those people would live, and this is what matters.

It's also worth to be mentioned that Hitler's victims weren't all Jewish, so numbers that are mentioned as Holocaust statistics are not the total count, as some people want to present them. The number of USSR citizens alone, killed in WWII is somewhere around 27 millions, this is far beyond the scale of "jewish-only" version of Holocaust.

Stalin can be accused of being incompetent in handling of defense, but it does not make him a butcher -- other things do. Hatred toward Stalin is not based on the number of his victims, it's based on the fact that those were the very people that he was supposed to protect (or be allied with, in case of Poland), on the lies that his government used to support that, and on his hypocrisy, and atmosphere of fear that he used to achieve his goals. Hitler is less impressive -- merely a very honest, consistent racist pig, grown to a scale that can't be understood without seeing it, but despite being such a trivial person from the modern point of view, he is many, many times more of a butcher than Stalin ever was.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[DigiShaman]

Actually, we might. With Iran and North Korea wanting to sell meterial on the black market (let the terrorist do their bidding 2nd party), launching a first-strike against them would NOT be out of the question. Hell, even the Clinton administration had plans in place for a nuclear attack on N. Korea as a backup plan.

The point being, peaceful negotiations should always be your first choice. But when push comes to shove, military tactics should brought to the table as well.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

Typo: that should be 100m/sec. 360km/h.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[dcam]

First of all, a person who writes "GULAG" in plural has no business discussing Russian history. This is as bad as "rumors on the internets".

Thanks for the correction. I am aware that this refers to a geographical locality, rather than a general word used to describe a labour camp (even though it used that way).

"Kulaks" were sent to exile and prison camps, and that definitely was one of the worst things Stalin did, however their numbers at any time were around a million-something people, of whom less than half a million died before WWII -- and that includes natural mortality among the exiled. Still horrible, but hardly Hitler's scale, where count was in tens of millions.

You missed one of the points there: starvation. The decisions of Stalin caused widescale stavation in the country. There are no figures for how many people starved at this time, but the number could well be signifigant (millions).

I understand that some "historians" are eager to pin all WWII deaths on Stalin, however this is just stupid. It was Nazi war, Hitler was the aggressor, and it was German military that attacked USSR, after conquering Europe, so every soldier who died in a battle, and every civilian killed on the occupied territory by Nazi was his responsibility. Without Nazi, those people would live, and this is what matters.

Agreed.

It's also worth to be mentioned that Hitler's victims weren't all Jewish, so numbers that are mentioned as Holocaust statistics are not the total count, as some people want to present them. The number of USSR citizens alone, killed in WWII is somewhere around 27 millions, this is far beyond the scale of "jewish-only" version of Holocaust.

I am well aware of German history during and around WW2.

Stalin can be accused of being incompetent in handling of defense, but it does not make him a butcher -- other things do. Hatred toward Stalin is not based on the number of his victims, it's based on the fact that those were the very people that he was supposed to protect (or be allied with, in case of Poland), on the lies that his government used to support that, and on his hypocrisy, and atmosphere of fear that he used to achieve his goals. Hitler is less impressive -- merely a very honest, consistent racist pig, grown to a scale that can't be understood without seeing it, but despite being such a trivial person from the modern point of view, he is many, many times more of a butcher than Stalin ever was.

I think that the various purges also contribute to the hatred of Stalin. Much of Hitler's destructive energy was devoted to external enemies, Stalin devoted a lot energy to internal 'enemies'. (Note that I said most, I am aware that there were plenty of Germans in concentration camps). I guess I am re-hashing your point though, these were people he was supposed to protect.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Alex Belits]

Thanks for the correction. I am aware that this refers to a geographical locality, rather than a general word used to describe a labour camp (even though it used that way).

GULAG is not a geographical locality, and anyone who think that, is ignorant enough to have no right to discuss those things. Shut up until you learn something.

You missed one of the points there: starvation. The decisions of Stalin caused widescale stavation in the country. There are no figures for how many people starved at this time, but the number could well be signifigant (millions).

Starvation only happened in one region, so it could not possibly be an intentional result of consistent policy. Similar things happened in other countries many times over the history, and no one considers them equal to mass murder.

I am well aware of German history during and around WW2.

Either, you are not, or you are really bad at math.

Much of Hitler's destructive energy was devoted to external enemies

Much of Hitler's destructive energy was devoted to attacking countries that weren't Germany's enemies in the first place (like, say, USSR), however Hitler definitely did not distinguish between people of "lesser race" who lived within and outside Germany. It's just modern Americans consider racism to be a lesser evil than the image of the Communist enemy that their propaganda painted over half a century.

Stalin devoted a lot energy to internal 'enemies'. (Note that I said most, I am aware that there were plenty of Germans in concentration camps). I guess I am re-hashing your point though, these were people he was supposed to protect.

In other words, you are fully aware that Hitler outdid Stalin in every kind of butchery and genocide, yet you choose to ignore it because it does not support things that your propaganda was telling you, with no base in fact, for a few decades. Way to go.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

North Korea is basically a country based on the Sopranos.

so yes hold them responsible.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

the surplus was imaginary.
it never really existed, it was based on the bullshit economy clinton presided over. it was all projections on paper, based on that terrific job clinton did by allowing rampant fraud and an unchecked stock market to set everything up on lies.

blah blah blah, bush evil, blah blaah blah.

have anything substantial or are you just being a monkey.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[AK Marc]

have anything substantial or are you just being a monkey.

No, just the numbers published and agreed to by the Republican congress. They said it was a surplus. So, are you calling the Republicans liars?

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[dcam]

At what point did I say that I thought Stalin was a worse butcher than Hitler? I think you actually need to read my comments rather than spouting off. But thanks for the (further) correction on GULAG. I clearly do not have any right to discuss such things until I do have a better understanding. As for propogande, I have never lived in the US, so I have been spared that to some extent.

Re:Old Soviet Overlords

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Besides, it doesn't even have to be anything fancy like Plutonium or Uranium. It could be sufficient quantities of radioactive dye or other such materials.

Doesn't need to be radioactive at all - it could be chemical or biological.

any ideas why this on the Latvian army site?

[fantomas]

Why iss this photo up on the Latvian army's website? anybody find any other goodies there?

Re:any ideas why this on the Latvian army site?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because hosting in Russia would be dangerous for your health.

Re:any ideas why this on the Latvian army site?

[iezhy]

http://www.army.lv/ isn't a Latvian army site. It's just an amateur site about Russian military forces, and has nothing to do with official Latvian army or inteligence.

Re:any ideas why this on the Latvian army site?

[glebd]

If you look at the home page http://www.army.lv/, you'll see that this is a Russian Army fan site dedicated to Russian soldiers. Latvia is a former USSR republic, and the percentage of Russians there is (or was until recently, not sure about now) larger than the native Latvians. So no big surprise here, and this is not a Latvian Army site, as the URL would suggest.

Re:any ideas why this on the Latvian army site?

[geoswan]

According to the CIA factbook.

Latvian 57.7%, Russian 29.6%, Belarusian 4.1%, Ukrainian 2.7%, Polish 2.5%, Lithuanian 1.4%, other 2% (2002)

Riga, the capital city, has a higher proportion of ethnic Russians. It is about fifty-fifty now.

Most of the ethnic Russians have not bothered to become Latvian citizens. Latvia joined the EU this year. This makes Latvian citizenship valuable. But new laws mean that they can't assume Latvian citizenship until they learn to speak Latvian.

Re:any ideas why this on the Latvian army site?

[Pecisk]

Wrong, percentage of Russian speaking people here, in Latvia, is rather high, but still no more than 30% of whole population. The rest 60% are native Latvians. It was never bigger than 35-40% even in those times, when soviet regime tried to bring down Latvians as the nation (1940-1960 years).

You can check it out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvi a/

Re:any ideas why this on the Latvian army site?

[dunkelfalke]

the owner of the site is a 20 year old russian living in latvia. and a quite nationalist one. i used to talk with him for a while (i own a small military site about russian special forces myself).

99% of his materials are shamelessly copied from other sites.

Re:any ideas why this on the Latvian army site?

[dostick]

In latvia there are more than 60% Russian speaking people and native latvians are less than 60%.
And USSR did not try to bring down latvians as the nation, instead it rebuilt and improved latvian economy (1940-1960 years).

Re:any ideas why this on the Latvian army site?

[Atryn]

99% of his materials are shamelessly copied from other sites.

Well, that's certainly easier than field photography in this case!

Re:any ideas why this on the Latvian army site?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not Latvian army's website.

Re:any ideas why this on the Latvian army site?

[maita]

Why iss this photo up on the Latvian army's website? anybody find any other goodies there?

Why iss this pr0n up on the official web site for the White House and President? anybody find any other goodies there?

*.gov = *.gov.lv, *.mil = *.mil.lv. Got that?

Oh man that thing is uber Cool!!!

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

I'd bid at least $50 bucks for it on eBay

Re:Oh man that thing is uber Cool!!!

[hostylocal]

$50 for the wreckage $8000 p+p $2.5b for raising it from the bottom of the south pacific buyer pays postage and all associated costs. pay pal accepted.

Re:Oh man that thing is uber Cool!!!

[cheekyboy]

I bet you america has it already lifted from the ocean and its sitting in Area51.

USA has had rettrieval subs with remote control mini subs for decades, Id like to see what they have recently secretly developed.

I bet you those retrieval subs have also been used to find/extract lots of old lost GOLD shipments lost at sea to fund more 'black secret' projects, since there are at least 50-200billion worth of sunk gold around the oceans, and im sure a small blank op mission by the pentagon can find/retrieve these 'assets' at a small cost for tonnes of 'secret profits', so when the real commercial wreck hunters go out there, they will find nothing.

Re:Oh man that thing is uber Cool!!!

[HappyDrgn]

I think our black ops missions cost more than sunken gold can afford.

In Soviet Russia

[cheezemonkhai]

War Stars You!!

What it had to be said.. at least it's out the way now :p

Software error

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

Comments at the website (yes I RTFA) say it wasn't a faulty sensor but a software error which caused the Polyus to turn 360 instead of 180 degree upon reaching orbit, and it boosted itself back into the atmosphere. Oops!

Re:Software error

[fizze]

Such errors seem common. I believe it was the F-16 which had a similiar problem with the artificial horizon, causing it to rotate 180 when crossing the aequator. It has (luckily) been found and fixed.

Re:Software error

[LucidBeast]

Heh, I'll just add this to the "funny stories" collection that I tell customers when they notice a bug in some piece of code that I have written.

Could also mention this to kids when they ask why is it that trigonometry is important.

Re:Software error

[YrWrstNtmr]

That bug was found and fixed during simulation testing. It never made its way into actual flight software.
Luck had nothing to do with it. Good test procedures caught it.

Re:Software error

[jlar]

...and what about the Falkland War where british shipborne missiles did'nt hit their targets because they had forgotten that they were in the southern hemisphere where the Coriolis force deflects moving objects to the left instead of right.

Re:Software error

[MaynardJanKeymeulen]

A CS prof told me once that a simular thing had happened to the Ariane V also
Some integer counter measured the altitude, but then it went overflow so the thing started at minus MAX_VALUE and turned back towards earth to compensate for the negative altitude...
Of course I can't give any reference wether this is true...

Re:Software error

[dave420]

Or, making a jet is slightly easier than a space-based optical/radar laser/cannon platform... your choice.

Re:Software error

[ClickNMix]

It's a good job we got over stupid problems like that with modern space exploration...

Re:Software error

[osu-neko]

If you're going to invoke a myth, you should at least get the right one. The particular urban legend you're referencing is about a WWI battle near the Falkland Islands, not something that occured during the Falkland War, and it's about artilary sights, not missles.

Click here for more info.

Re:Software error

[RedWizzard]

Comments at the website (yes I RTFA) say it wasn't a faulty sensor but a software error which caused the Polyus to turn 360 instead of 180 degree upon reaching orbit, and it boosted itself back into the atmosphere.

You didn't RT Encyclopedia Astronautica FA:

Polyus's failure to achieve working orbit was caused by a faulty inertial guidance sensor. In the rush of construction an already built sensor had been stripped from an existing Cosmos spacecraft and then been inadequately tested, as the Polyus mock-up had been shipped to Baikonur by the time the test equipment arrived at the Krunichev Factory. Those responsible for the failure were immediately fired or demoted.

That's probably a more reliable source than some enthusiast on a message board.

Re:Software error

[Y2]

Or, making a jet is slightly easier than a space-based optical/radar laser/cannon platform... your choice.

Easier to make? I don't know.

Easier to test I'll grant you.

Re:Software error

[angel'o'sphere]

Such errors seem common. I believe it was the F-16 which had a similiar problem with the artificial horizon, causing it to rotate 180 when crossing the aequator. It has (luckily) been found and fixed.
Powerful is he who overpowers his temptations.


Yepp, somewhat ...


That bug was found and fixed during simulation testing. It never made its way into actual flight software.
Luck had nothing to do with it. Good test procedures caught it.


Nope ... not ...

The bug was found by a test pilot ... in the flight simulator!! So the intresting thing is tehy used a hardware true flight simulator running the exact same software in an "virtual environment" to give the test pilot the imression flying the new craft.

The pilot found the strange behaviour ... not a software test program. Its not possible to test something automatically where you have not thought about forhand and have written a testcase.

angel'o'sphere

Man, I am glad it "de-orbited."

[The Ape With No Name]

What ifn dem turrizts got hold of dat? They'd shoot lasors right at our testic^H^H^H^H^H^Hgon^H^H^Hballs and we wouldn't have a goll durn chance. Better tell Senator Frist it's A-OK to appropriate 300 mill for that Star Wars whatjamagig even if it don't work! Gosh!

Re:Man, I am glad it "de-orbited."

[The-Bus]

That's even funnier considering your User ID.

Re:Man, I am glad it "de-orbited."

[quarkscat]

surely, you jest!
300 million wouldn't even cover the costs
for the symposium to kick off the feasability
study.
bush & co (warsRus) has already kicked in over
6 billion dollars for new (non-Reagan) work on
a (theatre) missile defense system. so far,
the only tests that have worked have been the
ones that have been "billed" as "demonstrations".
"leaked" reagan-era intel touted soviet land-
based laser cannon capable of destroying USA
satellites in HEO. $6B for a non-functional
missile defense system, but not a red cent more
for seaport & container cargo security.

sounds to me more like the justification for yet
another bush initiative, the militarization of
earth orbit. it's the usual thing -- beat the
american people over the head with exaggerated
or fake threats in order to pry more money out
of the taxpayers for the military-industrial
complex.

Re:Man, I am glad it "de-orbited."

[Anonymous Coward]

beat the american people over the head with exaggerated or fake threats in order to pry more money out of the taxpayers for the military-industrial complex.

I find it interesting you say this since Bush has cut taxes. If he was prying out more money, then wouldn't taxes have actually had to go up?

Re:Man, I am glad it "de-orbited."

[Anonymous Coward]

If he was prying out more money, then wouldn't taxes have actually had to go up?

The grandparent meant "prying more money out of our precious entitlement programs"...except unfortunately I see little evidence of that either.

Re:Man, I am glad it "de-orbited."

[BLAG-blast]

I find it interesting you say this since Bush has cut taxes. If he was prying out more money, then wouldn't taxes have actually had to go up?

Because he is going to raise the amount of money that the US can get into debt. This is the same as raising taxes, but old people will die before we have to pay it off

Re:Man, I am glad it "de-orbited."

[termigan]

And what's worse? Our walking away from the ABM treaty could well create a new arms race or resumption of the cold war. I suppose that assumes that Russia has the money for a new race, which it doesn't, but there's a slight chance that they'll take to being adversaries again and we have to play the chess game of will they or won't they launch an all out strike out of desporation. Even pravada telegraphs their worry about our ABM system. http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/354/14513_nucl ear.html To me there's not much question that our ABM systems won't be able to handle a full scale launch for a long time to come. http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_722. html supports this thought. Our officials even say it's not about the Russian missles, yet Russia's not convinced.

In response or perhaps just confirmation of Russia's fears, there's the 'new weapons system' http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id= 99166&region=3 the Russians talk about. Only talk? What if it's not? Russia sure thinks we're trying to nullify their nuclear position...

So the nasty times this station comes from could return... Not a nice thought..

Re:Man, I am glad it "de-orbited."

[AK Marc]

I find it interesting you say this since Bush has cut taxes. If he was prying out more money, then wouldn't taxes have actually had to go up?

He is spending more. Period. Whether he cuts taxes or not, you are paying for it. The difference is that Republicans increase spending by more than Democrats do, but they cut taxes as well and run up a huge debt. The Democrats at least try to balance income and expenses.

So, at best, he is delaying when you pay until the Democrats take Congress and the presidency, but he certainly is prying more money out, just later (with interest) rather than sooner.

Re:Man, I am glad it "de-orbited."

[sgt101]

It's not talk; they tested a hypersonic manuvering reentry craft for warheads a couple of months ago; basically this is a system that let's the warhead dodge around like a balloon with another ballon full of water inside it (ever try to catch one like that?) I don't know anyone who has a fucking clue how they did that, although one old fellow who I did talk to about it said :

"ohhhh, that's interesting, how did they do that, that means that they must have solved the..." catches self, looks shifty, "well, that's very interesting..." looks more shifty.

And do you know what I saw this all on the news in the UK, and guess what, there is F*all ^F*all on google; yet see

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/bmd/r us sian_hypersonic_missile.htm

from search.msn.com no less. Well F! me.

And that, old chap is not all. The Russians have operated an ABM system to protect Moscow and their launch pads for more than 20 years. They are allow to do this under the ABM treaty, as is the US (capitol city + launcher protection is ok) The difference between Russia and the US is that there are very few H-Bomb targets in Russia, whereas LA, Chicago, Dallas, NYC, SF, Seattle... well we could go on.

Now; why do the russians possess these things, while the USA hasn't until just now? Because until just a few years ago the Russians were the only barking mad ones. Now we're all mad.

Wibble, wibble, wibble.

noooooooo......

Repeat after me. This is a business that no one can win at. This is a business that no one can win at. This ...

Re:Man, I am glad it "de-orbited."

[sgt101]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4317546

Sad

[sailforsingapore]

Skif just seems like a particularly wimpy name for a "laser space battle station". Maybe it's just me...

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

well they werent going to call it "great big battle killing machine for blowing up every last american" were they, just give it a nice low profile name.

Re:Sad

[Prowl]

I always thought it was called Peter the Great...

Re:Sad

[krymsin01]

No, that'd be what the Germans would have called it.

Re:Sad

[21mhz]

Skif just seems like a particularly wimpy name for a "laser space battle station".

Skif means "Scythian" in the native tongue.

Re:Sad

[Cyberax]

Well, you obviously don't know what does this word mean :)

Word 'Skif' is a direct transliteration of a Russian word. Correct translation is 'a skithian'. Have a look at: Scythia.

Re:Sad

[Peale]

That's because SKIF is an acronym. It stands for "Super Killer Ignito-Flash".

The rumor is that it crashed into the ocean because of a sensor failure. The truth is it suicided because they gave it a really sucky name.

Re:Sad

[Lisandro]

I don't. I don't condone war, it's just a personal observation. Like it or not, most important technological advances are tied in some way to the military or directly to war. I couldn't agree more with you; it's sad. Very. Yet that is how it happens.

Radar, turbine engines, space flight, Mach-x flight, fussion and fission research are examples, and this is just from the top of my head.

Re:Sad

[Cyberax]

And maybe it has never suiceded and it still flies around the Earth, threatening to bring destruction to peaceful USA cities?

Now, that's a good plot for a film with Clint Eastwood :)

Re:Sad

[ptbarnett]

I always thought it was called Peter the Great...

Who the hell moderated this "insightful"?

It's a reference to a dumb movie from the 70's: Meteor

Re:Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Radar, turbine engines, space flight, Mach-x flight, fussion and fission research are examples, and this is just from the top of my head.

For some reason, computers and internet come to mind for me...

Re:Sad

[DarthMAD]

Yeah- nothing says "bad-ass laser space battle station" like Scythian- I mean, if I had a laser space battle station, I would definitely name it after a long-gone Eurasian civilization. Seriously.

Re:Sad

[21mhz]

How about "valiant horseback warriors with strong values"? That's what the Scythians are usually famed for.
Also, the Scythians are sometimes seen as a kind of predecessors of Slavs. You said "Eurasian" without giving much thought of it, didn't you?

Stratoshperic Archeology

[skids]

Yeah, no kidding.

I wonder whether 40 years from now I'll be slumped in an old brown armchair eating applesauce and watching the Discovery Channel as space-archeolgists investigate the latest peice of crap we found floating around in low orbit (that noone had a record of being up there.)

Re:Stratoshperic Archeology

[magarity]

the latest peice of crap we found floating around in low orbit (that noone had a record of being up there

I'd say that was fairly unlikely. See, there are these satellites called 'launch detectors' the US military has that picks up rocket heat signature blooms within seconds anywhere in the world. So they know at least something is taking off and where it is going. And then there are these other things called 'telescopes' that let people on the ground look at things in space. Combine the two and while there might be some military satellite whose exact use is secret, there really isn't anything in orbit that isn't well known.

Re:Stratoshperic Archeology

[Anonymous Coward]

You ever thought to think that two launches can be seen as one? This practice of double whammy launching is so old I wonder if they still bother... In those days (early 80's) bloom recognition was in such a sorry state that you couldn't tell the difference between a significant fire and a launch.. Norad had so many freakin' alerts because of forest fires in the soviet forests you wouldn't believe it..

anyway, funky shots of a funky vehicle from a funky time... glad those days are over. I like Russians and I am happy to be their friend. For the others? Yab t'vayuh Maht!

Re:Stratoshperic Archeology

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. Objects in space are still tracked by radar.

Re:Stratoshperic Archeology

[Rorschach1]

Multiple satellites can be launched on the same vehicle, and tracking resources are limited. Look up the Mars-96 failure reports - when the shit hit the fan, NO ONE knew where all the parts were and where they were headed, and we still don't know where the radioactive material on the spacecraft landed.

If you've got a satellite that failed on launch and didn't get to its intended orbit, you might be waiting awhile for radar to locate it. Maybe not so much with something this big, but you could always claim that it's an expended booster or maybe a failed research satellite if you didn't want anyone paying attention to it. There's lots of junk up there.

Re:Stratoshperic Archeology

[Anonymous Coward]

See, there are these satellites called 'launch detectors' [...][ And then there are these other things called 'telescopes' [...]there really isn't anything in orbit that isn't well known.

You sound awfully sure of yourself there. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviets had some wierd low tech kludge that they used so that we wouldn't notce the launch of their really secret stuff. And yeah, I know what telescopes are. And I don't think that it would be that difficult for a small satellite to be in orbit for a long time before anyone sees it with a telescope. The vast majority of telescopes are not even designed to look at things that are as close to the earth as manmade satelltes.

Re:Stratoshperic Archeology

[Oddly_Drac]

"There's lots of junk up there."

And the majority is being tracked by NORAD down to the size of around a basketball; which is the major reason why they actually justify the Cheyenne mountain budget. No. No points for Stargate jokes. Note that this addresses your point about tracking being limited; the military stares outwards.

Civilian tracking is generally a matter of watchin g for new stuff. "we still don't know where the radioactive material on the spacecraft landed."

It's the largely technical problem of finding an object the size of a basketball in an oval area 150 miles wide in the minor axis by 7000 miles in the long axis, the majority of that being water. 270 grams isn't much, and it's probably fairly safe for the moment.

"Maybe not so much with something this big, but you could always claim that it's an expended booster or maybe a failed research satellite if you didn't want anyone paying attention to it."

This was what they said about some Bigbird satellites, except someone did point out that failed satellites don't change orbit. I think that the veil of secrecy surrounding KH lasted for all of five years.

Re:Stratoshperic Archeology

[Slashamatic]

As the other poster said, most bits get tracked. The reason is that although space is pretty big, many available orbit slots are not and you really don't want to bump into anything that is already up there.

Astronomers don't particularly want 'another white streak' across their CCDs either so they tend to pay attention as well.

Re:Stratoshperic Archeology

[RicochetRita]

Interesting post!
Running your "Big Bird" & "KH" references through Google produced:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/263/1
and
http://www.randomhouse.com/features/spybook/spy/96 1115.html

Great stuff!

R3

Re:Stratoshperic Archeology

[Anonymous Coward]

> And the majority is being tracked by NORAD down to the size of around a basketball

My brother was a USAF Space Command "Scope Dope" for several years. NORAD does not track all the junk in the sky, it's Space Command at Schriever AFB that does. NORAD ties into it for the purposes of detecting and tracking ballistic launches, but NORAD's focus is largely terrestrial.

At least that's what they say, anyway.

> someone did point out that failed satellites don't change orbit

It's common for an otherwise malfunctioning bird to get pushed to a "safe" orbit if there's a chance it'll hit something else. This of course implies that there's some function at the time, but the thought is that total failure is imminent.

Re:Stratoshperic Archeology

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheyenne Mtn. is/was not the only government-owned Satellite tracking facility in the world.

Thats not a battle station...

[Anonymous Coward]

... it's a moon.

Re:Thats not a battle station...

[Anonymous Coward]

But only in Soviet Russia.

Great term

[Timesprout]

From now on anyone anyone complaining about an application crashing will be totally ignored. Our systems are way too sophisticated and cultured to do anything less than de-orbit, and even if they did decide to de-orbit it would be from nothing less than a very great height indeed.

Re:Great term

[mikael]

You haven't seen the 3D visualisation technology for OS performance. Every background process that is running is represented as a satellite orbiting the planet. A process starting is represented as a rocket launch; A process forking is represented as a satellite splitting in two. A process terminating is represented as a satellite burning up in orbit.

Watching a dodgy application spawn an infinite number of background processes is particularly impressive.

If it was ever used...

[thewonderllama.com]

...we'd just have to get George Lucas to go back and edit it so that their space station fired first.

~BS

BREAKING NEWS: Soviet Battle Station Slashdotted!

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

This will not bode well for us geeks! Does anybody have a laser proof tin foil hat I can borrow??

Too Bad It Already Fell Out of Space

[Evil W1zard]

Taco Bell could have put a big target out in the South Pacific and if it hit it we would have all won free tacos!

That's no moon...

[ZeppelinChild]

That's not even close!

Leads one to ponder the relative computing powess

[nayigeta]

Looks impressive, considering the time of such a project.

Leads one to ponder about the relative computing powess against the counterpart in those times.

Just how far the computing differences were, considering that a probable computation error caused the machine to orbit incorrectly.

but a faulty sensor caused it to de-orbit...

[arkanoid]

mmmm... i'm thinking it was the protoss...

Re:but a faulty sensor caused it to de-orbit...

[Ashe Tyrael]

No...

That's a zergling, Lester...

"One thing i can tell you - Energia Corp now

[Sai Babu]

workin on Mars mission."

A most interesting comment from the guy who provided the photos.

Perhaps he woudl be willing submit to a /. interview?

Re:"One thing i can tell you - Energia Corp now

[dr_d_19]

And perhaps a good ground for the interview would be Energia Corps' own Martian Mission web

Re:"One thing i can tell you - Energia Corp now

[Sai Babu]

Cool, thanks.
The interview could focus on the author's father's particular work in life support and environment. Getting to Mars is one thing. Being able to live on Mars is quite another.

Re:"One thing i can tell you - Energia Corp now

[Anonymous Coward]

A most interesting comment from the guy who provided the photos.

Perhaps he woudl be willing submit to a /. interview?

Even more interesting, because he's a she. Space chicks r0x0r.

Unlike the US...

[lxt]

"Isn't it great that that dictatorship spent itself into bankruptcy?"

Just replace "dictatorship" with "president"... :)

Re:Unlike the US...

[Peyna]

you mean with "president and congress"?

Re:Unlike the US...

[Boronx]

Ha! This congress won't take piss with Cheney's say so.

Unarmed, but still...

[Lisandro]

...does anyone knows if the Russians ever got to fire a laser big enough to fit in a spaceship? That'd be interesting.

Re:Unarmed, but still...

[Simon Lyngshede]

Big enough? I should think you would want it to be as small as possible. Russia was never capable of making stuff small, didn't really matter as they knew how to make extremely large rockets.

Re:Unarmed, but still...

[Lisandro]

Bad phrasing on my part, sorry. I meant "big enough to be used in a spaceship". A military laser should be insanely powerful, and i don't think laser diode technology was available back then, which means huge gas discharge lasers.

Re:Unarmed, but still...

[Anonymous Coward]

The lasers were (I think) meant to blind other spacecraft, so they didn't have to be too powerful.

To hit another spacecraft and destroy it, you need quite powerful lasers, especially if your only good chance to destroy the thing is while it is being launched (as is the case with ICBMs). This was why the US invented nuclear bomb pumped X-ray lasers. Which was actually a pretty neat idea.

Re:Unarmed, but still...

[dave420]

Do you mean "if the Russians ever got to fire a laser of the size required for this application?" as technically, any laser can fit in a spaceship, including laser pointers, which I'm pretty sure they have :)

Re:Unarmed, but still...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you're one of the poor laser rods who has to get a nuclear bomb up the ass. Those poor bastards don't much like it at all.

Re:Unarmed, but still...

[john.r.strohm]

I don't know.

However, they were doing some very nice work with antisatellite lasers.

Av Week ran some BEAUTIFUL satellite photos of their Sary Shagan facility quite a few years ago.

This was at the time when the Russians were swearing up and down that they were working on no such thing and that Strategic Defense was impossible and... and...

Come to think of it, that laser battle station was about the same time. Would the Russians REALLY *GASP* LIE to us about what they thought was possible or feasible, so they could maybe talk us out of it while they were going balls-to-the-wall to make it work?

Nahhhhh. Never happen!

De-Orbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that just scientist speak for CRASHED? Damn, you guys think you can make poo-poo smell like roses with words can't you? The damn thing crashed into the ocean, it didn't de-orbit. Its like a salesman saying he didn't get the account because the customer de-bought the product.

Re:De-Orbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

While your comment IS funny, I just thought I would note that the term "de-orbit" is also simply used for intentional (non-crashing) returns to Earth. Basically, "de-orbit" is a superset encompassing both "crash" and "land".

Re:De-Orbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the crash comes after the de-orbiting... De-orbiting means it's put in an orbit that will, well, crash it into earth.

Re:De-Orbit?

[DunbarTheInept]

Thing adjective verb thing. Verb Thing. Thing verb?

There, was that a useful line to write? No? Do you understand why it was not useful? Yes, that's right, because sometimes more precise terms are neeeded. "Crashed" is imprecise. "De-orbit" describes a little bit more about the reason it crashed. De-orbit means it decellerates itself so it is no longer going fast enough to orbit and thus falls. (As opposed to, say, accellerating itself off at some angle such that it was still going fast enough to orbit, but was going in the wrong direction to miss the earth, or say, "crashing" by hitting some other object in space, or "crashing" by failing to get out to orbit in the first place.)

Re:De-Orbit?

[shadowbearer]

So when an airplane crashes, it's ok to say it "de-flighted"? :-D

Actually, "de-orbit" by itself is also a broad term. A successful landing also "de-orbits". "Crash" is a subset of "deorbit", not the other way around. Fortunately :)

Crashing into another object up there is known as a "collision".

(which also a technically accurate term when a satellite catastrophically deorbits :)

To the GP: The damn thing crashed into the ocean, it didn't de-orbit. -- Obviously it did both, assuming it was technically in orbit at the time. If it wasn't, it simply followed it's ballistic trajectory to termination :)

Cheers,
SB

Re:De-Orbit?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Its like a salesman saying he didn't get the account because the customer de-bought the product."

Or like saying when James Brown dies, he will be defunct?

a faulty sensor?

[AviLazar]

You know the jerky that didn't put in a redundent sensor is probably still at the Siberian Front serving up Borcshe to the soldiers....

Re:a faulty sensor?

[kfg]

. . .Borcshe to the soldiers....

Is that that 356 knockoff that Lada made?

Not as good as the real thing, of course, but at least it represented a good try. It never really made sense to me to make inferior knockoffs of Fiats. That's like trying to undercut the Wal-Mart computer market.

KFG

Re:a faulty sensor?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It never really made sense to me to make inferior knockoffs of Fiats."

Be fair, the Lada Samara was the only hatchback ever made guaranteed not to crumple during high speed collisions (if only because high speeds were impossible).

OK, that isn't true.

But this is: during the late '80s, Lada tried exporting the Samara and the Niva (a small SUV) to Australia, with the Samara priced to compete with other hatchbacks from Mazda, Ford & Daewoo in the AU$15,000 region. The only problem was that the cars needed nearly AU$10,000 of work to make them road worthy. Needless to say, the Lada brand didn't last long...

Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Mirrordot's mirror

it should have a wimpy name

[r00t]

It's not a fully operational battle station.

Looks well cool

[Timesprout]

But I am just wondering how much of it actually was developed to anywhere near a working state. The vehicle that crashed was only a mock up so I am thinking this may have just been a bit of sabre rattling by thr Russians in the direction of the US.

Re:Looks well cool

[Meredeth]

Well, the prototype/proof of concept is said to have crashed, but nowhere does it mention what happened to the follow on vehicle. You can clearly see Energia launching one of them. Which one was it? And I would not call the first craft a mock up. It clearly had every system the craft would need except the laser. An important bit true, but the russians didn't have the same weight/space problems the us had, as they didn't have to fit it inside the space shuttle.

Re:Looks well cool

[dave420]

Just like the sabre-rattling the US did at the same time :) Remember, the cold war was one big series of sabre-rattles...

uh oh

[shaneh0]

All your Polyus-Skif are belong to us.

cool

[VanillaCoke420]

Thanks for this info. Very very interesting, especially for me, I'm very interested in the Soviet space programme - maybe because it was so secret.

Computer Graphics like that in 1985?

[torpor]

That rendering shot .. was that done in '85, or is it a newly-generated AutoCAD shot? Seems quite slick to me ..

Re:Computer Graphics like that in 1985?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes Comrade,

in 1985 early reaytracers could rendfer things better than that.

so the eliete of the USSR space agency, espically the military would have better than a toy that children was using in 1985....

be good and eat your borschd.

Re:Computer Graphics like that in 1985?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soview Russia, AutoCAD rendered YOU!

If the USSR had that back then....

[Devar]

...just imagine what the USA might just have up there right now.

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

" ...just imagine what the USA might just have up there right now.
--
It's a Bagel."

A bagel? In space? You're mad! What kind of a fool would dare to orbit a bagel?

Why won't you think of the children!

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[Enigma_Man]

The bagel burns with the power of lemons? The horrors! The atrocity! The papercuts! Won't someone think of the hamsters?

-Jesse

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[FireAtWill]

I read a book written by Air Force General Chuck Horner (Ret.) who commanded the air war over Desert Storm. Before retiring his last job was heading up SPACECOM, the military's space command. In describing that he remarked (paraphrasing) "There are many people who think that we shouldn't start putting weapons in space. Well, I've got news for them. There already there.

In any conflict with the US, our communications, global positioning and recon sattellites would be prime juicy targets.

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[iggymanz]

the nuclear reprisal for attacking those satellites doesn't seem all that juicy

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheney probably has his pet Alan Parson's project.

Oh wait. So that's what his undisclosed location is.

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Ouch, it seems that someone with mod points has money invested in Space Based Bagel Tech..

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[Devar]

I reckon. I thought it was quite humourous myself. :/

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[WIAKywbfatw]

First rule of combat: disable the enemies eyes and ears. If he's blinded because you took out his intelligence gathering satellites, he's not only lost what realtime intelligence he had coming in but he now also has to expend other resources (ie, manpower in the form of reconnaisance missions) to try and get some of that back. And with his communications satellites gone too, his ability to effectively manage is greatly diminished too.

You can't hit what you can't see. Sounds obvious but in warfare it can be the only difference between winning and getting spanked.

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[dave420]

Not meaning to burst your bubble, but a LOT of retired US military people, some with great ranks, have said some complete and utter buckets of bullplop. Serving in the US military doesn't mean you'll always tell the truth, especially if they're selling something :)

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[acsinc]

no sane person starts using nukes when the civilian population is not at risk. even then sanity is debatable.

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[jaoswald]

On the other hand, letting the enemy see whats going on is the only way to credibly DE-escalate after you get what you want. If you are planning ahead for some conclusion other than total (mutual?) annihilation, it perhaps better not to poke out all of your enemy's eyes.

If the enemy can't see what you are actually doing on a global scale, he'll have to assume the worst. Better to use disguise to hide the really important stuff, or use misdirection by showing him what you want him to believe.

Of course, this only applies to the widest-field sensors; obviously, it makes sense to jam radars, etc., used for terminal targeting, or radio channels used for tactical communication.

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[Anonymous Coward]

First rule of combat: Don't start a fight you can't win.
Corollary: You can't *ever* win a nuclear war.

Any enemies advanced enough to have spy satellites will also have nuclear weapons and ICBMs. Cities don't move. Even without real-time intelligence, the enemy will be able to nuke your government, military, and population centers into heaps of glowing rubble.

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[iggymanz]

Disabling the early warning grid does constitute threat of nuclear force and puts the civilian population at risk

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[iggymanz]

yes, very true, and this is exactly why the ICBM's would fly if the early warning grid is attacked.

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[shadowbearer]

How can this be a troll? Is some moderator thinking that military personnel are perfect? If only that could be! That would mean that humans can be perfect! Yeesh...

Come on now, this deserves at least one insightful mod - because it's true, and anyone with any knowledge of US military history knows it.

SB

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[Dun Malg]

Serving in the US military doesn't mean you'll always tell the truth

Heck, it doesn't even mean they KNOW the truth.

, especially if they're selling something :)

I'd tell about all the UFO's I saw when I was in Saudi in 90-91 if I thought I could make a buck, and the fact that I didn't actually see any wouldn't stop me! :)

Re:If the USSR had that back then....

[dave420]

Meh - I expect it these days. Sometimes the mods don't have much sense, other days they have plenty. I imagine we are having an off-day mod-wise :)

de-orbit...

[phasm42]

That's a nice euphism for crash and burn.

Re:de-orbit...

[phasm42]

err.. euphemism

Re:de-orbit...

[Anonymous Coward]

In doublespeak, we say this was an "incomplete success"

Re:de-orbit...

[fenris_23]

err... shouldn't that really be burn and crash?

Launch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[Catmeat]

There is a theory the lunch failure was intentional.

Gorbachev had just come to power and wanted to make peace overtures to the West. A giant space battle station was not going to help this endeavour so a deliberate "launch failure" would be the simplest and easiest way of getting rid of the darn thing and shutting down the program.

As I said, it's nothing more than a theory I've heard articulated. I've no idea how much credability or plausibility it has.

Re:Launch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[Sai Babu]

RTFA in which claim is that the crashed unit was instrumented, not weaponed.

Re:Launch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[Craig Ringer]

Oh, no! My sandwich!

Re:Launch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[WIAKywbfatw]

You don't think that it's possible to intentionally sabotage an aircraft or spaceship by messing with its instrumentation? Wow, you have heard of software, right? And you do know that a few lines of code can wreak havoc to any piece of code, let alone a mission critical application, right?

Newsflash for you: there are more ways of bringing something down then just shooting it out of the sky.

Re:Launch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[dajak]

Gorbachev had just come to power and wanted to make peace overtures to the West. A giant space battle station was not going to help this endeavour so a deliberate "launch failure" would be the simplest and easiest way of getting rid of the darn thing and shutting down the program.

Unlikely. I prefer the conspiracy theory that says that a US battle station destroyed it on its way up. The Soviet Union collapsed when its leadership realized what had happened, and what the implications are. US battle stations have also been disabling European and Japanese probes to Mars lately, so there must be something on Mars that we are not allowed to see. It all makes sense to me.

The Space Shuttles and the ISS are just red herrings.

Re:Launch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[toby]

Sounds implausible to me. For one thing, a secret giant space battle station is no threat to detente. For obvious strategic advantage, the Russian military was and is obsessive about secrecy (how else do they manage to keep Chechniya genocide out of Western headlines today).

Surely you do not think the US tells its allies everything?
"You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." --attributed to Al Capone.

The point of this launch may simply have been to demonstrate that the USSR's launch capability exceeded that of the US. The launch itself was broadcast, but the public was told nothing of the real payload.

I prefer this theory: The battle station was fully operational and, had not the Rebels trojan'ed its control software, was on course to Alderaan.

Re:Launch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[Kamerynn]

wtf??? interesting???

Re:Launch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[dcigary]

Please, we all know it was due to Gary Seven....

Re:Launch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[Sai Babu]

Well sure. But theres no reason to crash an instrument payload. If you've access to the inside, it makes more sense to wait until the weaponed payload is launched. Your competitor has expended greater resource prior to failing. Star wars was an economic contest, not a weapons contest. Of course, all I'm saying is predicated on the articles claim that the payload was instruments rather than weapons.

In business and foreign affairs, the game you are watching is rarely the game being played.

Re:Launch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[shadowbearer]

It's possible that it was deliberately destroyed to "kill" the program before a weaponed payload was launched, and it's possible that whoever was ordered to do that wasn't ordered until it was obvious the program was a boondoggle.

It's more likely that they simply fucked up. I lean toward that explanation, it's the simplest given the evidence. That was a complicated piece of hardware.

SB

Re:Launch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[Repugnant_Shit]

There is a theory the lunch failure was intentional.

They just couldn't maintain the freshness of a Subway Hoagie!!

History Channel Last Night

[DnemoniX]

Funny that the History Channel ran a show last night on disasters in the Soviet space program. What was very interesting was some seriously devistating disasters that the world at large never knew about until years after the wall came down. One was really impressive, the rocket exploded on the pad killing over 150 people and burning for hours. In another the rocket began to launch, but flipped sideways and dropped. The damage to the launch facility was so bad it took two years to get in back into usable shape. All the while Khrushchev was mocking the US efforts as backwards and offering assistance to a "backwards" nation. Meanwhile covering up their mega-disasters. So it makes you wonder what "really" happened to this thing.

Re:History Channel Last Night

[LWATCDR]

The US had more than one failure it's self during the early days. I saw pictures of an Atlas cart wheeling through the sky. The Navaho missle got the nickname the Nogo. I have even seen a Thor with a live H-Bomb on it fail at blast off the warhead did not go off thank goodness for the launch crew. That was part of test to see what happens when you blow up a nuke in space. The difference is in the US most of the failures where public.

Re:History Channel Last Night

[lommer]

For reference, the rocket that blew up on the pad was a prototype R-16 ICBM (later used in the space program too). You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_disaster

I don't know about that other one that flipped sideways though.

Re:History Channel Last Night

[jafac]

Folklore has it that there was a test launch out of Vandenberg back in the 1950's where a strap-on booster fell off, and went straight down into someone's house (on base), which was occupied a few hours prior, before the owner went out to the grocery store.

One of the reasons this stuff is so damn expensive is the huge amount of safety testing that goes on for each and every flight, learning from the lessons from the early space program.

Re:History Channel Last Night

[Anonymous Coward]

June 7, 1960, McGuire Air Force Base, near Trenton, New Jersey

A BOMARC* air defense missile being stored in a ready state that permitted its launch in two minutes was destroyed after a high pressure helium tank exploded and ruptured the missile's fuel tanks. Although the warhead was also destroyed by the fire, the safety devices acted properly and prevented the weapon's high explosives from detonating. A New York Times article described a near nuclear disaster, noting that the missile "melted under an intense blaze fed by its 100-pound detonator TNT...The atomic warhead apparently dropped into the molten mass that was left of the missile, which burned for forty-five minutes." The ensuing radiation "had been caused when thoriated magnesium metal which forms part of the weapon, caught fire." The Pentagon report said that only the area immediately beneath the weapon and an adjacent elongated area approximately 100 feet long were contaminated by water runoff from fighting the fire.

--

Oopsie!

Re:History Channel Last Night

[Dun Malg]

The difference is in the US most of the failures where public.

And they weren't catastrophic enough to A) kill lots of people, or B) destroy critical launch facilities. Soviet failures were generally much more spectacular, due to their tendency to employ inadequate safeguards.

Looks like a small moon to me

[kippy]

but I could be wrong.

Mod parent funny!

[j0kkk3l]

not informative. Click the link.

An interesting quote

[igny]

Durandal wrote:

Neato!

A very interesting post. Any other cool tidbits gleamed from your father?

Abbyy replied About this station? Almost nothing. Secret thing, you know. As for Mir and ISS stations i can tell a lot of interesting stories.
One thing i can tell you - Energia Corp now workin on Mars mission.

Yep, number increment

[Anonymous Coward]

Wel, yes please, just increment the number ;).

http://www.army.lv/photos/3987.jpg

Jeez,

Re:Yep, number increment

[jellomizer]

Sigh... Military Intelegence. At least we know what they know.

Re:Yep, number increment

[Cat_Byte]

Length: 37 meters
Diameter: 4.1 meter
Weight: around 80 tons

Uhhh....it looks a hell of a lot bigger than 4.1 meters wide in the pictures. Lying on its side it looks like it is from floor to ceiling on one of the many floors of the structure. Standing up seems much bigger than 37 meters too....hmmm.

Re:Yep, number increment

[antime]

Yikes!
Nuclear space mines, self-defense cannon!

Re:Yep, number increment

[WIAKywbfatw]

That's because what it looks like you're seeing in those pictures is the orbiter on its launch vehicle. The orbiter alone (the black thing, if I'm reading things correctly) is probably what those measurements you have are referring to, so that expains the disparity between the pictures and the numbers.

Re:Yep, number increment

[Cat_Byte]

I agree...its what I was referring to in comparison with floor to ceiling height being 4 meters (?). It just seems bigger than 4X30.

Re:Yep, number increment

[Axe]

Uhhh....it looks a hell of a lot bigger than 4.1 meters wide
Just compare it to the height of railings (for people) in the picture. Looks exactly 4.1 meters.

EVIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch this, nice one here (thunberbird drum music not included):

http://www.army.lv/photos/3990.jpg

It even has a LASER, coool, what a EVIL instrument is this!.

EVIL!!!!!

Battle Station Images Published Soviet Russia

[alexdm]

had to be said!

In...

[jellomizer]

In Democraticic America, a de-orbit into the South Pacific causes faulty sensor.

remember....

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Many Bothans died to bring us this information.

Were there any fricken' sharks on it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It already had what I call a "laser" on it.

That's not a moon, that's a space station!

[Omega1045]

That's not a moon, that's a space station!

Sorry, couldn't help myself...

Re:That's not a moon, that's a space station!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't feel bad - I was about to make that comment myself, but looks like you beat me to it.

FAB!

[bettlebrox]

Thunderbirds 1 is go!

Senator Frist?

[sczimme]

Better tell Senator Frist

Senator Frist? Is Senator Psot involved, too?

it's A-OK to appropriate 300 mill for that Star Wars whatjamagig

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Senator Frist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Frist? is Senator Psot involved, too?
Bill Frist US Senator from Tennessee (Republican)

I think Psot is a member of the Duma, not the Senate...

There's a PC statement . . .

[Badgerman]

"The Polyus was launched in May 1987 but a faulty sensor caused it to de-orbit into the South Pacific."

A lot of us call that "Crashing."

Re:There's a PC statement . . .

[Wyatt Earp]

Naw, de-orbiting isn't crashing. De-orbiting is the coming back into the atmosphere. Crashing is when it...crashes.

You can have something de-orbit and not crash, like most of the Shuttle missions. Hell Columbia didn't even crash, it broke up.

Re:There's a PC statement . . .

[Badgerman]

And people think Slashdot isn't educational.

Re:There's a PC statement . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you that the thing also carried nukes.

Re:In...

[Anonymous Coward]

In capitalist america, Taco Bell would have a floating target moved into place in the south pacific, and offer everyone in the U.S. a free taco if the falling craft hit the bulls-eye.

Re:Leads one to ponder the relative computing powe

[foobsr]

considering the time & a probable computation error

from ./ ... "Seems as though the Genesis spacecraft was able to launch from earth, travel through space, avoid aliens, and cruise back into the atmosphere to be caught by stunt pilots waiting patiently with their helicopters. Alas, the brakes didn't work because a sensor was designed upside down.

With all the advanced technology, nothing similar or remotedly comparable happens in the new millenium.

CC.

So the nuclear space mines are in the Pacific now?

[hpulley]

Wonder if they ever recovered anything?

Been there, done that

[Dan East]

No member of the Reagan or Bush administrations ever admitted or revealed publicly any knowledge of Polyus. The US Navy has made no statements about any attempts to investigate the wreckage of Polyus, which lies on the floor of the South Pacific.

For some reason the phrase "been there, done that" comes to mind.

Considering the amount of money spent on SDI, I can't imagine the US not going to great lengths to try to salvage the wreck in order to see what countermeasures the USSR was working on.

Dan East

Re:Been there, done that

[Ironsides]

Considering the amount of money spent on SDI, I can't imagine the US not going to great lengths to try to salvage the wreck in order to see what countermeasures the USSR was working on

Something tells me that when it hit the ocean it got scattered into many, many pieces. Probably be too hard to recover all of them. Most probably aren't very big either. This thing also came through the atmosphere on an unplanned trajectory so anything really usefull was burnt as well. It isn't really worth it to recover slag.

Re:Been there, done that

[WombatControl]

I'd imagine that whatever wreckage remains is in very small chunks in very deep water. Even if we could find and recover it, there'd be almost nothing left. Reentry tends to do a very good job of scattering debris for miles - imagine if Columbia had broken up over the Pacific rather than over Texas.

Even with Challenger recovery took a long time, and that was a craft that hadn't come down from orbit and many of the pieces landed in relatively shallow water. Trying to pull the pieces of a Russian submarine from the deep ocean after it had gone through reentry probably wouldn't have provided enough information to justify the costs.

Re:Been there, done that

[slittle]

I think it's safe to assume that if a Russian submarine is reentering the atmosphere, any and all costs would be more that worth it to the US...

Re:Been there, done that

[snake_dad]

Technically one could argue that any submerged submarine has exited the atmosphere, but that would be nitpicking. :)

violated USRR - USA treaty?

[Anonymous Coward]

didn't this violate the USSR - USA treaty prohibiting armed spacecraft ?

Ofcourse...

[thrill12]

If it wasn't for the very democratic China, the US couldn't grow any deficit at all - sense the irony of that...

Re:Ofcourse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't confuse trade deficits with budget deficits.

Re:So the nuclear space mines are in the Pacific n

[antime]

Fortunately the launched satellite only had scientific equipment on board (or so they claim).

Re: $800 Billion

[Racter]

> On a completely unrelated note Bush just signed a bill putting the US *800 BILLION in debt.

*Insert "another" here.

Sad

[thrill12]

I wonder if you would have thought the same if they started a nuclear war back in the 60's or 80's...
Maybe technological progress comes in times of war - yet people who forge that progress have to be born someday and have a chance to educate themselves.
With war around you - that's pretty tough...

They only SAID it did a deorbit...

[rogerborn]

and only its booster fell into the sea.

Suppose it's really still up there?

But its orbit is decaying...

We'd have to get Eastwood and friends to go get it back into a safe orbit....

Waitaminit. Wasn't that in a movie a few years ago?

Roger Born
writing.borngraphics.com
"Sorry. No Refunds."

Luxurious war...

[thrill12]

I agree - but 'regular wars' are not so technologically advancing. I never see African countries come up with great new weaponry because of their wars. Instead, they tend to head of in the complete opposite direction (chopping of heads instead of using bullets etc...), whereas our 'luxorious wars' permit us to actually invent stuff while we fend off the enemy at a distance.

Re:Luxurious war...

[Lisandro]

Much agreed. Still, i don't think the Russians were involved in many "dirty wars" in recent history - perhaps Afghanistan was the last one. I'm not sure though.

Like i said, technlogical advancement IS NOT an excuse for war.

Re:violated USSR - USA treaty?

[virg_mattes]

Not this time. The treaty forbade launching armed craft, but although this thing was slated as a weapons platform, the first unit was sent up without armaments, and no others went up because the project was scrapped with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Virg

TERMINATOR

[arnoroefs2000]

Let's not forget the Robot Governor!

MIR-2

[beelsebob]

It's very interesting that this thing has ???-2 written on the side of it - Mir 2.

Bob

Re:MIR-2

[Bambi Dee]

And crossovering this "battle station" with "1984", that gives us "War is Peace-2". Hm! Is that profound or am I procrastinating?

Re:MIR-2

[beelsebob]

Gyah... russian characters don't come out with /.'s encoding :(.

Bob

Re:MIR-2

[Y2]

Gyah... russian characters don't come out with /.'s encoding :(.

Yeah, tried that once myself. Caught it in Preview.

Hint, hint.

Try Again

[virg_mattes]

> The grandparent meant "prying more money out of our precious entitlement programs"...except unfortunately I see little evidence of that either.

Why is the concept of "budget deficit" so hard to wrap your hands around? Haven't you ever seen someone max out a credit card before? Lowering taxes and not de-funding programs, and then spending money you don't have, just means that someone has to pay it back in the future. That doesn't invalidate the original comment about drumming up an emotional response to get funding for a project, or his comments about prying out money.

Virg

and the one that blew up

[Anonymous Coward]

Many shubs and zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the slorr that day, I can tell you!

Missed the Point

[virg_mattes]

> You don't think that it's possible to intentionally sabotage an aircraft or spaceship by messing with its instrumentation?

Your miss is in your reasoning for sabotage. Catmeat said Gorbachev wanted to prevent a big space battle station from getting in the way of his overtures to the West, but the article stated that the first SKIF didn't have any weapons, it had scientific instruments, which is what Sai Babu meant by "instrumented". His argument is that there was no politically beneficial reason to order a non-combat-capable SKIF destroyed, and therefore it was more likely an accidental error.

Virg

Re:Missed the Point

[johnjay]

His argument is that there was no politically beneficial reason to order a non-combat-capable SKIF destroyed, and therefore it was more likely an accidental error.

Two thoughts in disagreement:
1) It's more cost effective to shut down the program earlier rather than later.
2) It's entirely possible that the launch of the combat SKIF could have ended up as a Cuban-Missile-Crisis type of event, in which the US would have threatened military response on launch. So, better that it not even reach the launch pad.

I don't know the truth of the original story, and would bet against it, but it seems plausible.

lol, this is too funny

[Blitzenn]

lol, these are the same pictures I actually doctored up for a friend two years ago in photoshop. We added the satellite images to the base booster images for a proposed game prelude. Funny to seem someone running with them like they were real. I wonder how many slashdotters will get sucked into this one.

I still have the layer psd files if you want to see them. rotflmao!!!

Re:lol, this is too funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree; they look SUPER FAKE to my eyes... But if you need more to wonder about, how come there are no people or vehicles anywhere in any of the pictures? Sets off my mind's reality sensor...

In Soviet Russia, laser space battle station, err

[i41Overlord]

That's not going to work with this article, is it?

Re:Lunch Failure Conspiracy Theory

[toby]

There is a theory the lunch failure was intentional. There is nothing I hate more than lunch failure.

Flamebait?

[SuperBanana]

Glad to see everyone's sense of humor is alive and well.

Why would MIR be on the side of a combat vehicle?

[alx-1138]

The designation 'MNP-2' can be seen on the side of the booster rockets in some of the photos. MNP is the Russian 'Mir', or 'peace'. Why would 'peace' be on this machinery? Sarcasm? Camoflauge? (after all, you would expect something like 'KillBot' on the side of a combat vehicle) Simple re-use of boosters from the Mir program? Or maybe hoax? ;-)

Are they your friend though?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6542892/site/newsweek/.

um,,,

[schnits0r]

I would have posted this earlier, but slashdot wasn't letting me post, so imagine this had been posted about 3 hours ago.

Am I the only person here is is opposed to the weaponization of space?

It costs too much, it's useless, and I doubt anyone else will feel safer at night knowing that there are space based missiles just above them waiting to go off.

George Bush at the trigger also isn't much better.

Re:um,,,

[Anonymous Coward]

"George Bush at the trigger also isn't much better."

I really don't see how having GWB in command of a space-based arsenal could be that much worse than having him in charge of the existing terrestrial-based arsenal. Same idiot, all you're doing is eliminating the launch time for a faster armageddon.

WOW!

[NetNinja]

That sucker is impressive!

Is This For Real?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks kinda fake to me. Are we sure this wasn't a subject from Photoshop Phriday?

Re:In Soviet Russia, laser space battle station, e

[Bambi Dee]

...de-orbits YOU?

(sorry, it's my first Soviet Russia joke. Also my last)

Re:Why would MIR be on the side of a combat vehicl

[Bambi Dee]

Quote:

Kornilov then goes on to declare that because of this rush Polyus was created by combining components from several current projects. The interface between Polyus and the Energia booster was adapted from the Buran Space Shuttle. The central module was adapted from a module for the Mir 2 Space Station.

neither are

[Run4yourlives]

the Chisto-fascists you just re-elected...

People aren't irrational, regardless of what you might like to believe. Islamic militants have very good and ligitimate reasons for what they do, regardles of whether or not we perfer their methods.

Perhaps you should find out what those reasons are, instead of invading countries and validating them.

Re:neither are

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should find out what those reasons are, instead of invading countries and validating them.

Actually, I say we nuke them from orbit.. it's the only way to be sure.

Re:neither are

[Anonymous Coward]

the Chisto-fascists you just re-elected...

WTF is a "Chisto-fascist?"

While both major parties in the USA may have adopted many parts of the National Socialist Party's platform, they really don't fit the misusage of "fascist" singe the 1960s.

People aren't irrational, regardless of what you might like to believe. Islamic militants have very good and ligitimate reasons for what they do, regardles of whether or not we perfer their methods.

Perhaps you should find out what those reasons are, instead of invading countries and validating them.

Funny, I can't think of a single rational reason to hijack four airplanes of innocent people and crash them into commercial buildings full of other innocent people THAT THE HIJACKERS HAD NEVER MET. There may have been numerous foreign policy fumblings over the years since a bunch of backwards camel jockeys were discovered to be sitting on the world's greatest energy resource, but that hardly warrants a call for mass murder. If the Al Queda-types have anyone to be angry with it is the Saudi royal family and the other oil emirates. Oh, they claim to be, but they reserve mass murder for office workers in the United States.

I don't need cultural sensitivity training to recognize evil and barbarism when I see it. September 11th is evil and barbarism. Osama bin Laden is an irrational and evil madman. The Islamic terrorists might think of themselves as holy warriors, but they are just sad, derranged individuals bent on destruction because they can not create.

Re:neither are

[magarity]

People aren't irrational, regardless of what you might like to believe. Islamic militants have very good and ligitimate reasons for what they do

I notice you make this assertion yet provide no such reasons. Because there aren't any.

Suicide is irrational; it is intentionally removing yourself from the gene pool from that point on. While this is a good thing in some people's cases, it's exceptional rude to remove other people because of your own screwed up politics.

Re:neither are

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they don't like americans posessing and invading their Holy lands, I think america posesses at least 3 of the most holy islamic lands, talk about porvocation. You make even moderates extreme, because you prove the extremists right.
Or Maybe they just don't like a country declaring war for WMD^H^H^H^dislodging saddam^H^Hinstalling democracy.
Honestly your post is spoken like a true apethetic, No wonder you make your own enemies, you don't do your country ANY favours by killing your own freedom and believing the rhetoric.

but consider this, perhaps they suicide because they
have no other options left.
OH and BTW I am not islamic, I am christian, It's our screwed up politics that are driving them.

The Soviets have Photoshop.

[llebe]

Be afraid, very afraid.

Re:BREAKING NEWS: Soviet Battle Station Slashdotte

[Scrameustache]

Does anybody have a laser proof tin foil hat I can borrow?

An extra layer, shiny side out, ought to do it. : )

Re:Leads one to ponder the relative computing powe

[SlayerofGods]

"The sensors were a key element in a domino-like series of events designed to release the parachutes. When the capsule - which blazed into the atmosphere at 11 kilometres per second - decelerated by three times the force of gravity (3 Gs), the sensors should have made contact with a spring."
"The contact should have continued as the capsule peaked at a deceleration of about 30 Gs. Then, when the capsule's deceleration fell back through 3 Gs, the contact would have been broken, starting a timer that signalled the first parachute to release.

I swear that is so over engineered... what's so wrong with a guy with a remote that has a big button that says deploy parachute now.

Re:Why would MIR be on the side of a combat vehicl

[Scrameustache]

MNP is the Russian 'Mir', or 'peace'. Why would 'peace' be on this machinery? Sarcasm? Camoflauge?

First of all: "camouflage"

Secondly: Si vis pace, para bellum.

Thirdly: This is too... too much. I'm leaning on the hoax thesis.

Re:military dominance?

[Jherico]

Kruschev said 'We will bury you', NOT 'We will crush you'. The gist of the statement was that the stable soviet emptire would be around long after capitolism died under the weight of itself. Clearly he put too much stock in the long term survival of his government, but its not the same thing as claiming he wanted to dominate the west.

Hey, JACKASS! Star Wars was a movie...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ronald Reagan, then President of The United
States of America, proposed something called the
"Strategic DEFENSE Initiative" (or SDI) to shield
his country from incoming missiles. The key word
being DEFENSE. Star Wars was a fucking movie
you (liberal?) loser! If Clinton or Carter had
proposed it, ala Kennedy and the Moon, you loons
on the left would have lapped it up like kittens
at a saucer of milk, and you FUCKING KNOW IT!
But NOOOOO, it was Reagan, so you berate it and
demean a good idea by referring to a DEFENSE
strategy as a weapon of war. You MOTHERFUCKERS
all make me sick! Newsflash: your shit stinks too!

Turn 180 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't that mean it goes back to where it comes from, and 360 that it wil make a loop and go on in the same direction ?
(Didn't the good old starfighter have a problem when entering 'sovjet space'? Vaguely remember some story about Starfighters plunging into the Atlantic)

Re:Keep These Pictures Secret! Why? CHINA!

[SlashN]

Yikes...

Check out www.allyourbasearebelongtous.com/flash/ Hopefully China hasn't seen this one yet. SlashN

Is Wily Coyote trying to eat the Road Runner or just have sex with it?

Re:violated USSR - USA treaty?

[lommer]

I hate this misconception - the treaty that is constantly referred to only bans WMD in space (though it was originally written with only nuclear in mind, many contend that the wording extends its applicability to all WMDs). Conventional weapons are still fine, as evidenced by history: the Soviet Salyut space station had a 20mm automatic cannon on it which they tested in space. As well, the escape Soyuz on board the ISS contains a .22 pistol in case it lands in the wilderness (this was suggested by the russians because an older soviet soyuz mission had problems when the cosmonauts were unable to leave the capsul until the recovery team arrived several hours later because wolves surrounded the landing site).

I'm sure there are other examples of weapons in space - the point being that only nukes and WMDs are prohibited.

P.S. As pointed out before on /., the only two countries to sign that treaty were the US and the USSR, one of which no longer exists - does the treaty still have force?

Rabid Ronnie

[theolein]

While the USSR was already on the way out due to the failings of numerous things (It wasn't just the Soviet economy, mainly it was that the people were simply tired of the Soviet loonies. The Soviet economy could have lasted a lot longer given that it was based on an active imagination and not an actual market), they certainly managed a number of fascinating things technically, such as the Energia rocket and Buran and the Venera venus landers.

Mainly though, this Polyus battle station shows what a waste the SDI initiative was in the first place, and more importantly, for today's world of Texas cowboys, what a waste the missile defense shield is. The huge amount of money wasted on lunatic plans to conquer space is easily countered with comparitively cheap countermeasure, be they a space based laser battlestation (why does the US think that China could not build one itself, with the same lack of hoo haa that the Russians had?) or a manouvering warhead.

But those big defense companies need to justify their existences, employees salaries, and profits, don't they?

F.A.B.

[MisterClever]

Love this picture from the site:

http://www.army.lv/photos/3996.jpg

Looks like something from The Thunderbirds!

Mir2 == part of ISS

[Asdex]

Mir-2 should have been the successor of the science station MIR. Parts of it are incorparated into the ISS. Mir-2 has nothing to do with this "battle station" Polyus.

Goldorak

[ExHGamer]

Are you sure it's not the missing 'personnal' part of the secret Goldorak project?

server slashdotted

[MobyTurbo]

Here's the nyud.net mirror of this site.

http://www.militaryphotos.net.nyud.net:8090/forums /viewtopic.php?t=30510

Soviet Russia is GO!

[Mulletproof]

And speaking of people, amazing how not one photo has a single person in it. Giant boosters, complex machinery, huge manufacturing centers... And no one single person. Not even independent ground vehicals.

And yeah, it does look like the Thunderbirds. If I stare long enough, I could swear I see the strings.
I'm calling BS Flag, 30 yard line. It may be legit, but somebody is gonna have to do better than those photographs.

Re:Wrong program. It was an ICBM test.

[Anonymous Coward]

The rocket that killed 150 people was not in the space program. It was an ICBM.

The Russian space program has had a better record then the US program, but there is no denying that the ICBM program predating the "space race" more then made up for this.

Also on the History Channel... Siberia

[SonicSpike]

Following that show was a very interesting program on Siberia last night... did anyone happen to catch it as well?

If I ain't married by the age of 30 (7 more years) I'm gonna fly to Siberia and pick myself up a 14 year old wife and bring her back to the US! Siberian women are HOT!

hoax?

[voudras]

im certainly no expert - but some of the images seem to me a little suspect.

this isint to say i doubt its possible

Re:Why would MIR be on the side of a combat vehicl

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why would 'peace' be on this machinery? Sarcasm? Camoflauge?"

Camoflage, definitely. I can picture the committee meeting now: "If we paint "Peace-2" on the side, the Americans will never notice that its a honking great rocket"

"...after all, you would expect something like 'KillBot' on the side of a combat vehicle..."

Or "Super Happy Fun Toy" (but only if they taunt us).

Re:violated USSR - USA treaty?

[CaptainAvatar]

You are perfectly correct, there is nothing banning conventional weapons in space (although I guess the ABM treaty did, if they were intended to be deployed against ballistic missiles?). I think the Salyut guns were the best example of an operational deployment, but the Soviets did test a few other systems, www.astronautix.com has some info on them (on the right hand side, there's section called Soviet Combat Spacecraft).

About the treaty still having force, I think Russia legally assumed the rights and responsibilities of the USSR. I can't google up anything very authoritative, but a number of sites have statements like this:

The Russian Federation continues, as from 24 December 1991, the membership of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in the United Nations and maintains, as from that date, full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations and multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General.