Lockheed Martin unveils Space Shuttle replacement

Vegan Bob writes "Lockheed Martin released its proposal for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) in a recent Popular Mechanics article. NASA will choose this vehicle scematic or opt for the yet-released Northrop Grumman design in 2008. The CEV will replace the Space Shuttle program, and will eventually go to the moon (between 2015 and 2020)."

Comments

One or two questions related to these articles:

[Skyshadow]

Wait, what?

Why add an orbital rendezvous requirement to all missions? Why use a shape like this which, I presume, requires the use of failure-prone ceramic tiles for reentry protection instead of a tried-and-proven heat sheild when you're planning to use parachutes to land the thing anyhow? What's the advantage to using this thing over just a regular capsule if it's not necessarily reusable?

How does it possibly make sense to use the same vehicle for LEO missions as for moon and Mars missions? What happened to the important ideas behind Mars Direct or Semi-Direct (aka, having a seperate hab module that you can leave for future missions and making your fuel on Mars instead of hauling it with)? Does this signal that NASA is planning for Mars as just a set of "footprints and flagpoles" missions? Why are they planning a fly-by of Mars at all when the most dangerous part of a well-planned mission would be the part in transit rather than the part on the planet?

And perhaps most of all, why is it going to take us fifteen years to get back to the moon when we got there from scratch in less than ten the first time around? Heck, what's our goal in going back to the moon in the first place instead of concentrating on the much-more-promising Mars? Did we miss something the last time around?

In short: Just what, exactly, is going on here?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[macpeep]

The benefit of a lifting body (or winged vehicle) is that you have more cross-track navigation control. Also, the g-loads on people inside the craft are much lower that way, which is good when they are coming back from a two year trip to Mars in zero gravity (or very low gravity while on Mars). Even for a long trip to the moon, it will be very helpful.

Orbital rendezvous is good for a number of things. It allows you to have modularity so you can assembler larger crafts, add special modules later on that you haven't even thought of now (as more advanced technology becomes available 10 years down the road), use it to dock with the International Space Station, use it to dock with possible rescue crafts, etc.

This is a vehicle for carrying people. It's not the full set of technologies needed to get to and land on Mars.

And it's taking 15 years because there's no Soviet Union that's making everyone piss in their pants in fear.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[StarKruzr]

Right, because Apollo didn't work at all.

We didn't use it to get to the moon, and certainly didn't use it to rendezvous with Skylab or the Russians. It didn't prove itself to be a fabulously versatile spacecraft at all; nope, not one iota.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe there was NOTHING WRONG with the capsule design in the first place, and that the only reason the Shuttle has wings is so that the Air Force could have warm fuzzies about it?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[big-giant-head]

I think this is more a return to sanity, than a great evolution in space craft. After all the basic tech hasn't changed all that much.

The shuttle was too big and expensive and had to be basically rebuilt after every mission.

What nasa needs is a reliable, relativly cheap modular space craft(s) that can be bolted to gether for different missions. Orbit, Moon Mars .... really all the CEV is a way for folks to get to and from orbit. the lunar and Mars space craft will undoubtly be assembled in orbit from modules, and carry along a CEV docked on the side to the astronauts can return to earth after it's over.

So it probably will be nothing impressive, the big thing will be reliablility and operational costs ( or less of them).

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[aklix]

Maybe it's a psychological thing. After all, would you rather be fired out of a cannon or fly on an airplane? The wings make it look likes it's supposed to fly.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[nizo]

Actually I think they see huge piles of $$$ too, which isn't a good basis for new designs.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[fredrik70]

um, what's so much beter with the shuttle? How ineffective do you think it is to bring all that heavy metal and tiles that build up those wings up into LEO jsut to and then down again, such a waste of energy. A capsule is all we need for space, wings are of no use and risk becoming a hazard when reentering, a lifting body might be cool though

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[rben]

We'll never get there with Bush's plan. Be patient and I'll explain why I think so.

The current administration is spending money at a rate that should make everyone in the country want to start burying cash in jam jars. The price of oil is rising and will continue to rise. Our current leadership, in both parties, forgets that oil will eventually run out and that unless we find alternative ways to fuel our vehicles, we'll pay the price in rampant inflation. Our SUV culture is already using more gasoline than can be refined. The rising cost of oil is causing inflation, which is logical since transportation is a significant cost for almost any business. The Fed is raising interest rates to try to slow inflation, but that won't work, because this isn't some emotional reaction, it's tied to an actual fundemental force in the economy, rising fuel prices. The rising interest rates are having an effect though, they are putting the brakes on what little economic recovery we were having.

If we keep doing stupid things like this, we're going to wind up in very bad shape and we'll drag the whole world's economy down with us. At that point, very few people will understand why it's so important to continue a manned space program. There will be tremendous pressure on Congress to rein in spending on everything but domestic spending.

What we should be doing is working hard to find economical energy replacements. We should also be aggressively funding space exploration, devleoping the technologies that private companies could use to exploit space. There are resources available in space that could make a difference to every person on this planet. A single large iron-nickel asteroid has enough iron to replace the iron production of the whole planet for five years.

The Moon has large amounts of Helium-three, an isotope of Helium that may be key to producing fusion power. That isotope is extraordinarily rare on Earth. China is already planning to set up a base on the Moon to mine the isotope. A sensible idea since they have little in the way of oil and coal will contribute to the green house warming problems we already face.

Using the resources from the Moon and Near Earth Asteroids, NEAs, we could easily build our capability to explore the rest of the solar system. It seems likely that there is water on the Moon near the north pole. Once we got a base set up on the north rim of Peary Crater and started mining Helium-three, I doubt we'd need to put any more money into the effort. I expect it would be funding itself and paying a hefty return.

We need to stop listening to sweet sounding platitudes from our elected officials and demanding that if they propose lofty goals that they then govern in a manner that will make it possible for us to reach them. That isn't happening now.

My primary hope for our chances of exploiting space no longer rests in our government at all. It rests in the hands of individual like Burt Rutan, Ms. Ansari, and Sir Richard Branson, business people and dreamers who, like me, grew up dreaming that we'd already be in space by now.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. You have to remember that a mission to Mars is a much bigger undertaking than a lunar mission. Even considering advances in technology since the 1960s, you're still looking at a multi-decade effort just to get the first human there. And in order to succeed at all, such a mission needs significant financial, and therefore political support for a couple of decades.

It was one thing to race to the moon in the 60s when the US was all caught up in beating the Soviet Union. It's quite another to sustain a much bigger mission when there is no real political impetus to do it, and power will likely change parties several times between now and 2030. Much as I want mankind to ascend to the next level in space exploration, I just don't see much happening in the relatively near future of our lifetimes. Most people are much more concerned with what's happening on our own planet (and perhaps rightfully so?), making the prospect of properly funding this mission difficult if not impossible.

What we really need to reignite the space program is another Soviet Union to compete with. All this new terrorist crap may well threaten us more than the USSR ever did, but we'll never compete with them to get to Mars!

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[georgewilliamherbert]

The various shuttles have flown a LOT more than the Saturn V ever has, so I would venture to say there is nothing wrong with a shuttle design.

I do not know of any aerospace engineer who believes that the Shuttle is not a greatly flawed design.

I also don't know of any engineer who thinks that the Apollo CSM was greatly flawed, though we had a couple of accidents with it (Apollo 1 pad fire, Apollo 13 flight).

There's nothing inherent about reusable vehicles that makes them all bad designs. Shuttle, however, is not a good reusable design. In retrospect, it was not good enough.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Moofie]

What's NASA's budget? $17 billion/year? That's peanuts.

How much tax revenue does the US get from businesses that wouldn't exist without comm satellites?

Historically, exploration has been the number one long-term economic driver. It's not very expensive, and the potential (and hard to anticipate) benefits are big.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Rei]

Then Jerry Pournelle is an idiot.

Orbital Sciences Corp would get 2 billion dollars just for strapping a heat shield to one of their Pegasus rockets instead of a payload - congrats we just wasted 1/3 of a CEV's development cost to accomplish nothing. Or did you not already know that private companies, using private funds, have already launched orbital rockets? It's not a very profitable business - that's why there aren't too many companies doing it.

Number 3 would never be done without subsidy. The costs are way off. I can do a breakdown if you'd like on what construction and supply costs would be during that period.

Number 4 makes no sense - why offer a prize for a *specific* clean power technology? The numbers are also way off on this one. Here, do the math: 1,367 W/m^2 (optimal), 35% conversion efficiency (very good), 5% beaming efficiency (far better than currently available). 800MW = 334 million square meters. Assuming 0.1 kg per square meter (light for high efficiency cells), that's 34 million kilograms (ignoring support eq., such as heliostats, orbit correction, transmission, etc). At a launch price of 7,000$/kg (cheap), that's 233 billion dollars.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Moofie]

You could slice it that way, I concede. I wasn't counting the deaths in the on-the-ground pre-mission test, but I see where you're coming from.

However, Shuttle is not a good space launch system. The "Better Faster Cheaper" mantra didn't actually accomplish any of those goals, and Shuttle certainly didn't.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Kiryat Malachi]

"1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.

Wake me up when a Pegasus comes back to earth and goes back up once, much less twice. In three weeks. And hey, if they can do it in such a fashion that people can survive the up and down, then we *have* a CEV already, and wouldn't it be nice to know that?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Moofie]

I wouldn't argue for a moment that Shuttle was anything other than horrible cost-plus budget gerrymandering.

However, manned space flight is literally the only important thing that humans can do.

Another $100 billion more for the poor, and there will still be poor. Another $100 billion for space exploration, and we've got another planet to explore and colonize.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[alienw]

that would help competitive PRIVATE INDUSTRY get into space to do all that exploring.

Yeah, because private companies can make money from pixie dust and love to spend it on projects with zero ROI. Or are you suggesting we give private companies taxpayer money?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Canth7]

Those 3 deaths on the Apollo missions happened on the ground, due to a hatch design problem. There probably isn't enough data to extrapolate which is more deadly to a precise degree, but it seems logical that the more complicated shuttle would be the less safe vehicle.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[HuguesT]

You are doing statistics on 3 events, essentially your margin of error is so huge that you can't infer any conclusion.

Both were risky endeavours ; however the parent's point is not completely moot. Apollo 1 was a new design and caused the death of 3 people on the ground. The rest of the missions went OK, even Apollo 13 who had massive systems failures, but enough redundancy built-in to make it back safely. Moreover you are not counting the Apollo predecessors which were somewhat similar in design, but simpler, and which didn't suffer any casualty.

In contrast, the SS exploded twice unexpectedly in the middle of the program. Apparently the SS is a complex system with design flaws no one really knows how to fix.

At any rate the SS is far deadlier than it was designed to be.

curious...

[wcitech]

are there any obvious oppurtunities for advancement here? There are going to be billions in production costs, so we can -=go to the moon=- in 2015-2020. I'm going to be a little more than upset if we spend this much money to accomplish something that will have happene already almost 70 years prior. Can we at least shoot to that red one next door?

Sa y hello to the new kid, same as the old kid

[Watersharer]

Since the early days of the space program, lives have been wasted and money shoveled down the gaping maw of the 'status-quo' machine.

We should/could have been out there by now. There are overwhelming reasons, political and economic, to get this freaking horse to run already.

So now they give us a 'new and improved' assbox that has limited mission goals, is incapable of leaving orbit, and cant get itself to space. Whats new in that?

Where's the CRV?

[wiredlogic]

Now if we can get a Crew Return Vehicle turned back back on we have a chance of fully populating the ISS. It would be a nice bonus if such a vehicle was a striped down (toilet-less, stowable) CEV that could use the same launch system.

Re:Where's the CRV?

[wiredlogic]

The CRV was designed to be a Soyuz replacement and needs to be able to stay attached to the ISS for months at a time. This requires a vehicle that is designed for extended stays in space. CRV systems need better radiation hardening and need added reliability for sitting in low power, cold storage until the vehicle is needed. The shuttle can't do this since if is only designed for ~2 week missons and all critical systems are kept running all the time. As it is, the Soyuz escape craft docked to ISS have to be replaced periodically during long missions because they have a limited service life (I think the batteries die out).

Not again!

[Baldrson]

Oh God, not again!

Hasn't the space shuttle program done enough damage to the pioneering heritage of the US already?

First, NASA delivers a space transportation system with a cost per lb to leo that is an order of magnitude higher than it promised.

Then, NASA stomps out private investment in launch service companies because it would dilute the monopoly value of the bad technology NASA produced.

Then when grassroots space enthusiasts try to get NASA to stop stomping out privately financed space transportation companies, and passed legislation requiring NASA to follow the Reagan policy of purchasing commercial launch services whenever possible, NASA thumbs its nose at the taxpayers most interested in space and launches the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite via the Shuttle.

Then when grassroots space enthusiasts, totally fed up with NASA's lawlessness and detemination to destroy the pioneering spirit of the US, start offering their own launch technology prizes, NASA waits until one of them embarrasses it before providing even lip-service to the prize award concept.

Finally, a private entrepreneur is offering $50 million of his own money as an incentive for other private investors to create a de facto replacement for the Space Shuttle* and NASA responds by trying to pump taxpayer money into the same good old boy network that has so effectively destroyed hope among pioneering peoples that they can embark on a new age of exploration to escape the burgeoning bureaucracies that proclaim themselves the hope of mankind while destroying its spirit.

Kill NASA before it kills the human spirit.

*An exploding myth.

old design, made new again?

[mbancsu]

this design isn't new!? these are images from shuttle prototype designs that were made back in 1991. Maybe the technology is finally available, hence the release of this material/info to the public/media?

Uh, cargo space?

[kc01]

While the drawings look interesting, it has nowhere near the amount of cargo space that the space shuttle has. There's no way the vehicle in the drawing could launch a satellite of any size. Perhaps they plan on a family of these things?

Everyone is missing the obvious here.

[pair-a-noyd]

This thing looks like it can't carry much of a payload.

What about schoolbus sized satellites?

This looks like a simple space taxi, not a space truck...

Waste of money..

I think we need to go back to basics and use the simple rockets to lift huge payloads, like the Russian Energia.

The Russians space program is pretty basic and could be very effective..

First step is to keep meddling politicians out of it all...

Re:Everyone is missing the obvious here.

[Manhigh]

Its not the space shuttle, nor is it intended to be.

The space shuttle can launch 20ish tons to LEO. But what if youre just going to the space station for a crew transfer? Its about as economical as taking a semi-truck down to the drugstore instead of a 4-cylinder coupe.

We dont always needs huge payloads. The other interesting idea with this concept is that this vehicle is being designed to be launch from current launch vehicles. Given the current budgetary situation, doing more with less is vital.

Re:Everyone is missing the obvious here.

[twostar]

You should NOT launch space equipment on manned launch vehicles. The safety requirements drive the cost through the roof. There is no argument for launching satellites on the same vehicle as people, all that ends up happening is you drive the costs of both up.

It's much cheaper to launch equipment on Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs) and people on a small system designed to get just people up. In orbit rendezvous is easy for us now and this way you don't have to launch wasted mass in the form of quadruple safety redundancy.

X-33!?!? VentureStar!?!?

[jzarling]

What about the X-33 and the VentureStar? Couldn't we just restart that program? The design is already worked out and the protoype of the X-33 was well on it way to completion.

Re:who cares??

[drxenos]

I don't feel there is anything wrong with us. It's the rest of the world. I LOVE being a geek.

Space taxi makes sense

[jabber01]

The problem with a jack-of-all-trades vehive is that it is a master of none. We can already get heavy payloads up into space with more conventional rockets, like the Energia you mention. What we need is a way to effectively get people up there too. It seems that this is the primary goal of this CEV. The payload will get there one way, and the crew another. Then, they don't have to bring the truck back home empty all the time.

A reusable crew vehicle beats a capsule any day, no?

And what sense is there in using a payload lifting rocket to throw a crew into orbit? Now THAT is a waste of money.

Re:X-33!?!? VentureStar!?!?

[CompressedAir]

The relevant phrase here is: "Don't throw good money after bad."

The X-33 is an example of how NOT to design a good spacecraft. If your design relies on not one, but several totally unproven systems (the main two being a composite fuel tank and Aerospike engines) it should not surprise you when it doesn't pan out.

My personal jury is still out on this Lockheed design, but remember: just because it has a lifting body does not mean it has anythin design-wise in common with the Shuttle.

This would work well with space elevators

[WillAffleckUW]

The SEV is put into orbit - once.

The space elevators bring up the fuel mass (split by solar cells in orbit), the solar cells, and the supplies, which are then transferred from the space elevator orbital end to the space station (or the spacecraft going to Mars to find Oil).

But what will they do with the military space shuttle?

Re:Holy shit. That's genius.

[Moofie]

Even sadder that the reason it won't happen, is because the plan was endorsed by Newt Gingrich.

The real world of space launches

[Anonymous Coward]

The Slashdot crowd never seems to be aware of what is happening in the real world. The preference is to spout off and pretend to be experts when they have no grasp of any facts.

For example, this week Boeing and Lockheed, the two main rocket booster builders in the US, decided to merge their efforts and build a joint production facility. See http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0505/01eelv/

Although this article dosen't say so, the reason they are merging is that the space launch business is in a masive slump. (There was an article in the LA Times that talked about this, but I couldn't find it online.) In the 90s everyone though that there would be a boom because of space communications, but it didn't happen. The Europeans, Russians and Chinese all went commercial, and now there are too many rockets and not enough payloads.

So all you whiners who blame NASA for blocking space flight, shut you holes. You are ignorant and just plane wrong. You want free enterprize to blast us into space, you got it and it DOSEN'T WORK! (Except for stuff like DirectTV.)

The way we are going into space for real is through government programs. It may be the US or India or China or Japan, but it will be a government. And don't whine about Rutan and the X-Prize. It was a great effort, but it is ultimatly an aircraft/spaceplane, not a orbital vehicle. That is a whole lot harder.

There will eventually be non-government space efforts, but the time is not now. For proof, just look at what happened when Rutan won the X-Prize. Everyone else gave up. If there was a viable place to make money in space, at least some of these efforts would be continuing. So far, only Rutan and Branson have any idea how to make any money (outside of communications) and they are still non-orbital. We have a lot more research to do before there will be a self supporting non-government space effort.

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[Catbeller]

"The terror threat is real"

Please, everyone, stop a moment and think about this .

Who is "terror", and have they been threatening us? Utterly unexamined assumption.

We got hit by a few dozen nutters a few years ago, and now we are under a "terror threat".

Firstly, a threat is a statement of intent -- a SPECIFIC statement -- that someone is coming to hurt or kill you.

Secondly, what the hell is "terror"? Bush has slapped the label on so many disparate factions and actions so as to make the term meaningless. Someone shoots at someone in the Phillipines? Terror. Someone kidnaps someone for ransom? A terrorist act. We invade a country, kill tens of thousands and mutilate far more -- those who shoot back are branded "terrorists" of the same stripe who blow up trains in Spain. Teacher's unions have been labelled terrorists by a Congresscritter.

The word "terrorist" is a simple cognate coined and maintained as a substitute for the old Red/Communist/Russian/Soviet monolithic "they" that we were told was intent on killing or subverting us for over fifty years. It turned out that the original threat estimate for the Soviets were based on "information" offered up by ex-Nazis in the same manner information is "offered" by people in Guantanamo. The prisoners tell the torturer what they want to hear: The Soviets are mighty and mad; Al Queda has cells EVERYWHERE and is planning to kill again soon, please, not the electrodes again...

Terrorism. What is shock and awe, but terror? What is slaugtering your way into a country, but terror? What was what we did, invading and killing to capture Noriega, but terror? Terror is an emotion, not a tactic. It is felt by us, not inflicted on us. We've become flaming cowards, afraid of everything and everyone, condoning torture and kidnap and murder of "terrorists", which is nothing but an label slapped onto any damned one that Bush wants to eliminate. The Partiot Act has created a dictator who has declared that human rights and treaties don't apply to "terrorists", as Bushie said just yesterday. Since "terror" is defined as "anything that makes us uneasy or afraid", and a "terrorist" can be declared secretly by the Bush team, Bush has declared "war" on no particular person, has no timetable for the "war" to be ended, has no definition of the terms of its ending.

By ceding this terminology to Bush's whim, we've created an uncheckable police state that recognizes no national boundaries and strips human rights, in holes in the ground, from people snatched from their homes in the middle of the night.

The most telling point to be made is that when Bush's Justice Department takes the few cases it has made to the court system, they have convicted NO ONE on the evidence; on the contrary, they have consistently lost every case they have had to make.

Terror? Threat? The terror is the fear instilled in you by national hysteria fed by a pack of radicals intent on a revolution in our way of life and law. The threat is pathetic; a few dozen wackos who barely have had enough juice to make video tapes. They got lucky once, and they got what they wanted: an America attacking the oil rich countries, just as they predicted. We've made far, far more enemies killing -- quite illegally -- the Iraqis than we had before 9/11. We've made the nonexistent enemy a reality by our own terror and yes, racism and confusion, and by an elect few, greedy for power and riches beyond count.

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[reallocate]

What the hell nonsense are you spouting?

Are you asserting that there are no people who wish to kill Americans and other Westerners simply because they are not radicalized Islamists? If not, then you are merely arguing, ineptly, about the scale of the threat, not its reality.

I fear, like the people you claim are nonexistent, you have allowed your own irrational and unsupportable beliefs to cloud your rational mind.

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[RobinH]

He seems to be saying that the actual terror events that have happened over the last few years (the ones that Americans actually care about) are being used by people to manipulate Americans into being afraid of more than the "real" threat, whatever that is. Using the label "terror" loosely, you can now subtly compare anything you think threatens the government, even civil disobedience, to al qaeda. It's not that big of a stretch.

That doesn't mean there aren't real terrorist organizations out there - obviously there are. But when's the last time you heard about the hunt for Osama? Did we find him in Iraq yet, with all the other rebels^H^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorists who keep car bombing the U.S. troops?

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[reallocate]

I have no way of knowing what he's saying except by reading his words.

A government's cynical use of a real threat doesn't remove that threat from reality. The poster and others like him would have us believe that terror simply does not exist.

No one ever expected to find Osama in Iraq. Regimes like Saddam's -- which are immune to internal overthrow -- are precisely the kind of environment that fosters and nourishes radical fundamentalist terror. As much as I disagree with Bush on almost everything, he did argue that his intent was to bring democracy to the Arab Middle East in order to eliminate the cultures that breed terrorism. He's right about that. Other than Iraq, no current Arab regime is democratic; therefore, no current Arab regime is legitimate. I'd rather have seen the UN given the authority and the troops to eliminate Saddam, but there you go.

Finally, pay more attention: Car bombs Iraq typically target Iraqis. Not "other Iraqis" because most of the people doing the killing are non-Iraqis who have entered that country for the express purpose of spreading terror.

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[reallocate]

Don't I remember a little something about ethnic cleansing in your part of the world a few years ago?

Your anecdote about your uncle in Syria is irrelevant. I've lived -- not visited -- the Arab Middle East, more than a decade ago. I was greeted with warmth and hospitality everywhere. Yet, terror existed. Movie theaters were bombed for showing Bollywood films. Westerners and Westernized locals were frequent targets of attack in the central business areas of cities. Fathers murdered their daughters for speaking with the wrong boys.

Note, too, that no one has said Syria is ""full of radicalized Islamists". Syria has been governed for decades by regimes that support finance and direct terror. Its citizens could all be pacifist monks and Syria would still be on the wrong side.

It's been my experience that statements like yours are really disguised condemnations of democracy. Like many mistaken Arabs, you won't be satisfied until the U.S. stops supporting democracy and the spread of democracy and joins with fat and happy Europeans who happily suck up to tyrants and miscreants for oil. It seems many of you would trade the misery of the Arab world for your own warm beds.

The U.S. was attacked on 9/11 because there are people in the world who believe that the Western way of life, including yours, is evil. They believe they have a duty to kill all Westerners. They must be eliminated. No, almost all Arabs are nothing like that. Yes, placating existing Arab regimes (all illegitimate because they are undemocratic) will do nothing to eliminate them. The terrorists exist because those Arab regimes exists, not because the U.S. exists.

Frankly, having survived living under the yoke of Communist thugs, I'd think a Croatian would know better. Sadly, your remarks are just further evidence of the cynical and corrupted world view typical of so many Europeans these days. Remember, we're still cleaning up the mess Europe created in the 20th century. All those corrupt Arab regimes nurturing death, repression, ignorance and terror? Your fault. All those bogus illogically bordered African countries wallowing in misery and death? Your fault. All those billions who slaved, and still suffer, under Communism? Your fault.

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[reallocate]

The freedom of the people counts for everything; the freedom of the state counts for nothing. Sovereignity cannot be used as a shield for tyranny. It is immoral to allow dictatorships and totalitarian regimes to exist simply because they control sovereign states. It is immoral to excuse the tyranny of your own state simply because that state is free and soverign. Nazi Germany was sovereign. So were fascist Italy and Japan. So was the USSR. Would you have excused their crimes? Africa and the Middle East are afflicted with peope who, justifiably, take pride in the soverignity of their nations. But they have also been suckered into trading their personal freedom for the freedom of the state. Of what value is my state's soverignty if my state oppresses me?

I'm asserting that many Europeans and European governments argue that understanding and accommodating the radical demands of terrorists and placating the regimes that produce and nourish them is the way to go. In other words, be nice to them so we can maintain our lifestyle. Unfortunately, being nice to people who want you dead doesn't work. Ask the Dutch.

It seems that you, at least, would prefer that Saddam eould have been let to oppress and kill Iraqis so long as your country could by his oil. Precisely my point. (BTW, no one has consfiscated any Iraqi oilfields and no one has slain "half" their people.)

I presume you weren't attacked on 9/11 because, frankly, no one cares. If a Croatian city was the center of world commerce with giant symbolic buildings, perhaps you would have been attacked.

But, if you can't understand that the 9/11 attacks were an attack on the Western way of life, not just on a single country, then you are guilty of the same medieval provincialism that fuels European bigotry and division.

Did I say all Arabs are terrorists? Far from it. Terror is a form of behavior. The IRA are terrorists, but that doesn't make all the Irish terrorists. ETA are terrorists, but not all Basques are terrorists.

I don't recall that the U.S. is friendly to Belarus and the DPRK. Are you suggesting that if the U.S. failed to invade every undemocratic nation it should have stayed out of Iraq? No logical connection exists there.

Communism allowed no freedom to vote the regime out of power. Sounds like you are willing to trade creature comforts for your own freedom. Exactly what's wrong with Europe.

Europe's mess: Imperialism and exploited colonies across the globe; World War One; World War Two; fascism; Nazism; the Holecaust; Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Milosevich; Soviet tyranny, death camps, and the Cold War. Or, don't they teach those things in European schools anymore?

Israel, a European creation in a region ruined by European imperialism, is democratic. It deserves support. The Arab regimes that attack it are tyrannies that deserve no support. Simple as that.

The current maps of the Middle East and Africa exist because they were drawn by ignorant, racist, European colonialists. Those borders and those nations have little or no relatioship with the demographic realities of the continent. Europe deliberately refused to prepare is Arab and African dependencies for democracy. After WW2, when Europe could no longer get away with, or afford, to exploit and repress these regions, it simply packed up and left. This meant that corrupt and incompetent European rulers were replaced by corrupt and incompetent local rulers. (I lived in southern Africa for a few years prior to Mandela's release. The South Africans who opposed apartheid, rather logically, said they were still colonized, but their masters lived in Pretoria and Cape Town.)

>>"..most natives still live in their tribes..."

Nice bit of ignorant racism.

Russia, last I looked, is European. I know that bothers the rest of Europe, bt, then, they still can't admit that Turkey is also part of the continent. (All those Muslims probably hs something to do with it, eh?)

Yes, Communism did replace the czars. Pity. Look what it got us.