Slashdot Mirror
Russian Cargo Ship Docks At ISS, Preps For Tourist
christchurch writes "Russia unmanned cargo ship Progress M-54, carrying food and supplies, docked at the International Space Station safely yesterday. A two-man replacement crew is scheduled to head to the station on 1st of October, along with an American scientist-businessman, Gregory Olsen, who is paying the Russian space agency $20 million for a weeklong visit."
I'm fairly certain the answer is yes - I believe one of the reasons for implementing the program was to offset some of the cost of missions.
the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft?
:)
and one just docked successfully with the ISS?
do i live under a rock?
Yes you do
The first Progress (which is a modified Soyuz) was launched in 1978. While it was operational, Progress was used for bringing supplies to Mir, as it does now to the ISS.
the russians have unmanned cargo spacecraft? and one just docked successfully with the ISS? do i live under a rock?
Either you do - or you are trying to be sarcastic. Progress, Soviet space freighter is in use since late 1970's. Basically it's just a stripped-down version of the manned Soyuz. Both Soyuz and Progress fly to the ISS few times a year (you can check the timetable here). Unlike the US-made space shuttles, Soyuz and Progress are not reusable. Soviet shuttle project was not exactly succesful, but as it sometimes happens with stop-gap solutions, Soyuz and Progress proved to be a quite reliable workhorse for their orbital stations. And it looks like it's the best solution right now for the whole planet Earth.
You are incorrect. The F-117 also incorporates technology (I believe it's called the Platypus tail) to diffuse its IR signature. Sound is countered by flying at subsonic speeds. And as for visual, the black paint scheme works well at night, though not so well during the day. That's why they use careful mission planning.
:P
And as for the parent, talking about the 117 shot down during the Balkan war, that's likely because the weapon hatch was open for a while, and there is no RAM (radar absorbing material) in there from my knowledge, so the radar was able to get a good return signal. Anyway, drunk at work so I'm gonna go now.
*sigh* This is what the second time that I have corrected this myth on Slashdot. The F-117 and B-2 are not invincible, they are designed for low observability. They use multiple attack route, surprise, the vastly lower detectability to achieve their mission.
With that being said what allowed the F-117 to be shot down was simple human stupidity. On normal missions the F-117 fly at over 10,000 ft AGL because that is the limit of ground based IR guided missiles, and AAA. It also doesn't normally fly below the clouds because it would stick out like a sore thumb. On top of that it never flies the same route twice.
During the war in Bosnia they violated all three of those rules, thanks to "wonderful" European weather the F-117's were forced to fly below the clouds to hit their targets (GPS guided JDAMs were not in use then, they were using the laser guided Paveway III's which are not useable through most cloud layers). That forced them below 10,000 ft into the range of AAA. They also flew over the same route 3 times before the shoot down, so the Serbians were able to position AAA along the route and shoot the F-117 down, guided by the Mark I eyeball.
The technology isn't at fault, when you fly outside it's envelope of protection. It would be like me blaming Linux because my computer failed, when I threw it in the pool.
What the FUCK are you talking about?
The US air force KNEW that their stealth fighter fleet needed to be invisible, so they engineered it with ALL the aspects of stealth in mind.
The F-117 is RADAR invisible, virtually indetecable in the night sky, flies too slow to make a audible detection (no sonic boom), and produces a very low heat signature by using a dove-tail section on the rear with protective tiles that absorb heat and disappate it just like the space shuttle tiles.
The F/A-22 was engineered to be RADAR stealthy, but it's engines still produce a considerable amount of heat, and isn't coated with the same kind of RAM; but the F/A-22 was designed to be a true air-to-air combat fighter. The F-117, though called a fighter, is truely a light, stragetic bomber.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
It will be visible to the warhead above regardless of whether it absorbs RF or not. Any ground pattern that does not autocorrelate using a given pair of offsets must be the target. The same software will work both cases.
For example, here. But you should really google yourself. Russian space agency budget is mere $130 million in total per year. That is why $20 million for a paying customer is a big deal. Note that a single Shuttle launch costs around $400-500 million. Presently the Russians are not receiving even the contract work they used to due to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 as the US law forbids it.
However, I won't be heartened if the numbers show the US is "saving money" by investing it in the Russian space industry rather than our own. Our space program spins off manifold its cost in benefit to our economy, not to mention our national pride.
What I was pointing out is that the total amount is miniscule by comparison to the NASA budget.
I don't mind producing science and engineering knowledge the rest of the world also gets secondhand. In fact, that's one of the benefits to the US: we're valuable to other countries. It's one of the social benefits from the essentially transnational scientific community that has been possibly the most civilizing force in our species for hundreds of years. But I don't want us getting it secondhand from other countries at our expense.
It all depends by what do you mean at your "expense". The zero-g Russian experience from two decades of operating orbital facilities would be very expensive to obtain otherwise. Or are you suggesting that the US should have not built the ISS with the rest of the world and made a new Skylab (NASA's last orbital habitat experience was 30 years old)?
I want us investing in our own space industry, which also grows our own commercial aerospace industry (those huge contracts go to aerospace corporations, not just relatively small NASA units). So we can stay competitive, even with the extremely experienced Russians and their cheaper economy.
As I said, you are making an issue from some spare change on the fringes of the American space activities.
The US got the 20 years worth of Russian orbital habitat experience on the cheap. I still do not understand your point.
And it's really not the proceeds from this single passenger, to which I did not refer, though that amount is not insubstantial. $20M of a $400M Shuttle mission is 5%, which is a pretty substantial amount.
You gotta be kidding. NASA budget in 2005 alone is around $16 billion. The $20 mil may be "substantial" to the Russians with their laughable (and yet sufficient to compete with NASA) $130 million yearly budget. But not to the US.
What's at issue is that the Russians are getting the experience of launching civilians, and the US (or any US launcher) is not.
"Launching civlians" is the easiest part of that deal. You get one, get him simplified training and stick his ass into the Soyuz. There is no "experience" to be gained from this, other then how many barf bags to bring along.
It's the billions the US has spent subsidizing the ISS, which the Russians have always had a disproportionate share in.
As I keep explaining, the major motivation was to purchase the Russian experience, which NASA did not posses.
While that subsidy was keeping Russian scientists from getting jobs with proliferators like Iran, it was worth the money in the bad deal. But now that subsidy has (in part) enabled the Russians to circumvent the Iran nonproliferation treaty, as you point out. So the US is subsidizing the Russians, who are thereby able to offer technology to Iran.
Actually, no. You see, as I keep pointing out, the Russians had already acquired all that experience in the Soviet days, at the expense of the ole USSR. NASA was merely purchasing it. The missile experience was there already, and will remain there for an indefinite future. As to Iran, we are talking about 60 year old missile and nuclear tech and I think the US is completely bonkers to believe that Iran will not get the stuff sooner or later, from somewhere. Pakistan, that industrial and scientific "giant", got it. North Korea, who cannot manage to feed its people and keep their apartament complexes lit and heated, still managed to get (or get near to) nukes on its own. Etc, and so on.
Who is threatening the US with nuclear missiles (as soon as they have them). That sounds like a terrible investment for US taxpayers, regardless of the cost.
That view is not very convincing. You seem to be in the camp which believes that any foreign expenditure is counter-productive as some of the money will always, inevietably, meander its way somewhere where you would not like. As to Iran threatening the US with nukes, I would like to point out to you that Iran's nuclear ambitions did not gain frantic, panic steam until the oh-so-diplomatic "axis of evil" musings of a certain high-placed individual, followed by some adventures in Iraqi sand. And that is remarkable since Israel has been menacing the whole region with both nukes and missiles to carry them for many decades now. Your view is completely one-sided and unreastically US-centric as I charged originally.
Except that the Russians are not in any tourist "business", they are doing it as a stop-gap desperation funding shortage measure. The "space tourism" idea is universally hated at all levels of the Russian space agency and will be promptly abandoned as soon as the monetary need is no longer there. We are really talking about the barf bag level of effort here. They are doing nothing whatsoever to make it easier on the "tourist", unlike British Airways who does not (last time I heard) require you to pay for your own pressure suit and sit around with an oxygen mask on while the plane performs high-g rapid manouvers to make it easier for the airline to fullfill other, more important, prorities.
I complained about the $billions the US has spent on the ISS, from which the Russians have benefitted disproportionately.
I understand what you are saying, and right here is your hangup: the Russians did not "benefit disproportionately" in any of this. They already had the experience, the tech and the people. The US had no orbital habitat experience to speak of. Enter a cash transaction, the Russians get coin, the US the experience to peruse, at 1/100th of the real price.
NASA has not "bought" the superior Russian experience. It's "rented" it, because we don't actually increase our experience with what we bought.
That is not true. The major part of the deal was for NASA to have complete access to the manufacturing processes, engineers, documentation and a whole other range of that Soviet experience. What NASA will do with that, is another discussion.
Another point that you fixate on is your invention of "isolationism" on my part. I have not said we shouldn't work with other countries, and in fact have repeated that we should in every message in this thread. You are the one fighting that strawman, not me.
Actually no, the "strawman" appearance originates from the fact that you are self-contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that international cooperation and funding of foreign research is a good thing and on the other that it is counter-productive and gets the US taxpayer nothing. While I keep pointing out that the particular ISS deal was actually a downright thrifty purchase for NASA.
So Russia gets an American to give them 14% of their operating budget to tag along on a mission, rather than stop helping Iran proliferate ... So US subsidies, and even private expenses, pay to develop the Russian space program, which helps Iran get nuclear missiles. Regardless of how Iran, Russia and the US got to that point, US investment in increasing that threat is obviously bad for the US.
There you go. "Helping Iran to proliferate". Never you mind that so far the Russians did nothing to actually help Iran build nukes, only to get their civilian program working, to which Iran is entitled under the non-proliferation treaties. Never you mind that the tech is already there from the days of Uncle Stalin. Never you mind that ISS or other space budgets have absolutely nothing to do with any of that Iranian activity. What do you really mean is to put Iran in the dog-house, where the US wants it, and thus for the Russians to be extorted into losing a major customer, who will then get his civilian stuff from somewhere else, regardless? Irrespective of which Iran will get their defense program going one way or another. A rather legitimate defense stuff to begin with. Look, the world does not revolve around US's ass. Iran is not getting nukes to level New York pre-emptively, they are getting them because they are scared shitless of US nuking Teheran pre-emptively, for that mad policy of pre-emption is now empirically evident for all to see in, say, Iraq and there are US senators on the record with ideas like "nuking Mecca" in response to any "terrorist att