US Senate Allows NASA To Buy Soyuz Vehicles

arc.light writes "According to a report at Space.com, the US Senate voted to allow NASA to buy Russian Soyuz vehicles for the purpose of servicing the International Space Station. Because Russia continues to assist Iran with its nuclear energy and ballistic missile programs, NASA would otherwise not be allowed to buy Russian hardware by the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. The US House of Representatives still needs to give its approval before NASA can make such a purchase."

Comments

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Palm consults Microsoft, the USA consults Russia...

THE END IS NEAR!

Re:What?

[banzaimonkey]

I remember one US plane that had to be transported from China in a Russian Antonov-124. The US did not have any aircraft that was up to the task! How long shall we have to rely on so called "third world economies" to achieve our goals?

I like to think of the United States being the world's R&D department. We come up with the ideas, bungle them, and then someone else picks it up and does it properly. There's the occasional successful project in the US, such as FedEx, the iPod, etc. I suppose those are the ideas that don't need to be refined too much, or are designed specifically with American culture in mind.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "near 100% perfect operation since inception" includes two missions that ended in the deaths of their crews. Out of 97 manned Soyuz missions, that's pretty darned close to the same record as the shuttle (two lost out of 114 flights).

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought the russian plane was used because of chinese policy. i didn't know it was because of technical reasons.

Re:What?

[bogaboga]

Well, you are right on those numbers, but when unmanned Soyuz missions are added up, the statistics reveal something very impressive for the Soyuz.The ability to be operated remotely is very telling of the Russians ability to deliver.

The other difference is that as Americans, we celebrate every shuttle launch and landing with lots of fanfare, The Russians do nothing of the like; to me, this suggests that we are probably not sure the shuttles will perform, right?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember some interview in which astronaut Michael Foale (who was on the Mir space station) had some very kind words to say about the Soyuz and explained how well the completely automated docking functioned - until it was dismantled to reduce costs. At the time the ground facility it required was in Ukraine (IIRC - outside Russia but in a former Soviet state anyway) and Russia couldn't afford to pay for the use of it and decided that commanders should perform the docking manually and the accident when a Soyuz collided with Mir was a consequence of this (the manual docking went wrong). I also remember that there was some commentary in the same documentary stating that the commander performing the docking got the blame and not mission control even though all other cosmonauts that afterwards tried to perform the same manoeuver several times in a simulator failed too until one finally succeded when he didn't follow the instructions by mission control exactly.

Re:What?

[Halfbaked Plan]

Why doesn't this [Bush] administration pay Americans to build these Soyuz like crafts instead of simply buying?

Trade Union labor and NASA bureaucrats would become involved, and the quality would go to shit.

Come on, don't let mediocrity take over EVERYTHING.

Re:What?

[romka1]

Why doesn't this [Bush] administration pay Americans to build these Soyuz like crafts instead of simply buying?

Because it would cost several billions to design and several years to build, and why do that when you can buy it at a fraction of what it cost to launch one shuttle

Re:What?

[tftp]

Why doesn't this [Bush] administration pay Americans to build these Soyuz like crafts instead of simply buying?

If only you were involved in hiring of techies, as I am, you'd know the answer already. United States does not produce [enough of] good engineers. You can't hire anyone competent, or nearly competent. And one out of a hundred who knows his trade wants $200K/yr and benefits and stock, and your firstborn too if he is hungry.

So you can't hire fools because they are useless, and you can't hire that rare skilled guy because he will bankrupt you. So what do you do? Good question. Many businesses just hire a few mediocre performers and hope for the best.

Re:What?

[rbanffy]

Interestinglty enough, there can be no unmanned shuttle flight, so, they are risking human lives (and taking additional weight) even when all that's needed is a cargo lift.

If you factor in the unmanned cargo flights, Soyuz and Soyuz-derived vehicles have a much better success ratio. Of course the unmanned Progress ships burn in the atmosphere, so we may well count that as somewhat less important successes, but it is possible because their systems allow them to function without humans.

Re:What?

[khallow]

Your "near 100% perfect operation since inception" includes two missions that ended in the deaths of their crews. Out of 97 manned Soyuz missions, that's pretty darned close to the same record as the shuttle (two lost out of 114 flights).

Don't forget that the two fatal accidents were near the begining of the Soyuz program, several decades ago. Meanwhile the latest Shuttle accident was about two and a half years ago. Another way to put this, there hasn't been a fatality since the 11th mission (giving almost 90 launches since then). The records aren't the same.

Re:What?

[timeOday]

Your "near 100% perfect operation since inception" includes two missions that ended in the deaths of their crews.

Are you joking? The last Soviet space fatilities were in 1971 - that's right, 10 years before the first Shuttle launch. In other words, for the period when both existed, the Shuttle has had 14 fatalities while the Soyuz has had 0.

Now for a real shock, let's compare how many times each has flown. The total is 850 for Soyuz and 113 for Shuttle, but that's going back before the Shuttle existed. I wasn't able to find how many Soyuz launches since 1981, but I'll be it's at least twice as many.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The other difference is that as Americans, we celebrate every shuttle launch and landing with lots of fanfare..

I'd always assumed that was just down to the American people's standard mindless jingoism.

Re:What?

[TMonks]

AFAIK, the Antonov-124 is owned and operated by a private firm. Using it for trasnsporting our plane is no different than the government hiring a private contractor for construction work. The fact that it was made in Russia is only a coincidince. Why would the administration hire American workers, when it has already been done (with a proven success rate) by someone else?

Re:What?

[bogaboga]

Fact is, the US has nothing, I repeat *NOTHING* anywhere that rivals the Antonov-124 or Antonov-225. The best feature of these planes is that they handle themselves and can operate on short runways.

Even if a law were to be passed that required the job to be done by American hardware, the American firms would just stare at the job at hand - shameful! Very soon, other countries will be in position to put sanctions on us.

Re:What?

[TMonks]

Look again...
The US-built C-5 Galaxy has a maximum takeoff weight of 840,000lbs, vs. the An-124's 893,000lbs, and the C-5 has a longer range and faster top speed, to boot. I would definitely consider this a rival to the An-124. As far as the An-225 is considered, it was really more of a specialty cargo carrier designed for carrying the Shuttle Buran back from its landing area (similar to the modified 747 used by the U.S.). Its actual interior cargo capacity is much smaller than that of the C-5 or An-124.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

There may be fewer engineers relative to the number of people, and fewer good engineers relative to the total number of engineers, but a few in 300,000,000 people is still pretty good odds. Perhaps the problem is that people in positions where they can hire people, are simply not willing to hire someone fresh out of college with heads full of knowledge, but with little experience?

I've been looking for work now for 3 months again. And before that I was working totally out of my element working as a prison guard for the local school district. EVERY SINGLE HELP WANTED AD HAS BEEN FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS, OR 5 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE! I can't afford to go back to college again to work as an indentured servant, and I can't get the 5 years of experience without having 5 years of experience.

I admit I'm not a rocket scientist, but your comment seems relevant to other fields as well. Perhaps there would be more engineers and more good engineers if they were hiring americans fresh from school instead of importing them all the time, or only hiring people who already have jobs doing what you want?

Re:What?

[DerekLyons]

Well, you are right on those numbers, but when unmanned Soyuz missions are added up, the statistics reveal something very impressive for the Soyuz.

Yes, it reveals the vivid imagination of fanboys - because the total number of unmanned Soyuz flights is *zero*. The Progress spacecraft has flown unmanned - but Progress is not Soyuz. (And Progress does not re-enter, which historically is where the Soyuz has performed worst.)

The other difference is that as Americans, we celebrate every shuttle launch and landing with lots of fanfare, The Russians do nothing of the like; to me, this suggests that we are probably not sure the shuttles will perform, right?

It's a leftover from the not-too-distant days when a space mission (in Russia) wouldn't be announced until it was a sucess.

Re:What?

[utnow]

the best golfer is black,
the tallest basket ball player is chinese,
The best rapper is white,
and Germany doesn't want to go to war...

apocalypse now...

Re:What?

[tftp]

Perhaps the problem is that people in positions where they can hire people, are simply not willing to hire someone fresh out of college with heads full of knowledge, but with little experience?

That's not me. Out of three of my recent hires two are fresh from university. But I wouldn't dare to claim the "heads full of knowledge" thing :-) It's a sad state of affairs at times. But I do what I can.

Perhaps there would be more engineers and more good engineers if they were hiring americans fresh from school instead of importing them all the time, or only hiring people who already have jobs doing what you want?

That's what you get when you cross capitalism with bureaucracy (the resulting product is called "big business".) In this mess the functionaries are required to hire only those who are known to work best, and at the same time the functionaries are not willing to take risks. Students, being nothing but risks, are out.

My business is small, and we don't have any money to hire today, but when we do I only look for skills. That's capitalism alone, where I am willing to take risks to get the results. So the only small thing I require from new hires is ability to code Qt (desktop, Win32) and POSIX (embedded, Linux or QNX or "while (1) {} with interrupts") in their sleep :-) Math background on signal processing is also required. How the applicant gets there - I don't care, but if he doesn't understand what a negative frequency is, or how to produce a complex signal, or how the clock jitter translates into time domain, he can't write the code, or even read what we have already.

Re:What?

[pipingguy]

I clicked and went below +5 only to find that you are trolling for something other than real engineers.

Re:What?

[justins]

So you can't hire fools because they are useless, and you can't hire that rare skilled guy because he will bankrupt you. So what do you do?

Train a smart guy with a differing skill set?

'Wait! What is this "train"?'

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't train adults to be competent engineers. It's simply too late. What you need to do is reform the schools to teach analytical and creative thinking to the masses. But that would involve ending this "evolution is just a theory with as much merit as any other" nonsense, which seems to be trendy right now.

Re:What?

[crawling_chaos]

Oh wait...the Soyuz has had a near 100% perfect operation since inception; better than any US hardware.

Um, the Russians lost at least two Soyuz with crew early in the program. While the craft is undoubtably safer than STS, I hardly think that we need to stretch the truth to make a case here. Also the Progress module that rammed Mir is basically an automated Soyuz, so we do know that the Russians have their share of glitches. It happens when you are engaged in such an inherently risky business.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but if $200K/year would bankrupt you, then I'd probably not want to work for your company at any rate.

Re:What?

[Tekoneiric]

You forgot dogs and cats sleeping together as another sign of the end times. :D

Re:What?

[justins]

You can't train adults to be competent engineers. It's simply too late.

Nonsense.

But in most cases it's not even a matter of making engineers out of salesmen or something, it's a matter of training someone with technical skills on the flavor of the month computer language or manufacturing technique. I think the point still stands: companies would vastly prefer searching the entire fricking globe for someone who matches their bullet list of desired qualifications, rather than just taking someone smart and training them on those skills.

There are some legitimate business reasons for that, sometimes. It's still unfortunate for society in the long run.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

companies would vastly prefer searching the entire fricking globe for someone who matches their bullet list of desired qualifications

True. My teacher of French explained how this is taken to the extreme in France: The best universities place the top 100 graduates in order and the one at the top of that list can pretty much choose any job they want and dictate the terms they want. Not only do companies get a very skilled individual that way but they also get a good brand image among other students since they're eager to follow that one.

Re:What?

[tftp]

companies would vastly prefer searching the entire fricking globe for someone who matches their bullet list of desired qualifications, rather than just taking someone smart and training them on those skills.

I jump on the opportunity to train a smart guy whenever I see it. However it's much harder to find someone smart than to find a pre-trained monkey, so to say. Smart people are rare, and they are all too aware of their value. Often they estimate their value to be so high that it exceeds the revenue from the job that I have. Rare a job can justify paying anyone $200K/yr (or even $150K). They just don't produce enough goods to match their salary (or I just don't have jobs where they would produce.) Either way, I can't afford many of the smart people. They are welcome to keep looking or to drop their prices.

Re:What?

[tftp]

Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Col. Jessep: You can't handle the truth.

As seen here.

Re:What?

[ScrewMaster]

United States does not produce [enough of] good engineers.

Well, as a good engineer working for an entire company of good engineers in these here United States I think your remark is about as far off base as it's possible to get. Believe me, both the people who are "involved in the hiring of techies", as you claim to be, and those who are managing said technical people are generally thumb-fingered idiots. That has nothing to do with the fact that, by and large, America's pool of technical people is still pretty high caliber. The problem with America's industrial base is primarily political and managerial, not technical, and if we could just re-learn the ability to effectively use our engineering and scientific talent we'd have no problems being competitive in the New World Order / Global Economy.

Heck, if our corporate and elected leaders (little difference though there is anymore) would take a lesson from the Japanese, and invest more money in R&D when times are hard, pay those rare skilled guys a decent buck (maybe attracting even more people to become rare skilled guys) we might find that things would be looking up instead of looking down.

Even though you do make a distinction between "mediocre" and "rare skilled guy", you apparently don't have a concept of value. The reason that "rare skilled guy" demands (and gets!) a top salary is because he's worth every damn penny if his employer makes effective use of him! It's not his fault if he runs up against someone like you that only sees the dollar signs and is unable to accept that performance and experience actually count for a *lot* more than the money, because a "good" engineer who really knows his stuff will earn his employer a hell of a lot more than his pay.

Re:What?

[DerekLyons]

Now for a real shock, let's compare how many times each has flown. The total is 850 for Soyuz and 113 for Shuttle, but that's going back before the Shuttle existed. I wasn't able to find how many Soyuz launches since 1981, but I'll be it's at least twice as many.

The Soyuz booster has flown 850 times, while the Soyuz [manned] spacecraft has flown only 93 times. Despite that, the failure rate of the booster is not significantly different than any other - something like one part in one thousand better last time I looked. (I.E. 99.00% versus 99.10%) You can't blame it on problems early in the program either - the last booster failure was only a dozen or so launches back - in 2003.

Are you joking? The last Soviet space fatilities were in 1971 - that's right, 10 years before the first Shuttle launch. In other words, for the period when both existed, the Shuttle has had 14 fatalities while the Soyuz has had 0.

Ah yes - the 'a problem must be fatal to be a real problem' fallacy. Challenger and Columbia proved how wrong that assumption is.

The fact is, Soyuz has a history of accidents, incidents, and near misses across it's entire history.

politics is teh sux

[gcnaddict]

Thank god our senate knows when not to be stupid Maybe they shouldve used their minds the same way when they sent us to war

Stop The Politics Stories!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is really jumping the shark with this continuous stream of "politics" stories. This story and many others the last few days have very little to do with politics. It's so outside what slashdot used to be about, nowadays, it's just flamewars between leftists and bush-haters nowadays.

If you look at the FAQ, you'll even see the politics section is supposed to be about US politics, this story barely fits the description.

Time to get rid of Zonk, and his endless political baiting. He's trolling, no different than GNAA, or the adequacy folks.

Re:Stop The Politics Stories!!!!

[CyricZ]

Some members of the Slashdot community have called for Zonk to be replaced by TripMaster Monkey.

Re:Stop The Politics Stories!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This story has lots of technological aspects:

1) NASA sucks/is run by bureaucrats/etc...
2) Outsourcing
3) Nuclear proliferation
4) Countries we may possibly attack in the future...

It's about a decision of the US Senate regarding foreign policy. I don't see how that could be any less about US politics.

Re:Stop The Politics Stories!!!!

[WilliamSChips]

I'd vote for him if he told me how he gets +4 or +5 on just about every one of his posts.

Re:Stop The Politics Stories!!!!

[william_w_bush]

I'm not totally against zonk, but I'd def vote for trip to get editor privs.

His british jedi PM comment made the washington post, full cited quote. Sartre would be pleased.

Re:Stop The Politics Stories!!!!

[william_w_bush]

Actually it does. The clause in NASA's budget stopping them from buying Russian made soyuz capsules in the first place is there because Russia sold nuclear reactor technology to Iran, and congress got mad. So it is politics, just a different kind.

Re:Stop The Politics Stories!!!!

[Tablizer]

Ironically I submitted a story about how H1B (visa worker) positions were not being made public, denying unemployed US techies the chance to apply. And, slashy passed on it. So there is one data point that slashy does not publish all political stories.

Re:Stop The Politics Stories!!!!

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

You're the one trolling, oh Anonymous One. If a story offends you, there is no need to reply or even read it. How dare you speak for the entirety of Slashdot in poo-poohing a story which some may find interesting.

Re:Stop The Politics Stories!!!!

[h4rm0ny]

Post a link here then, please. It sounds interesting.

If anyone wants to mod it off-topic, blame me and put them on my post.

Re:Stop The Politics Stories!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jumping the shark? Like Fonzie? Don't use idioms you don't understand.

Re:Stop The Politics Stories!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Your other account . The one you don't use for trolling .
Amazing how many people don't understand you're trolling , you are a credit to your troll organisation .

Sad state of our National space program

[falcon5768]

anyone else see this as the sad state our national space program is in when we are buying old Russian space capsules because our burecrates in NASA cant get their collective heads out of their asses and build a better spacecraft.

I mean why dont we just take Apollo back up there while we are at it, they where both built around the same time and seem to be better off than the shuttle is now :/

There HAS to be a better solution than these old 60s relics that doesnt cost a are and a leg like the flying deathtrap the shuttles are.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[Richard_at_work]

Old Russian space capsules? You mean the ones that have been supplying the ISS for the past 2 and a half years? Oh those ones eh? Just because they have the same name doesnt mean they use the same technology, the current generation of Soyuz, the TM, first flew in 1986 and has had several updates since then. These are far from 1960s relics.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[bogaboga]

Tell the parent that these [Soyuz] vehicles have had a near perfect record during their operation - better than anything the US has ever developed. When a Soyuz is launched, there is near 100% certainty that they will reach their intended destination and return without problems. Now, contrast that with the so called latest and most advanced US technology.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[bjomo]

NASA HAS laid out its plan to replace the space shuttle with a flexible combination of vehicles capable of heavy lifting and manned space flight. This system will be capable of everything from missions to the moon and mars as well as launching and servicing large scale observatories or space stations.

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev.html

Why do people not understand that the recent plans NASA has laid out are about much more than just going to the moon? It is about establishing a fleet that will serve the many needs of future missions.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[Amiga Trombone]

There HAS to be a better solution than these old 60s relics that doesnt cost a are and a leg like the flying deathtrap the shuttles are.

Well, we have the CEV in development, but that won't be ready until 2012. Why not buy from the Russians? They have an interim solution to our needs now, and truthfully, why waste the money to develop a spacecraft that's going to be performing what are now fairly routine missions? Our next generation is on the drawing board. Actually, it's refreshing that NASA is going to be taking the path of least resistance rather than reinventing the wheel because of a case of NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[falcon5768]

Depends on how you look at it, 1 more has died on a Soyuz than on a Apollo, but the Soyuz has been around longer in actually space use. but that doesnt make it less costly than other systems that can be developed as everything is tossed in the end.

There has to be a better solution that is reusable but actually saves money.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[Halfbaked Plan]

Yes, but do US Based multinational corporations get their cut when a Soyuz capsule is launched? What about the US Trade Unions? The NASA bureaucrats??

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[Anonymous Coward]

you tell the parent.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[cpu_fusion]

Yes, it is a sad day for our space program, but maybe the sense of pride this will give to the Russian people will help continue to heal the wounds of the cold war, which are many and festering.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[MichaelSmith]

[Soyuz] vehicles have had a near perfect record during their operation

In terms of the number of fatal accidents per flight, Soyuz has about the same level of safety as Shuttle.

The difference is that Soyuz continutes to improve, so that recent flights are safer than earlier flights. Shuttle safety is at best remaining the same over time, and I think the reason is complacency on the part of NASA.

Of course it doesn't help that the Shuttle is a huge monolithic vehicle, where changing one component requires changes to many other components. By comparison capsule based systems (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz) have better defined interfaces between the launch vehicle and the spacecraft. As a result they accomodate evolutionary changes with less overall redesign.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[tftp]

will help continue to heal the wounds of the cold war, which are many and festering

With all those Cold Warriors in power, tirelessly giving the fowl to the world on a daily basis? You must be joking.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[codewritinfool]

Look, I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but I think this is a great idea. Those Soyuz ships are fantastic. Their failure rate is so low that I wouldn't hesitate to get on one and travel. We don't need reuseable spacecraft. We need a cheap disposable workhorse that is reliable. The Soyuz fits the bill nicely.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[shutdown -p now]

I don't know how close you've been monitoring Russian politics recently, but there has been something you might call a setback it the last few years. The government is increasingly authoritarian, and the all-too-familiar tunes of "Western intelligence agencies attempting to destabilise the country" are quite fashionable again. Civil right advocates and other such people are generally accused that they live on money of Western organisations, with connotation that it makes them disloyal or even borderline traitors. This paranoia was even further deepened by the latest events in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, which Russian government claims were also backed by Western countries and especially the U.S., and the slogan of the day is, "save the country from Western intervention - fight the orange plague".

So, if you thought that Cold war is dead, you thought wrong.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[TMonks]

Actually, according to Wikipedia, the current generation of Soyuz is the TMA, which first flew in 2003, and was designed specifically as a ferry/ assured crew return vehicle for the ISS.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, everyone will get a cut. It is one of the things you can be 100% sure of.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[O2H2]

The "fleet" that you describe is the biggest waste of money yet concocted by NASA. They are proposing to build a CLV that will carry 25T to a suborbital trajectory (not orbit) that will cost at least 3 times what an EELV of identical performance could do. That EELV derived vehicle would have flown at a rate 2-3 times higher than the proposed CLV with high demonstrated reliability as a result. The CLV as proposed is just about the most inefficient and least reliable way to get to LEO that can be imagined. But when you insist on using only the parts that are enveloped by Shuttle today you end up with this sort of crap.

The HLV, with its five SSME's and NO defined upper stage is also at least twice as expensive and much less reliable than a similar EELV derived solution. With five high cat fraction engines packed in like sardines it will have near zero engine out capability and the need for seven engines functional to make orbit will mean terrible reliability. The whole concept sucks. This is obvious to anyone who does vehicle design in a serious way. It is not just marginally worse than the alternatives- it is worse by an order of magnitude when all elements are considered. This is because it was concocted by people who are not interested in going to the moon- they just want to keep doing the same job they've been doing for the past decades.

The entire architecture is a testament to the power of the shuttle mafia. It is lead by a man who has no real experience in these matters and has stated that he does not intend to stay beyond the end of the W's presidency. Hence he can make any stupid decision he wants.

Buying Soyuz's is just the lubricant for making the decision to never fly Shuttle again. Nobody sees a real need. There are numerous alternatives for lifting the ISS elements- faster than shuttle ever could. If that is even warranted- ISS is also a total waste of money. In order to afford the bloated exploration plans they must end shuttle work and redirect their workforce to do CLV design. This opens the door.

What is funny is that Griffin clearly expects personnel at NASA centers to do the design and execution of most elements of the architecture. Most of these people were not there when Shuttle was designed and have near zero direct experience with executing such a huge program. But they dare not move too much work out of house otherwise they will dis-employ themselves. So we have a ham-handed and complicated launch system that must be substantially executed by engineers who have been mostly keeping the archaic Shuttle alive over the past decades. Does this sound like a great plan to you? I personally hope that silly-ass astronaut who dreamed up the CLV concept gets to see his "creation " come to life- the equivalent of the 1973 Chevrolet Vega of rockets. I am sure it will be remembered as the largest amateur-built rocket ever done.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[guacamole]

Where did you find that Soyuz TMA is a 60s relic?

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[DerekLyons]

Tell the parent that these [Soyuz] vehicles have had a near perfect record during their operation - better than anything the US has ever developed.

Which Soyuz? Not the one flown in this reality.

In 93 flights, Soyuz has had two LOCV accidents, at least 8 LOM incidents, and more close calls and near accidents than one can shake a stick at.

When a Soyuz is launched, there is near 100% certainty that they will reach their intended destination and return without problems. Now, contrast that with the so called latest and most advanced US technology.

Yes, lets. How many Shuttles have failed on launch? (None.) How many Soyuz? (Two.) How many Shuttles have landed off course and threatened the lives of their crews? (None.) How many Soyuz? (Multiple - including one that landed in a lake and ended up under the ice, and another that landed on a ledge in the mountains and missed the edge by less than a foot.) How many Shuttles have had to abort their missions and land with their batteries dying? (None.) How many Soyuz? (At least 4.) etc... etc...

The simple fact of the matter is this; The Shuttle is about 98% reliable, and the Soyuz about 98.1%. The Soyuz is only that high because they've been lucky.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[DerekLyons]

the current generation of Soyuz, the TM, first flew in 1986 and has had several updates since then.

The latest mark of Soyuz is the TMA, which first flew in 2002. There have been significant incidents on 3 of the 6 launch campaigns/flights to date.

These are far from 1960s relics.

No, they aren't 1960's relics - but you couldn't tell that from their reliability numbers.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[Anonymous Coward]

And the .1% proves Russian superiority. Well, NASA needs Soyuz for taking its crew right?

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[Liam Slider]

How many Shuttles have failed on launch? (None.)

And this statement right here makes you look like a fool. Are you forgetting Challenger? It exploded fairly early into launch.

As for your critique of Soyuz.....all Soyuz are not created equal. There have been many varients of what is called "Soyuz." Are you claiming the track record of the earlier, far less advanced Soyuz should be counted against more modern versions? They are, basically, very different craft with the same name.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[cpu_fusion]

What can I say ... you're right! It is a sad state of affairs when a KGB guy is head of Russia, and the son of a CIA/Cold-War-VP/Pres is head of the US.

I guess I just wanted to say, it should give the Russian people pride to see us buying their spacecraft.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[sznupi]

"How many Shuttles have landed off course and threatened the lives of their crews?" I believe the landing of Columbia was a bit non-precise... Besides what you're describing about Soyuz is just rubbish really...those are either things that happened to early versions or, in case of landing hazards, not related to Soyuz itself at all, beeing just fairly probable outcome of choosing such landing place as central Asia... Check your stats with what is really Soyuz now/recently: TMA/TM

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[DoninIN]

>Yes, lets. How many Shuttles have failed on launch? (None.) Uhm, I think you mean one don't you?

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[jbellows_20]

I remember the days when I was proud of NASA and the nation was proud of NASA. The dreams as a school kid of working for NASA and everything great it stood for. Reading this and other things that have happened with NASA, one has to wonder what can be done to bring NASA out of the blackhole it finds itself in.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[sznupi]

Remind me please...how many of these accidents turned out to be catastrophic?

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[DerekLyons]

Besides what you're describing about Soyuz is just rubbish really

No, it's stone cold facts.

those are either things that happened to early versions

No, it's things that have happened pretty regularly across the entire history of the program. The last significant landing incident was TMA-1 in 2002. The last significant docking problem was TMA-3 in 2003. TMA-5 had a pyro fire accidentally during pre-launch processing in 2004.

or, in case of landing hazards, not related to Soyuz itself at all, beeing just fairly probable outcome of choosing such landing place as central Asia...

Landing hundreds of miles off course (as Soyuz has done multiple times) is a feature of faulty management and/or hardware - not landing site selection.

Check your stats with what is really Soyuz now/recently: TMA/TM

TM is old news - flying from 1986 to 2002. None the less, it had numerous problems. The TMA is current version - it's only flown six times, yet has had problems on 3 of those flights.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[DerekLyons]

Remind me please...how many of these accidents turned out to be catastrophic?

From an engineering point of view, whether they turned out to be catastrophic or not is meaningless. From an emotional point of view it's different of course.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[sznupi]

BS, it's all about engineering:

shitty engineering = catastrophe

good engineering = malfunction

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[sznupi]

I see there's no point in discussing with you...you have some interesting concept about the meaning of word "significant"...

OK, to put it clearly: STATISTICS CAN PROVE ANYTHING, AND EVERYTHING FAILS SOMETIMES; THE POINT IS: HOW IT FAILS.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[DerekLyons]

I see there's no point in discussing with you... you have some interesting concept about the meaning of word "significant"...

I define 'significant' in this instance to mean 'likely to cause loss of mission and/or crew', I.E. an engineering definition, not the emotional one of 'kills crew'. The former solidly covers the reliability and safety spectrum (the two are not the same), while the latter is meaningless.

OK, to put it clearly: STATISTICS CAN PROVE ANYTHING, AND EVERYTHING FAILS SOMETIMES; THE POINT IS: HOW IT FAILS.

Yes, how it fails is of interest. However, there is more to situation than the black and white emotional argument of "kills/doesn't kill" - both Shuttle losses plainly show that.

Prior to Challenger, there were ongoing O-ring failures. Prior to Columbia, there were ongoing foam shedding problems. By your definitions, niether ongoing problem was significant, because niether killed - until they did. Equally, the ongoing problems with Soyuz indicate a deeper problem - one that will kill.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[DerekLyons]

BS, it's all about engineering:

I find this claim surprising on your part - because I have been discussing engineering, while you've done everything but.

shitty engineering = catastrophe

good engineering = malfunction

Only to the simple minded fanboy.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[DerekLyons]

In terms of the number of fatal accidents per flight, Soyuz has about the same level of safety as Shuttle.

The difference is that Soyuz continutes to improve, so that recent flights are safer than earlier flights.

If you make the emotional arguement and only consider fatal accidents, then yes - Soyuz has gotten better over time. When you examine the *engineering* you find an ongoing pattern of accidents and incidents, a disturbingly large number of which have avoided being fatal only the the grace of $DIETY.

Shuttle safety is at best remaining the same over time, and I think the reason is complacency on the part of NASA.

25 flights to the first accident, 87 to the second. You do the math.

Of course it doesn't help that the Shuttle is a huge monolithic vehicle, where changing one component requires changes to many other components.

Except of course for all the components they've changed without changing any other components at all... (The main computers have been upgraded, by simply dropping in the new ones. The SSME's have been upgraded three times, the new ones were installed and a few lines of code changed. Etc... Etc...)

By comparison capsule based systems (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz) have better defined interfaces between the launch vehicle and the spacecraft. As a result they accomodate evolutionary changes with less overall redesign.

Ah - so except for the many evolutionary changes the Shuttle has gone through without substantial redesign, it can't make any evolutionary changes without overall redesign.

For example, the Shuttle is on the third or fourth (depending on how you count) major rev of the ET, none of which required any changes to the SRB's or the Orbiter. The Shuttle is on the second rev of SRB's - with no changes to the Orbiter or ET. The Shuttle is on it's fourth version of SSME's - needing nothing more than changing a few lines of code, etc.. etc.. (Darn, it seems interface definition and control actually does work.)

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out: http://www.spacetoday.org/SpcStns/SoyuzTransport.h tml. None of TMA-1 or TMA3 or TMA-5 seemed life threatening.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how it is in USA, but in Russia the space program's primary mission is the safety of its mission crew.

So I guess the differences in the American focus is reflected in the shuttle's engineering and subsequent performance and safety history.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[sznupi]

"Will" kill? There's really no point in discussion it seems... You see, apparently you can't get the point that Soyuz would have hard time in failing critically...and that it fails somewhat, sometimes doesn't mean it's unsafe design. Furthermore, the only thing that really matters is loss of crew - remember how cheap Soyuz is to operate? It all boils down that Soyuz should fail in a safe manner. Predictable manner. You can't have 100% reliability. But predictability is very precious... Ballistic reentry...so what? Harsh ride at worst. (but I guess you would like to be in pieces, spread over Texas, than sitting 100 miles from the target on the ground waiting for the chopper...) And Soyuz survived even reentry facing 180 degrees in the opposite direction, heatshield in the back. Try that with shitty engineering. Capsule under the ice...so what? Crew is all the time in Sokols. Docking problem...we can override and go manual. Landing in forest with wild animals? Hey, capsule is pretty sturdy, and we have shotgun onboard. And so on...

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[DerekLyons]

As for your critique of Soyuz.....all Soyuz are not created equal. There have been many varients of what is called "Soyuz." Are you claiming the track record of the earlier, far less advanced Soyuz should be counted against more modern versions? They are, basically, very different craft with the same name.

Even if you look at the two latest versions, the TM (1986-2002) and the TMA (2002-present) you find the same track record. (In fact some of the worst accidents occured in the TM series.) Even if you constrain your comparison to just the latest mark, the TMA, you find serious incidents on three out of the six flights to date.

The simple fact is this: The Soyuz is not the paragon of spacecraft that it's widely believed to be.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[DerekLyons]

You see, apparently you can't get the point that Soyuz would have hard time in failing critically

Except of course for all the times it has failed critically.

And Soyuz survived even reentry facing 180 degrees in the opposite direction, heatshield in the back.

No it didn't. The orbital compartment seperated allowing the reentry compartment to assume it's normal heatshield forward position. (When the orbital compartment seperated - paint inside the re-entry compartment was already starting to burn. Another few seconds and it would have been all over.)

You are right - there is no further point in discussion. You are a clueless idiot who has no idea what he's talking about. Your statement above about the TM-5 accident proves you drooling fanboy rather than someone with a clue.

Re:Sad state of our National space program

[sznupi]

"Except of course for all the times it has failed critically."

And when was that? During one of last missions? 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 15 perhaps? 20? Uhmm...in that case, 25? Nah, can't be 30?
Oh...you want to say that the last criticall failure was over 34 years ago and that's your argument? You're a fanboy, of the mindset directed against the Soyuz, to be precize.

It's very interesting how in your eyes the glass was half-empty, not half-full, when Soyuz survived _large_, _critical_ part of reentry facing in the wrong direction (oh, but you nitpick at it nonethelles; conveniently forgetting other debunked things of yours - for example the one when Soyuz ended below ice; I've said valid argument about spacecuits use...valid, but not true anyway - because this ONE time when Soyuz ended below water it was during early, unmanned mission, during testing and so on...you of course by pure accident forgot to mention that? I mean, the thing that it is a fact, but the one that weakens your argumentation, doesn't count, right?)
About this accident...that's precizelly good engineering. Namely: the decision to use titanium shell. You should know the propoerties of it... (granted, if it continued the outcome would be catastrophic...but the point is that it could continue up to some point without harm)

Yes, thee's no point in discussion. You're pretending that pure engineering succeses are all that matters, but you forgot why this tech exists in the first place. And that the final goal for it is to protect its content. But hey, that's just me, working daily with the "content" and using tech at most for the purpose...
BTW, if however you wish to continue, you should know that name-calling doesn't affect me...(again, my work). However, if you're such looser that calling anyone who doesn't share your view an idiot helps you to function, go ahead, as I've said, I'll ignore those parts.

Worth the investment?

[PocketPick]

Is it really worth the cost to purchase a spacecraft which, by Russian admissions, are outdated and slated to be replaced? Unless NASA believes it has something to learn from the nature of the spacecraft, this is a stupid purchase. The funds would be better vested in performing research on MODERN technology.

Re:Worth the investment?

[HillBilly]

Both countries have old and due to be replaced space crafts. Difference is Russia's crafts have provened to be more realiable and cheaper.

Re:Worth the investment?

[Richard_at_work]

The reason Soyuz is being replaced is not because its outdated, far from it its proved to be a good airframe thats adaptable to new advances time after time, but its because the contract to build them runs out soon and due to political issues it cant be renewed or extended anymore. So they get to build the Klipper.

Re:Worth the investment?

[bjomo]

This is a stop gap measure. NASA has made public their plans to develop vehicles, both manned and unmanned, based on the shuttle platform. NASA has also made it clear that the CEV will not be completed by the time the shuttle is retired. Right now there is a projected 2 year gap. Clearly, this agreement is to allow NASA the access to space they require until their new systems are complete (or while shuttle is on the ground pending RTF again). Anyway you look at it NASA is not saying that we should invest in old Russian technology. They are using what is readily available until they have the new systems in place.

Re:Worth the investment?

[WindBourne]

it is worth it? in one word, Yes. In fact, Hell Yes

By buying these capsules, we can quickly get the solid candlesticks working and start carrying 3 men into space within 2 years (maybe 1). From there, We can do shuttle-C, and then move on to doing the CEV and the true heavy lifter.

Re:Worth the investment?

[justins]

Both countries have old and due to be replaced space crafts. Difference is Russia's crafts have provened to be more realiable and cheaper.

The difference is a little more profound than that. Their next craft will be an evolution of what they already have. Ours will be completely different than what we're currently flying, since we've spent billions and decades barking up the wrong tree.

Oops.

Re:Worth the investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

the thing is...they work. every time.

Choice

[kevin_conaway]

So it seems that after Russia sends the last obligatory shuttle to the space station, we are left the with the options of a.) buying Russian gear to send our own folks or b.) paying the Russians to do it for us?

Whatever, if it saves money, I'm sure the government will do it. I'm pretty sure they can use extra cash wherever they can find it now.

Re:Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever, if it saves money, I'm sure the government will do it.

Well, if you talking about the current US administration, you'd want to qualify this:
If it saves wealthy Republicans money, I'm sure the government will do it.

Re:Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure they can use extra cash wherever they can find it now.

Yeah, they could build some more bridges with it...

Re:Choice

[Halvard]

This administratiion believes in outsourcing at any and all cost. If it costs more to outsource, make it a non-budget item so that it doesn't affect their politically massaged numbers. If it happens to make wealthy Republicans wealthier, all the better.

Democratic administrations generally aren't this overt.

It's a good idea to buy the best technology.

[CyricZ]

Often it is a very good idea to buy the highest quality technology. Indeed, that is what NASA needs to do right now considering their extremely awful image in the eyes of the public (following the Challenger and Columbia disasters). Any more disasters and NASA is fucked. At least by purchasing this former Soviet equipment they can blame the Russians for any problems. Faulty manufacturing and engineering done by the Russians, and not by NASA, for instance. Considering NASA's current position, they have very little option but to prevent further incident, even if it means resorting to Soviet technology.

Re:It's a good idea to buy the best technology.

[banzaimonkey]

At least by purchasing this former Soviet equipment they can blame the Russians for any problems.

Seems to me like we'd have been better off with Soviet hardware from the beginning. Sure, our stuff looks sexy on the drawing board, but their stuff works.

Re:It's a good idea to buy the best technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know the Soviet's history with their space program? Its much worse than the US's is, and ever will be.

What?

[bogaboga]

I remember one NASA official saying to the effect that the Soyuz being decades old technology, is no good for any serious American use, despite its very good performance record! We now are about to buy this hardware? Give me a break...! Oh wait...the Soyuz has had a near 100% perfect operation since inception; better than any US hardware.

I remember one US plane that had to be transported from China in a Russian Antonov-124. The US did not have any aircraft that was up to the task! How long shall we have to rely on so called "third world economies" to achieve our goals?

Why doesn't this [Bush] administration pay Americans to build these Soyuz like crafts instead of simply buying?

Sad state of our Nation

[MyLongNickName]

So....
IT is outsourced to India
Manufacturing is outsourced to China
High tech going to Russia
U.S. will supply the world's managers?

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[Martin Blank]

Exactly. In fact, I hear one manager, a Michael Brown, is looking for a job managing something. He'll take anything, even if he knows nothing about it.

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[pmike_bauer]

I, for one, welcome our U.S. managing overlords.

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[banzaimonkey]

IT is outsourced to India I thought Tech Support was outsourced to India.

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[HermanAB]

Before supplying the rest of the world with top class managers, you'll have to break them out of jail first...

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[Ira Sponsible]

The USA will populate the B ark. I have my ticket already, can't wait to go!

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[Wansu]

Its pretty obvious that the US as a superpower was a post-WWII accident ...

Others have stated the same observation a little differently, that it was easy for the US to be the world leader after WWII when so many other industrialized countries lay in ruins and others had succumbed to communism.
 
... and the rest of the world has caught up, thus the decentrilization of wealth, power, industry, ideas, etc. Instead of lamenting "this sad state" we should be preparing for a future where the US isnt the king of all things and learn how to better compete, create new markets, etc.

They didn't just catch up. American companies basically gave it to them for a song. We should indeed be preparing for a world "where the US isnt the king of all things" or the ace, queen or jack. For during the past 20 years, we've been exporting our industry and importing poor people.

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[D3m3rz3l]

*sigh*. Programming and software engineering is increasingly being outsourced to India. Tech support is of course outsoruced, but India is the second largest software developing country on the planet these days.

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[foolAloof]

U.S. will supply the world's managers?

well, neal stephenson predicted this. but, instead of world managers, he predicted pizza deliverators.

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Computer Engineer, my view is that "IT == Tech Support".

But as the first replier mentioned, a vast amount of more highly skilled labor is also being oursourced to India.

Look on the bright-side: eventually the US will be too poor to outsource anything anywhere! India will loose its stream of jobs & work from the US.

Flip-side: The rest of the world will be using the US for shoe-manufacturing, clothes fabrication, farming and soap manufacturing.

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[Tablizer]

U.S. will supply the world's managers?

After the Katrina fiasco, nobody will want them.

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[o'reor]

> U.S. will supply the world's managers?

Not managers : lawyers ! Now *this* is a US production that is hardly on the decline. Fortunately, the US is also the biggest consumer for these "goods", and there's not many of them left for export.

But I hear that the other countries in the world are increasingly interested in the "barratry & frivolous lawsuits" business model, so I guess the foreign demand is on the rise...

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[MemoryDragon]

Not even the managers, as it looks the biggest export in the near future from the US will be laywers and lawsuits...

Re:Sad state of our Nation

[dbIII]

Its pretty obvious that the US as a superpower was a post-WWII accident ...

No, it was a post WWI incident. Also, countries like my own refused to accept some of the finest minds of the 1930-40s just because they were Jewish, so the gap increased after WWII. It doesn't help that the British commonweath idea of an engineer was a low paid grease covered Scot with a spanner and that scientists were "boffins" and the butt of jokes. The 1930s depression showed that financial problems in the USA could impact most of the world - the US obviously had to be a superpower at that point or it wouldn't have happened.

Actually I'm impressed....

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I'd expect NASA would be much too arrogant to consider purchasing Russian equipment. If this idea is not rejected for stupid political 'national pride' reasons, I think it speaks pretty well for NASA ...

Re:Actually I'm impressed....

[banzaimonkey]

Now if only we could get the rest of the American government to follow suit and look to other countries for policy that works in practice, instead of only on the drawing board. ;)

Re:Actually I'm impressed....

[william_w_bush]

Harder to be arrogant when your shuttle breaks up into millions of bite-sized pieces over scenic texas.

But yeah, actually nasa wanted to pay the russians to use their soyuz to supply and man the iss before, the soyuz has about 1/10 to 1/20 the operational cost of the shuttle, and can be launched, like whenever, but congress would never allow it. I'm guessing the threat of "No Space 4 J00!" due to the shuttles' grounding has nudged them to be more flexible.

It's not so much pride btw, nasa and the us government are forbidden to do high level business with russia due to a provision in their budget that says they cannot due business with anyone who supplies nuclear technology to iran, which russia was kinda doing. So it's a law that was changed more than anything. Does speak well for nasa's willingness to be practical though.

Re:Actually I'm impressed....

[Anonymous Coward]

cannot due business with anyone who supplies nuclear technology to iran, which russia was kinda doing.

I guess that the primary reason why Russia is doing that is that they need the money (I doubt that Putin is too fond of the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons) so with a little luck the purchases could be made with strings attached - i.e. with the condition that Russia stops supplying Iran with nuclear tech. However, I have no idea what the amounts of money are so it could be that no such agreement is possible (if the amount Russia gets for Soyuz vehicles is an order of magnitude less than what Iran pays that is likely to be the case).

Re:Actually I'm impressed....

[Edmund Blackadder]

"Somehow I'd expect NASA would be much too arrogant to consider purchasing Russian equipment. "

They are too arrogant. PRoblem is they dont have a choice. The last shuttle flight proved it. They did everything to ensure a safe flight before the shuttle took off ... they spent a shitloads of money and what they got is a flight that turned out to be almost safe. That is there was too weeks of worrying, discussions about tiles, spacewalks, in space repairs, etc and then in the end we got lucky and there was no disaster, but everyone recognized there was a significant chance that we might not get lucky. Well, they cant have every single ISS refueling flight be like that. First of all, their budget cannot afford it, and second of all their already shaky reputation cannot afford it either.

So they have to eat some humble pie, buy Russian equipment and realize there is something wrong with the way NASA does business and try to fix it. My opinion is that the problem with nasa is also a problem with the military and pretty much every aspect of high tech government spending. That is that there is prevelant corruption, no free market economics and an eagerness to drive costs up by designing ever more complex and failure prone systems.

Re:Actually I'm impressed....

[abune]

So they have to eat some humble pie, buy Russian equipment and realize there is something wrong with the way NASA does business and try to fix it. My opinion is that the problem with NASA is also a problem with the military and pretty much every aspect of high tech government spending. That is that there is prevalent corruption, no free market economics and an eagerness to drive costs up by designing ever more complex and failure prone systems.

Must agree with this.... Situation reminds me Detroit car design before Japanese remake US car market. Seems that balance between engineering excellence and marketing, cost cutting, deadline hitting (Christmas shopping season upon us!) is shifted too far away from engineering. Also hiring and firing practices is not in favor of folks who make things, design, etc. - they can't sell, can't make money, they have to go...

Re:Actually I'm impressed....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you should have signed your post "Anonymous Bigot", but I assume you're a coward as well.

Funny how that works out.

Re:Actually I'm impressed....

[Tablizer]

I don't think NASA makes such calls. It is a political decision made by congressional committies IIRC. NASA would only supply the cost/benefit analysis (which may be independently reviewed).

European versus American engineering.

[CyricZ]

Indeed. There is quite a difference between European and American engineering. Perhaps that's because of cultural differences.

Europe has, for the most part, suffered from limited access to resources. America, on the other hand, has for its history had nearly unlimited access to natural resources.

European engineers have for centuries been forced to use the minimal amount of material, and to come up with designs that just plain work from the very beginning. They don't have the resources to waste on the actual product, let alone on testing models that may be destroyed or rendered useless.

Indeed, it may very well be these resource constrains that lead to European-engineered items being of supreme quality.

Re:European versus American engineering.

[LnxAddct]

I bet two mars rovers that European space engineering isn't the supreme quality that you claim it be. Also, NASA's space shuttle is the most innovative thing in the whole industry right now. They took a chance, they did the math and they figured rather then play it safe that they'd do their best to move the field of space aviation forward. NASA did all of this with a reusable spacecraft that lands like a plane. NASA is the only agency taking chances, taking things to a new level. They have a shitty budget so to claim that they don't engineer well because they can afford to blow things up is ridiculous and ignorant.

Alot of people are making dumb claims about ISS and the russians doing everything. Its funyy how NASA's shuttle is responsible for delivering nearly every piece of ISS except for about 3. NASA's shuttle is the only spacecraft capable of carrying and assembling some of the very large and heavy payloads. There are 6 space agencies involved with ISS, you don't find it ironic how the Americans and Russians are the only ones that have done anything to help it?

The European space agency does few things, and those few things it does do take a long time. If they've had less failures its because they've had less to fail at. Until a year or two ago, space shuttle flights were very routine and made fairly often. It was one mistake that made the public freak out simply because they are used to safe airplanes and dont realize the risks of going to space. Finally all of that beauracracy has started to end. If you count all the time that the 5 shuttles have spent in space, it amounts to about 4 constant years (1045 days in flight), what is ESA's time? Oh thats right, they don't have manned space vehicles, rather they pay the Americans or Russians to fly with them.

I'm not saying ESA is useless, they are far from it and have done many useful things, but you opened your mouth and nothing but ignorance came out. One more thing, up until the 90's when the U.S. military decided to stop sharing its space secrets with ESA, ESA was pretty damn dependant on NASA and often only achieved things with NASA's assistance. This post isn't intended as a flame, I just find it amusing how NASA doesn't get one tenth of the recognition it deserves.
Regards,
Steve

Re:European versus American engineering.

[sznupi]

He didn't talk about space engineering, but engineering in general. Look at reasources consumed vs. output. Heck, look at American vs. European cars. Why is it that when somebody's get rich enough, he'll most likely want to have European car? And don't dellude yourself that the current "space plane" is the result of pushing things forward. It's the results of trying to push them forward, but due to many conflicting political agendas we've had POS. You shouldn't take chances with politicians...who knows what's their next whim. About ISS you're beeing ignorant or trolling... Because it's funny how Russians could probably build same size/function station for half the money and have it completed already. Russian modules are also very large and heavy - the station started form them, moreover: they assembled themselves. WHY DO YOU THINK THE STATION ASSEMBLY DOESN'T SEE PROGRESS? Yes, that's right, because some idiot decided that the modules should designed so they can only fit inside the large (which is BTW one of reasons behind SS problems...) cargo bay of Shuttle. Yes, it's a question of volume, not mass. And moreover, American modules are simply dead mass, some new "propulsion part" would have to be designed and build, apart from redesigning the rocket. And it can be neccesary to do it anyway, since it's possible that Shuttle WILL NEVER FLY AGAIN. And don't forget the current state of affairs with ESA is that...they simply started with different background and also had different priorities and finaciall possibilies during cold war. But yeah, Europens can't do a shit when itcomes to engineering...just look at their Airbus. Or TGV. Or public transportation systems in general. Or cars. Or...

Re:European versus American engineering.

[MindStalker]

Actually the fact that NASA took a chance and built a reusable entry vehicle isn't the problem. Its the fact that it was designed by budget/cold war commitees. Most of its designs consisted of the special request by the airforce that the new shuttle needs to be capable of
1. flying into high latitude orbits artic orbits (something thats never was done.. atleast publically)
2. Be able to steal russian satalites (ditto)
3. Be able to quickly land after stealing russian satalites on a US runway (this runway was never constructed, and the runways that are used would require extra orbits to adjust from a artic latitude).

Re:Hands off Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

> Iran is *not* evil, nor is Chavez

I have Venezuelan friends who say that Chavez is a power-hungry, greedy wannabe dictator. Not necessarily evil, but just another politician who doesn't deliver on his promises, stirs up public opinion (mostly the poor) and points to some villain du jour (the U.S.) to blame for all his country's ills, instead of doing something to make his people's lives better. Funny, that sounds a lot like some guy who lives in public housing on Pennsylvania Ave. in zip code 20500.

Re:I've just been laughing so hard

[CyricZ]

Are you suggesting that a Soviet-style collapse of the American republic is soon to follow? Indeed, that assertion may not be so far from the truth. With the natural disasters in the central southern states, many there may be willing to leave the Union. And their leaving may open the door for the more liberal east and west coast states, also tiring of incompetent federal rule, to leave as well.

How the mighty have fallen

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, for those days when we could sit back at laugh at the Chinese for using pitiful refitted Soviet space technology.

They have no choice, basically.

[CyricZ]

But they don't have any choice. Either they purchase this equipment, or they become irrelevant. This purchase is necessary for their very survival, even if it bruises a few egos.

Sometimes one is forced to choose between a shitty choice or death. In this case they're chosen the shitty situation which may allow for their survival.

Re:They have no choice, basically.

[banzaimonkey]

Sometimes one is forced to choose between a shitty choice or death.

This choice only seems shitty if pride is your highest priority. In terms of practicality, it makes much more sense than what NASA's been doing for the past few years.

I'd love to hear more about the NASA engineers.

[CyricZ]

I don't mind if you do! Thanks!

Can you tell us more about your experiences working with the NASA engineers? Did they ever talk about the possibility of relying on Soviet technology if their designs failed?

"incompetent federal rule"

[1010011010]

We have waaay too much "incompetent federal rule" going on these days. Too much dependence on out-of-touch beltway blowhards with more money than brains and a penchant for "doing something".

Read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html

Re:"incompetent federal rule"

[dfjghsk]

thanks for the link.. one of the most interesting articles I've read.

Good News

[sd_diamond]

This is just in the nick of time, because Crazy Ivan's Space Capsule Clearance House announced a sale for next week.

Re:Good News

[Tablizer]

This is just in the nick of time, because Crazy Ivan's Space Capsule Clearance House announced a sale for next week.

That doesn't make sense. He has plenty of space after he sold off his uranium to a tall bearded arab.

Not like it matters....

[MachDelta]

"Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!"

Re:Not like it matters....

[JrbM689]

That was a great movie. From the look of your post's karma, the mods don't seem to agree.

Re:Uh, Iran's pretty evil

[johansalk]

If you want to see repressive governments you only need to look at key US allies such as Uzbekestan and Saudi Arabia. Iran had a calming influence in Iraq, in fact, Iran can be thanked for the remarkable restraint the Shias had despite the terrorism against them (Sadr and Mahdi army are anti-Iran). On the other hand, the Saudi government has been too happy to export its repressed and disillusioned youth to die in Iraq instead of bothering the Saudi royals, friends of Bush.

yay

[william_w_bush]

wrote a while back during the last shuttle scare that this would be a good idea to keep america in space till they get a new launch vehicle sorted out, glad they finally did it.

Soyuz is one of the safest and most reliable space vehicles in existence, and considering the shuttles are grounded for god knows how long, we need a system to service and supply the iss.

Yeah I know it has limited cargo capacity, but it costs roughly 1/10 the cost of the shuttle to launch, if that, can be launched far more often, and its cargo capacity can be augmented by elv's like the delta or titan.

Plus side, we are less likely to lose astronauts, and can actually keep the iss supplied enough to do science beyond plugging the leaks with their fingers, and hopefully launch astronauts twice as often if it scales up well.

win/win from my pov.

ps. my "confirm i'm not a script" word is cannabis. Cool.

Re:yay

[DerekLyons]

Soyuz is one of the safest and most reliable space vehicles in existence,

ROTFLMAO. No matter what metric you choose - the differences in safety and reliability numbers generally favor the Shuttle. (Not by much mind, .1% here or .5% there.) For instance, the Soyuz has aborted 4 missions and landed without docking with the station thet were going to - with none of the missions reflown. OTOH, the Shuttle has aborted two missions, and both were eventually reflown.

Plus side, we are less likely to lose astronauts,

The Soyuz has killed two crews and had at least eight close calls (I.E missed killing a crew by sheer luck) in 93 flights. The Shuttle has killed two crews and had no close calls in 113 flights.

You do the math and figure which is less likely to kill a crew.

does it comes with an instruction manual?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Russian or English? Wondering when Russian is going to outsource it to India or China

What I know...

[bogaboga]

...is that when a shuttle is to be launched, NASA at that time cannot be 100% sure everything will go as intended. That's a fact. The Russians on the other hand, are always certain and are always seen assuring skeptical American minds that everything will be OK. And indeed everything normally goes fine.

When a shuttle is launched or is to return to earth, there is a lot of fanfare...as if to suggest that there was a sizable chance that things could go all wrong. No wonder we are now looking to Russians for some help.

Re:What I know...

[falcon5768]

bull there is always fanfair because its still not a everyday thing. The russians where notorious for the amount of deaths they have on their head in space, a LOT more russians have died in space than Americans even if the Soyuz is safer, most where covered up though because of the cold war, and information about who died is still iffy since many where reported as dying in training accidents and or military accidents, not space accidents which the evidence points to.

No one, not even the Russians can EVER be 100% sure. NASA was 100% sure, and it cost them two shuttles. The Russians on the otherthand dont balk at a few people dying for the greater cause, something Americans do because often the causes are wrong in American minds.

Its a questions of additude, its not a question of safety

Re:What I know...

[twiddlingbits]

...something Americans do because often the causes are wrong in American minds. Really? I don't see any huge public movement for NASA to cancel space flight which would the case if your statement was correct. Most of the public is IGNORANT of the risks, they just like the "gee whiz" effect. And for sure they are not competent to judge the risks. Those of us who ARE competent to judge the risks and the chances those risk may come to pass are not highly thought of at NASA. We just give off too many "negative vibes" I guess.

Re:What I know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the Russians have beaten reality and obtained 100% certainty.

Re:What I know...

[bhiestand]

Those of us who ARE competent to judge the risks and the chances those risk may come to pass are not highly thought of at NASA. We just give off too many "negative vibes" I guess.
I don't know what you do at NASA, but you don't sound like an astronaut to me, and you definitely don't sound like an engineer in your previos posts, so I'd love to see your credentials in this matter. Do you work in risk analysis?

All of that aside, you obviously were never a pilot or aircrew member anywhere. Nobody is more hated than the asshole who's always telling you you're going to die as you go up for a mission. Nobody likes the guy who calls the air (or space) craft that is keeping them alive a "deathtrap". If you started that crap around here you'd be punched in the face.

Furthermore, unless you're an astronaut, I don't care on your opinion of the risks. If the astronauts feel they're too dangerous too fly, we shouldn't. If we can't afford to fly them, we need to find a cheaper replacement. Otherwise, since we've already built the damned things, and the astronauts apparently think the risks are worth it, we should (as a population) should quit crying about the people whose names we don't even know and let them do their fucking jobs.

To me it's just like some of the anti-war protesters complaining about US casualties, putting up the crosses, etc. They don't speak for the majority of the soldiers who are fighting, nor do they speak for the majority of the soldiers' families, nor do they speak for the majority of the dead soldiers, nor do they speak for the majority of the families of the dead soldiers. They're protesting, using the names of dead soldiers against the wishes of the soldiers and their families. There are many names for that in english, but it's definitely not genuine concern for the person they're trying to pretend they care about.

It's politics, pure and simple, only now you're playing off the death of one more crew of astronauts to push your agenda and beliefs.

Re:What I know...

[pipingguy]

When a shuttle is launched or is to return to earth, there is a lot of fanfare...as if to suggest that there was a sizable chance that things could go all wrong.

NASA launches and re-entries are media events, so there are always hundreds of millions of critical eyes watching. When Russia launches, it's just a normal event unencumbered by commercial interests and they don't really care about who is watching.

Re:What I know...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I speak for everyone when I say, "stfu." Your right to have an opinion has been revoked.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Re:What I know...

[Anonymous Coward]

A long and pointless rambling. Thats the only "credential" I can see in the parent's comments. And yes, the "war protesters" had to be brought in to justify your position and play down at least 2 US space shuttles blowing up in the past 2 decades.

Re:What I know...

[Cyberax]

RTFM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_disasters

We (I'm Russian) lost 4 men in space disasters, and you lost 14 men.

Re:What I know...

[Anonymous Coward]

To me it's just like some of the anti-war protesters complaining about US casualties, putting up the crosses, etc. They don't speak for the majority of the soldiers who are fighting, nor do they speak for the majority of the soldiers' families, nor do they speak for the majority of the dead soldiers, nor do they speak for the majority of the families of the dead soldiers. They're protesting, using the names of dead soldiers against the wishes of the soldiers and their families. There are many names for that in english, but it's definitely not genuine concern for the person they're trying to pretend they care about.

So according to you, American are not free to protest the deaths of Americans in the service of their country? I thought this kind of freedom is one of the very things that Americans over the centuries have fought and died for.

Sounds to me like you need to learn a lesson in respect, you fuckwit anus licking terrorist motherfucker.

Re:What I know...

[twiddlingbits]

Prove YOUR credentials to me, as you asked me, are you an Astronaut? What is your background in space systems and mission safety? I'll give you a hint about mine, 20+ yrs Space and Military Systems Development, ISS, several Science Missions, many military projects, and part of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

ALL the Astronauts were very supportive of our CAIB work, many even helped us behind the scences. They DO NOT want to go up and NOT come down. SAFETY of the entire MISSION is critical to them. The problem is NASA only wants to listen and address those safety issues AFTER they happen. That is a BIG conclusion of the CAIB. It's damned obvious you have not read it.

Having worked with pilots of all sorts for many years, they support making things safer, but the Management often does not since it costs more. In almost all the cases, Management wins. Shuttle Pilots take risks and don't even blink, however they trust the risks have been managed as best they can by the engineers, at least two times that trust has been misplaced.

How does one "sound like an engineer"? You want me to give technical details? I would but in many cases I am prohibited by law or contractual agreements.If you can't tell something about my profession from the UserID then you aren't much of one.

"Names for it in English"? Are you from outside the USA? Unless you are from Russia you got nothing to compare with NASA and the Shuttle. If not then shut the fuck up about OUR Space Program and get your own. It's so easy to attack someone when you haven't a clue about the topic or have no defense for thier arguments.

Re:What I know...

[bhiestand]

Sounds to me like you need to learn a lesson in respect, you fuckwit anus licking terrorist motherfucker.

Right, RESPECT! You sure showed me how respect works!

I may be a fuckwit and an anus licker, but I'm neither a terrorist nor a motherfucker. But I have nothing against fucking the mother of a terrorist, so I guess I could be a terrorist motherfucker, come to think of it.

But back to respect. Respect is exactly what I'm talking about. If a soldier dies for a cause he and his family feel worthy of dying for, should not his wishes be respected after his death? Shouldn't he (via a will) or his family be able to stop protest groups from using his name or image for political purposes? I know I'd never want my death to be used to push a political agenda I'd never agree with.

Why did I use it as an example in a conversation about the space shuttle? Because the same thing implies. If the family of a dead astronaut wants to get on TV and say "Mr. Astronaut submitted all of these requests to change such and such about the shuttle, but the administration always turned him down. He did not (know the dangers) (volunteer for the job) or (would not have volunteered the job had he known such and such was a possibility)" then that's all well and good. That's something that should be done, not only to improve society, but out of respect for the wishes and life of the deceased. The same is going on with soldiers that are killed in action, only the protests have a lot more media attention, and most people can more closely relate to military service or war than space exploration - though the vast majority of the population knows very little of either.

Admittedly I'm no astronaut, nor do I claim to be an expert in any sort of manned space exploration. I haven't personally known any astronauts that have died in the line of duty. But I think it's safe to claim that the following statements are likely fact:

1. It was not their wishes that their death be used as a weapon against manned space flight
2. That they knew the risks they were undertaking and did so willingly
3. That they fought to have the chance of taking the risks they took
4. The bullshit factor on this whole thing is really, really high.

Americans are free to protest and say whatever the hell they want (as long as it doesn't piss off anyone with the power to make a constitutional amendment against it), and as long as they don't swear in a medium the FCC can touch, and as long as they don't violate any other ridiculous laws, have the proper permits, etc. I'm not suggesting that the police come in and kill protesters for being assholes who are abusing the names, images, and wishes of deceased heros. I'm simply suggesting that I don't fucking like people who do that. Maybe it's because I have respect for people who die doing stuff like that, respect for their wishes, or respect for free speech and my duty to uphold such laws as long as I can.

Perhaps you should quit offering to "teach me a lesson in respect", start actually reading what people are saying, and take notice of the respect those people have. Then you can try imitating it, learn some respect for yourself, possibly some respect for me as well as for your beliefs by not posting as an AC, and maybe in the future have some respect for the beliefs of those who disagree with you.

Re:What I know...

[bhiestand]

First off, assuming you're not lying, I thank you on actually having some knowledge on what you're posting. It'd be nice if this could be more of a logical, reasonable, technical debate instead of an emotional argument. I understand the need for not discussing certain things, and for that same reason I'm not going to be publicly posting anything about what I do. I will admit that I don't work in your field, and it's been a while since I worked with many engineers. I don't think I even need Physics 101 to support my arguments on this matter, as I'm not debating science, engineering, or any technical details whatsoever. In fact, my debate is purely in the humanities side of the house, and I have all the necessary credentials for that - I'm human.

Now on to the arguing:

Really? I don't see any huge public movement for NASA to cancel space flight which would the case if your statement was correct. Most of the public is IGNORANT of the risks, they just like the "gee whiz" effect. And for sure they are not competent to judge the risks. Those of us who ARE competent to judge the risks and the chances those risk may come to pass are not highly thought of at NASA. We just give off too many "negative vibes" I guess.

They DO NOT want to go up and NOT come down. SAFETY of the entire MISSION is critical to them.

I think those two statements say it all. One sounds like the typical "let's cancel all manned space flight until it's 100% safe" bullshit, the second iteration is entirely reasonable, and exactly what I would expect out of a bunch of astronauts. But when reading both of your posts one would get the impression of "they shouldn't go up because it's too dangerous". In your first post that's pretty much all you said, and that's where my complaint was. There may be some serious problems at NASA. The entire shuttle program may be fatally flawed. It may be a waste of lives, money, man-hours, fuel, and hope. Nobody can objectively make that decision, and anyone who says they can is lying.

I'm not saying astronauts want to die. I'm not saying pilots don't (or shouldn't) have a blind faith in the engineers, nor am I saying it has never been misplaced. I'll even say that there will never, EVER be a 100% safe manned space flight program. I simply don't see why that should stop us from having manned space flight. Certainly it's no different than normal flight in this regard. It will never be totally safe. Neither will crossing the street or driving your car or walking your dog be 100% safe. You might have a heart attack while sexing your wife. Why should this STOP us from doing any of this? Do we, as a society, really want to live in terror because something might hurt us? Furthermore, do we want to force everyone else to live safely because the idea of THEM getting hurt scares the crap out of us? That's what this all really boils down to. Since you don't like me much, I'm sure you would agree that I should be able to jump off a cliff without a parachute to test my new theories on flight.

Your primary argument shouldn't be "oh no, astronauts might die". Your primary argument could be "NASA is lying to its astronauts about the safety of the shuttle". It could be "We're spending too much money on shuttles that will inevitably just blow up". It could be "This is what needs to be done to replace the shuttle". But telling me that it's too dangerous for astronauts, and that's the reason we need to STOP MANNED SPACE FLIGHT just isn't going to cut it. Either you're against manned space flight (and I read that to mean For the Eventual Extinction of the Species) or you have a problem with how it's being carried out. If the former is true you have no business working in that industry, nor do you have any business working on the CAIB. If the latter is true, you misspoke in your post, but I'm still capable of respecting you, and may even end up trying to further your cause.

As for the rest of your reply, I've learned that a UserID on slashdot do

Re:What I know...

[torpor]

To me it's just like some of the anti-war protesters complaining about US casualties, putting up the crosses, etc. They don't speak for the majority of the soldiers who are fighting, nor do they speak for the majority of the soldiers' families, nor do they speak for the majority of the dead soldiers, nor do they speak for the majority of the families of the dead soldiers. They're protesting, using the names of dead soldiers against the wishes of the soldiers and their families. There are many names for that in english, but it's definitely not genuine concern for the person they're trying to pretend they care about.

how the hell do you know all that? by critical remote psychological assessment? sheesh, you're pretty good.

face it, your info sources are as good as anyone elses. anything less would be condoning tyranny.

Re:What I know...

[meringuoid]

We (I'm Russian) lost 4 men in space disasters, and you lost 14 men.

True enough, and the Russians haven't lost anyone for a long time - even after crashing a bloody great cargo ship into the side of their space station. Now that's tough engineering. Of course, if you count deaths on the ground then the Russian programme has a pretty poor score, but from the point of view of a prospective passenger, I'd far rather fly to ISS on a Soyuz than on a Shuttle.

probably because

[Anonymous Coward]

it's what they have been saying all along. For decades. And we aren't there. We used to be there, then they dropped the ball bigtime, a combination of voodoo politics combined with overly complex engineering just-for-the=hell of it, with a dash of bureaucratic inefficiency compounded by a sense of entitlement because they had been around so long.

In other words, we don't care what some new piece of paper says. Talk is cheap.Nasa talk when it comes to involving humans flying around is expensive talk, but it is still talk. There's the difference. Take humans out of the equation, nasa gets at least a C+, include humans, D-. It is time to admit reality, they ain't got the 'right stuff' no more. Just is, is all. Nothing personal, just business.

That and some are cynical because they know the military has some better tech but they won't release it for public use.

height and weight of the crew

[YuriGherkin]

haha, I like the part in the wikipedia entry about how the Soyuz to be sold to America has some modification like " more latitude in the height and weight of the crew and improved parachute systems".

I guess Americans are the fattest^H^H^H^H^Hlargest people on the planet after all! LOL!!

Re:height and weight of the crew

[Tablizer]

I guess Americans are the fattest^H^H^H^H^Hlargest people on the planet after all! LOL!!

Naw, it's probably our legal system that makes it too difficult to reject astronauts due to obesity.

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

[banzaimonkey]

The funds would be better vested in performing research on MODERN technology.

I think that's a flawed way of thinking under the circumstances. Russia has technology that works. Why not utilize that? Otherwise, you'll spend much, much more money on the R&D, testing, etc. in addition to not having an immediate fix to the problem. In terms of what is financially responsible/feasible in this case, I think NASA's making a good move.

Going into the nit-pickiness... how much more modern do you think you can get? Most of the time, "upgrades" to existing technology are nothing more than new, fancy packaging around the same old junk. So you have a car with a CD-player and a GPS system and powered windows, but it's still a car and it serves the same function as the one you would have used twenty years ago without the CD-player, GPS, and powered windows. It gets you where you need to be. The rest of the stuff is just icing on the cake.

Re:If it's not broken, don't fix it.

[tftp]

Otherwise, you'll spend much, much more money on the R&D, testing, etc. in addition to not having an immediate fix to the problem.

NASA would need to spend not just money but lives of test pilots as well. This is something it absolutely can't afford.

Re:If it's not broken, don't fix it.

[imothepixie]

America spent much R&D time and money on developing a pen that could write in zero G.....the russians used a pencil!

Re:If it's not broken, don't fix it.

[Agarax]

Horseshit.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/spacepen.ht m

Re:If it's not broken, don't fix it.

[ppanon]

Not only that, but Spider Robinson claims one of the Apollo 11 astronauts once told him that the space pen was used to hotwire the Apollo Lunar Module when the ignition switch broke.

Yet another example of.....

[Pop69]

the old saying "If it's not broken, don't fix it"

Soyuz has been successfully sending stuff into space for an awful long time and as far as we know has a very impressive safety record.

The space shuttle was a compromise design built by the lowest bidder.

Re:Yet another example of.....

[DerekLyons]

Soyuz has been successfully sending stuff into space for an awful long time and as far as we know has a very impressive safety record.

Maybe so far as the fanboy knows that's true. But to those who have actually studied the issue - the Soyuz's safety record is stunningly *unimpressive*. It's killed two crews, it's had two launch aborts, 4 mission aborts, and something like 20+ reentry/landing accidents or incidents. (And over half of those 20 missed killing a crew only by the grace of $DIETY.) It's accomplished all this in 93 flights - compared to the Shuttles 113.

Obligatory

[SeaFox]

In Soviet Russia...

We fly the Americans to space.

Re:I've just been laughing so hard

[william_w_bush]

... As a member of a liberal east coast state, why would I leave?

I live about 1 mile from lexington, which some american's remember as part of "Lexington and Concord" where the revolutionary war began. You can't go 10 feet without tripping over a monument to a great battle, or a founding father, or where the constitution was signed.

I guess what I'm saying is, I doubt we'd leave. For all the red states call us pussies and tell us we're not "Real Americans" with "Real American Values", we consider ourselves to be more truly american than anyone, especially considering how I doubt most of the people who honestly believe that kind of crap have never read the consitution they so claim to defend. It's an intellectual document, a work of art from a time when the main form of government was a crazy monarch buying up hundreds of clocks and planting or cutting down trees.

I don't think I would care if they left much personally, for all that they call my state "Taxachusetts", the federal budget sends something like 65% of our tax revenues to the poorer southern states who laugh at us for having a social conscience, but I'd rather they just stayed quiet instead of parroting the latest political manipulation by those who have agenda's that require their support.

We have a beautiful place up here, the guy who bags my groceries makes about $11/hour, more than most college grads from Tennessee, where I used to live, and the college graduation rate is huge, probably close to 50%, so to those who call me a liberal weakling who doesn't stand up to government trying to take all their money, and who is driving us towards a social state, I disagree. I paid $100K in taxes last year, and consider every penny worthwhile, because I really love my city, my state, my country, and my way of life, and am willing to pay for it. To those who decry any federal influence or taxation, to those who decry our apparent lack of "true american values", to those why scream that we are "out of touch with the american mainstream", can you say the same about yourselves?

There are few states in the country where I see the American dream as fully realized as Massachusetts. I know more first generation immigrants putting their children through college or grad school and creating new dynasties of success here than all other 12 states I have lived in combined.

So, if any states really want to leave, go in peace, I love my country as it is, thx.

What about SpaceX?

[puzzled]

  Buying Soyuz when SpaceX is here? Oh, wait, can't actually admit that commercial is 7% the cost of NASA efforts, now can we.

http://www.spacex.com/

  I'm going to assume this is more bozorific NASA politics unless someone can explain why they won't use SpaceX for this job.

Re:What about SpaceX?

[YrWrstNtmr]

And SpaceX has flown how many orbital missions, exactly?

Re:What about SpaceX?

[william_w_bush]

Reliabity? Track record?

Soyuz has a very long and distinguished one.

SpaceX? Have they launched to leo yet? Will they be around in 10 years? 1?

How many successful launches have they had? What are their launch capabilities? Launch windows? Possible orbit packages?

It's rocket science, you go with what you know works, especially when you've got 2 shuttles out on a full count and the pitcher is a lefty.

Re:What about SpaceX?

[FleaPlus]

The plan is that as the launch services of SpaceX and other commercial providers matures, they'll be able to compete for commercial contracts to deliver cargo (and eventually crew) to the International Space Station. In fact, besides the Centennial Challenges competitions, this is one of the key ways NASA Head Michael Griffin is planning on fostering a commercial space industry.

From SpacePolitics, quoting a transcript of Griffin's recent announcement:

NASA has not had at its upper levels a manager or an administrator more supportive of commercial enterprise than I. We are base lining in the out years past the retirement of the shuttle, we are base lining commercial service to the station. That is the only known and knowable, at this point, market for those entrepreneurs that I have to give. We are base lining the use of that market for them and are providing, will be providing this fall a new procurement to try to stimulate that market.

That said, at the end of the day, what commercial means is, that it is not government directed. So, I can provide the incentive and I can provide the market that I have and commercial providers will either emerge or not. It is not acceptable for a publicly funded program not to have a way of meeting its mission requirements in the event that commercial operators do or don't materialize. So, the architecture that we have advanced allows NASA to meet its mission requirements, but also allows NASA to concentrate its resources on other more advanced activities if commercial providers can emerge in the next five to seven years. That is exactly our intent.

Our fondest desire would be to keep NASA on the very frontier of space activity, letting commercial provider fill in for those activities which are not frontier activities. We will be putting some money where our mouth is.

What Europe?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's too simple. Europe is not a nation, and there certainly are nations that have had no problem in getting resources. The fact is that the US is so much larger - but not greater. The EU is just forming, in a few decades we will have the US beat. We're 500 million versus their 300 million people. Oh, and our economies are almost the same size. When we add another country or two - we'll be larger in every way.

Re:What Europe?

[CyricZ]

And what will happen a couple years after that when the economies of India and China mature to the point where they trump those of America and Europe several times over?

Who cares about managers?

[Savage-Rabbit]

The really interesting question is to whom will they outsource lawenforcement and national defense?

Re:Who cares about managers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully, not to Singapore and France.

Re:Who cares about managers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexico and Guatemala, respectively.

Yes

[YrWrstNtmr]

It is a short term solution to a specific transportation problem. i.e. Get people and small loads back and forth to the ISS. It is not a Shuttle replacement, it is not a permanent solution.

It's akin to buying a clunker when your primary SUV breaks. Either you can limp along with something old and small, or you can walk to work while you save up for a new car.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

1st error: using a SUV to drive to work.

Re:Yes

[YrWrstNtmr]

If your 'job' involves hauling a few people, and large bits of machinery, at the same time, then a 'truck' is likely a good option. No matter how you wish it to be true, the Hubble, for instance, could not have been launched via Soyuz.

Soyuz is great for what it does. It does not do everything, however.

Bad idea.

[Shivetya]

While I like the idea of continuing the space program the idea of allowing Russia off the hook for their behavior in regards to the Iranian nuclear program is not good.

Putting it bluntly no one in their right mind should trust Iran. Russia and China are doing this because they know that Iran will cause more trouble for the West before acting on them. While neither China or Russia are friendly to their own Muslims that gets totally brushed over by the Islamic extremist in Iran. Iran is quite willing to trade the lives of fellow Muslims if it gives them power, this means kissing off those in Checnya and other places.

A Nuclear Iran will be a nightmare for Israel, Europe, and the US in that order. Trading for support to maintain the ISS is to high of a price.

Re:Bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

ya sure and by boycotting russia you give their economy a thrust so they won't need to sell any nuclear stuff to Iran...

Re:Bad idea.

[Edmund Blackadder]

"A Nuclear Iran will be a nightmare for Israel, Europe, and the US in that order. Trading for support to maintain the ISS is to high of a price."

And what about a nuclear Israel? Isnt that a nightmare for Iran and pretty much everybody else since Israel are not even a party to any of the treaties or negotiations meant to limit nuclear dangers? And how do you convince Iran to stop nuclear development when they have Israel right next to them with their nuclear weapons?

"Russia and China are doing this because they know that Iran will cause more trouble for the West .... "

Russia and China have absolutely no interest in causing trouble for the west. Russia has been trying to join the EU forever, while China's economy essentially relies on high consumer spending from the west. So does Russias. So neither of these countries is hoping for anything that may weaken consumer demand in the west.

The reason both Russia and China are helping Iran is because of the USs ever increasing aggressiveness in trying to assert control over the whole world. So while it is doubtfull they really want to hurt the US they do want to stop the US from asserting any control in or around their spheres of interst.

The attack on Iraq badicaly meant the US has decided to take over the gulf's oil resources. They already have control of saudi arabia, they attacked iraq which had the next highest ammount of oil ... and the next highest is ... Iran. Add to that that the US currently has troops in half a dozen of countries around central asia and the Caucases, you can see how russia and china feel that they are being slowly and surely surrounded by American troops.

Well Russia and China just do not want another US puppet government in Iran. I am sure they are not crazy about the Ayatollahs but at least they are quite confident that the Ayatollahs are not and will never be US puppets.

As far as nuclear dangers, the Bush government could have done several things that would have prevented a nuclear Iran. The first and most obvious thing was to get the nuclear test ban treaty which Clinton signed approved by the republican congress. Obviously they did not do that, and in fact did everything possible to encourage Congress to kill the treaty. The other thing was to stop all aid for Israel, until they admit that they have a nuclear arsenal and join the treaties which guarantee that countries with nuclear weapons will never sue them against countries that do not have nuclear weapons. Now this would derive Iran from any politically acceptable reason for developing nuclear weapons. Of we know that this will never happen. And finally Bush can just stop with their attempts to take over the world. Russia and China do not like the Ayatollahs and would not be helping them if there wasnt the american incursion in what they consider their spheres of interest.

Re:Bad idea.

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

-1 Troll, and about time too. Still, I can see this one coming up again and again, so heres a little perspective for you, cully. Heres a little snippet of conversation I had with an Iranian woman.

######: imagine
######: with one
######: just one
######: bomb they kill our wishes
######: our sense our lifes
######: our thinking

...

######: but
######: they can
######: launch bomb
######: cause we dont have
######: powerfull bombs like
######: theirs

Then she went on to tell me about her fear and distress, becoming more upset as the conversation went on. And just in case you thought Iran was another Afghanistan, my extraordinarily ignorant american friend, heres a wee taste of culture for you...

######: we have own musical instrument
######: iranian
######: u dont know them
######: we have tar
######: setar
######: tonbak
######: santoor
######: nei
######: daf
######: they r great

Fucking yanks.

Re:Bad idea.

[sznupi]

Russia would probably want the EU to join them...Putin wouldn't allow for the other way around...

Mod Parent Idiot

[william_w_bush]

Yeah ok, I'll just get my 4 guys together, pull the parts list off the internet and roll out a few FUCKING SPACESHIPS!

How complicated to build and design do you think these things are? How much money do you think we have?

No we don't have an An-124, it's the largest plane currently flying, built by the russians partly as an expression of national pride, and it cost shitloads. Only flies a few times a year btw, not a lot of people need that much lifting power.

We don't (always at least) blow money on giant phallic symbols of economic domination, it takes money away from real economic domination, and apparently you are too much of an idiot with regards to finance to understand that.

Global free-market economics is based on specialization, ie. everybody doesn't do everything, but everyone finds something to be good at, and if someone else needs to do it too you pay that guy to help you. It's why we make most of the movies in the world and kashmir makes all the nice knit sweaters, and columbia makes all the cocaine, specialization has oppurtunity cost.

Even if we decided today to make a cheaper soyuz-type launch vehicle, expect one ready to fly in about 8-10 years, counting design, validation, testing, certification, etc. That is unless you want a bunch of astronauts to jump into a tin-can, strap a giant rocket to their ass and hold their breath.

The shuttle took nearly 2 decades to become flight ready, and cost ... a real fucking lot, and still didn't fill half of it's original mission profile. Originally it was supposed to be a single piece to orbit vehicle, no boosters or external fuel tank or nothin'.

Unlike most things, this is rocket science, and logistics, and economics, and like 900 other things, and is much harder than throwing together a toaster.

Btw, Russia has had about 3 space stations in orbit during the 70's, 80's and 90's, including mir which was a surprising success. They are much MUCH better and more experienced at space than we are, which is why we had them help us with the ISS, just like we ripped off all of germany's experience when we started nasa and wanted icbm's. America is not the holy god of all everything, superior to all other countries in every way, though we do generally run the tables in most things. A lot of the time our experience and success comes from finding other countries that are very skilled at various fields, and ripping off their scientists and techologies, ie stealing britain's machinery expertise in the 19th century to build our own industrial revolution, or getting einstein, niels bohr (they had to call him nick during ww2 because niels was "too german"), werner van braun (warner brown), and everyone else from germany to build our atomic techonology, and space technology, and everything else.

Calling Russia a third-world economy is insulting and arrogant, and shows your ignorance/youth.

Re:Mod Parent Idiot

[zivan56]

> No we don't have an An-124, it's the largest plane currently flying...
Actually, the An-225 is the worlds largest flying plane; it was built to carry Buran (the Russian space shuttle). I fail to see how its only flying due to "national pride," as the Antonov design bureau had one fully restored due to global demand for large cargo transportation.

Re:Mod Parent Idiot

[william_w_bush]

my bad, had the two confused, the 225 is the Buran heavy lifter, the 124 is an actual functioning cargo hauler.

Re:Mod Parent Idiot

[ppanon]

Global free-market economics is based on specialization, ie. everybody doesn't do everything, but everyone finds something to be good at, and if someone else needs to do it too you pay that guy to help you. It's why we make most of the movies in the world and kashmir makes all the nice knit sweaters, and columbia makes all the cocaine, specialization has oppurtunity[sic] cost.
Actually most of the movies in the world are made in India (Mumbai/"Bollywood"). Hollywood may have higher gross revenues, but the Indian industry is much more prolific and their movies are much more widely seen (because their price point is lower).

Re:Mod Parent Idiot

[justins]

We don't (always at least) blow money on giant phallic symbols of economic domination,

If you pull the military portion of the budget out of the stack and roll it up lengthwise, it's sort of phallic. I'm just saying...

Re:Mod Parent Idiot

[pipingguy]

Calling Russia a third-world economy is insulting and arrogant, and shows your ignorance/youth.

The US is like an adolescent - full of piss and vinegar, invincible, wants to conquer the world.

Re:Mod Parent Idiot

[william_w_bush]

Yeah that's what I said...

My reply was that people who say "Why don't we just do everything cause we're the best people to do it" is relatively stupid. I'm against people who think everything is simple and obvious and they're the only one's who "really get it", but hey what do I know, I'm just an American.

Re:Mod Parent Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a dane, I just want to say that Niels Bohr was Danish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

Re:Mod Parent Idiot

[Halvard]

They are much MUCH better and more experienced at space than we are, which is why we had them help us with the ISS, just like we ripped off all of germany's experience when we started nasa and wanted icbm's.

Much of the space US/USSR race can be defined as a competition between two teenagers bragging about penis size (i.e. my space program/penis is bigger or better than yours). In this case however, it was my German rocket scientists/technology are better than your German rocket scientists/technology.

Because cheaper is better.

[mangamuscle]

I am really surprised that americans are not buying cheap chinese soyuz-clones, hell, I am surprised they are not hiring chinese astronaut.

Re:Because cheaper is better.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not after those hard drives went missing from Los Alamos. Oh sorry they were found stashed behind a photocopier.

Third world???

[HermanAB]

Uhh - last I checked, Russia has a trade surplus, while the USA has been running a trade deficit for longer than anyone can remember. Large parts of the USA is extremely backward and large parts of US cities are decaying (or now, covered in mud and water). Don't believe everything you see on CNN regarding other countries. CNN is not even reality television, it is more like show wrestling...

Re:Third world???

[Liam Slider]

Wait....because the US has been hit by two big natural disasters which have caused massive destruction to multiple cities....we are a backwards country?

As for CNN...that applies to most of the media in the world right now, not just CNN or American media.

As for "parts of the USA" being backward....doesn't Russia have parts that are backward? Hell, doesn't the EU?

Geeze, you make it sound like the US is a third world nation...

Re:Third world???

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly we are indeed a people of short memory. In nearly 5 years we've all forgotten about the good democrates can do. That's okay though because Bush was in office when we got attacked which instantly makes him the best president ever, no matter what.

Re:Third world???

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the US has been backwards in places forever. Every large country has areas that are underdeveloped. This is exploited by news crews doing propaganda shoots. Therefore, it is easy to make the USA look like shit on Russian TV and make Russia look like shit on American TV. In reality, both countries are rather similar.

Re:Third world???

[EiZei]

Uhh - last I checked, Russia has a trade surplus, while the USA has been running a trade deficit for longer than anyone can remember. Large parts of the USA is extremely backward and large parts of US cities are decaying (or now, covered in mud and water). Don't believe everything you see on CNN regarding other countries. CNN is not even reality television, it is more like show wrestling...

Heh, you have not seeing "decaying" until you have been to Russia. Officials are not paid, pensioners are pretty much abandoned, getting electricity during winter might be hard, corruption is rampant and they are going even more authoritian than before.

Honest commies are better than NASA

[Baldrson]

How could NASA be purchasing a space system developed by the system of communism which is a proven failure?

As I said when I was young and more prone to believe the system might work:

The Soviet government's effectiveness in space activities can, in general, be attributed to the fact that while our private sector is more effective than the Soviet public sector, our public sector is LESS effective than the Soviet public sector. Why this is so becomes obvious when you consider that the Soviet public sector has no private sector to tax -- any costs are born by itself, directly, whereas in the US (and other relatively free market economies) the governments have the luxury of becoming fat and lazy at the expense of the private sector.

It is a simple matter of accountability, the US private sector is most accountable for its costs, the Soviet system is next most accountable for its costs and the US government is least accountable for its costs.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[william_w_bush]

I disagree. Ever try to vote a communist premier out of office?

The Soviet public sector has an ENORMOUS economic base. In terms of actual resources, you have to realize that it's budget was roughly equal to the public and private budget of the united states combined, so putting 10% of that into a space program would be similar to putting 2-5x the total american federal budget into the space program. Also, the scientists have more "incentive" to succeed, when a failure means poverty, bread-lines, and possible execution.

In America, the politics of the budget and appropriations tend to screw the space program. It's hard to build a reliable launch vehicle when all parameters of its design and operation are mandated by a political board trying to satisfy their own constituents as a higher priority compared to the damn thing actually flying. For any of those commitee members, the possibility of forcing the shuttle to use launch base X means they can now raise funds from businesses profiting from that decision, making them more likely to stay in office. This is compounded by the fact that the decisions this commitee makes are changed very regularly depending on instantaneous public opinion, changes in the economy, changes in world politics, changes in national politics, changes in technology, changes in the private sector, ad nauseum extremis.

So blaming the public sector is very popular, but not always realistic, a lot of the time, the failure lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[shutdown -p now]

To sum it up: for large-scale scientific projects with low to no short-term ROI, planned economy fares better than free market. No surprises here. That's why the USSR was able to maintain its space development on roughly the same level as the U.S. during the cold war, while its economy was largely lagging behind elsewhere.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is brains and education. Russians had better scientists and engineers. The Soviet education system is the biggest casualty of the USSR break up. Of course it had the communist propaganda, but it also produced some of the greatest scientists of the last century.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[DECS]

Also include smaller scale, non-scientific projects that require a long term ROI: public transportation.

Public transportation in the US, like NASA, is similarly beholden to political pork barrel bullshit. It's embarrassing to compare transportation, urban planning and related quality of life issues in American cities to socialist or communist efforts that built effective, safe transportation systems.

That just happens to be another thing socialism delivers well. America has poured all its resources into building freeways, which destroyed urban centers and helped create the ugly suburban sprawl and associated parking lot hell.

Even in San Francisco, public transportation does not get built unless some political group is getting paid off. BART builds a heavy rail urban subway through low density 'burbs and erects gigantic parking lots designed to fit the bill of politicians' "bringing BART to my district" rather than creating effective transportation. Most recently, BART built a $4 billion extension to SFO, creating a long underground scenic trip to compete with the existing, faster, more direct Caltrain - which is also a publicly run (into the ground) system.

SF' MUNI is completing the Third Street rail extension into the poor Bayview district, but as a political handout, not to bring effective transportation. If they wanted that, they'd have designed it to be faster than the bus it replaces. Next up: the Central Subway, a billion dollar handout to Chinatown interests that does nothing to solve any transportation problem, and spends up money that could have dramatically improved transportation to the Richmond via Geary, benefiting Chinatown and SF far more than a super expensive project to nowhere.

All of which are examples of how American political dealing screws the public and rewards private sector contractors without any sort of fiscal responsibility. For the communists, getting people around was just planned and accomplished. Not an overall win, but score one for the red team.

An example of how to match the benefits of a free market with central government:

Have the government specify objectives and how good a public project needs to be, then bid the project out. Reward overall best bidding and proven ability to get (and keep) things working. Penalize contractors for failure, reward them for lowering costs.

In practice, the US government specifies what actually will get done, then often pays too much for public projects that veer out of control, then simply covers the overruns while paying bonuses to dysfunctional contractors. No accountability, no rewards for innovation.

American public works projects have, more frequently than not, been abysmal failures ever since WWII. Rather than guiding and using the free market to accomplish public works, politically self serving government plans are dictated like Fascism, incentives removed like Communism, but then private contractors are just handed the money. The government needs to do effective, high level management, and leave engineering to the private sector.

A porked American public project is worse than a Commie 10-year plan.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[What me a Coward]

Not quite

    allot of people are forgetting or are not aware of the early failures of the Soviet space program because of the fact that they weren't public about it unless it was a success.

    Several cosmonauts died in the early soviet space program, some during re-entry others on the pad during liftoff (See secrets of soviet space disasters which aired and does re-air on the history channel). These failures only started to become known after the fall of the soviet union. NASA may have lost some astronauts in the Apollo program but not as many as the soviets lost during this time. NASA went back and found it's problems after that and managed to prevent a later disaster during Apollo 13 to bring the astronauts back safely despite major damage to the craft. Not only that but the US program actually managed to make it to the moon while the soviets didn't. Do in no small part to the fact that their launch vehicle was designed to use 34 small engines which had most in the launch stage that all had to fire at the same time to get a straight launch something they never were able to get to work. The US on the other hand used larger engines that needed fewer int the launch and subsequent stages making it easier to get the engines to fire at the same time 4 large engines instead of several smaller engines. After the US beat the soviets to the moon the engines ended up in a warehouse till after the fall of the soviet union when i believe they were purchased by the US.

    The Soviets also built a shuttle but never got it into space before the fall of the soviet union they managed to get as far as glide trials on the back of a soviet aircraft similar to our first trials before launching our first shuttles into space. Theirs just took to long to build and costed to much and in the end they were able to do much more for less with the old soyuz capsules. In the future it's looking more like we may be using space elevators anyway to bring our cargo and people into space where most of the cost and danger are removed by not having to go through the costly dangous and resource wasting launch phase.

    I think it's not that the commies are better than NASA it's that both had better easy launch vehicles back when the soyuz and Apollo capsules were made with more of a drive to achieve the goal and less concern over the costs back then which after reaching the moon the focus in the US changed from doing it to OK why keep doing it and spending the money when we could spend it at home trying to fix the problems of earth (meanwhile most of this money ends up being spent on anything and almost everything but that to benefit the rich and thoughs crooked people in government). Cost became more and more of an issue and NASA was under more and more pressure to perform with less and less and to do it more often. Launching on extremely cold days when logic should have told them not to and o-ring designers told them they shouldn't. Then they fall back into pretty much the same pattern that lost challenger and end up loosing Columbia as well simply because they became complacent and gave into pressures from budget concerns. And as i said before the soviet disasters were just never talked about like they never happened. Plus it helps when you don't have to justify your costs and expenditures to congress or the public because their is no congress and the public doesn't have a voice unless they wanna end up in a Gulag or shot. So you can spend all you want on what you want at least till your economy collapse because it could no longer support the expenses from a communist style government.

    In the end both were flawed and both had and have their problems which costed lives. NASA became reckless and made mistakes which costed lives but was very public ensuring that they would do things to fix or try to fix the problem, whereas the soviet leaders just didn't seam care about cosmonauts who died other than to make sure that information didn't leak out especially to the west. Both also had produced very good launch vehicles after much expense and loss of some or several lives and both could be argued that they were safer than todays shuttles.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[tftp]

Also, the scientists have more "incentive" to succeed, when a failure means poverty, bread-lines, and possible execution.

There was no poverty in USSR. There were no bread lines since... 1920's, I think, or the World War II. There were lines at all times, but only for luxury goods. Nobody was frivolously executed since Stalin died in 1950's; Stalin haven't even lived to see the Sputnik. Stalin's successors, Khruschev and Brezhnev, turned the country into society of law, not any different from other countries.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[Tablizer]

It may be that Apollo capsules could perform the same duty, but NASA forgot how to build them and dismantled the needed tools. Russia simply kept with a true-and-tried technology. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't (when you get left behind the technology curve). In this case it worked. The US chose shuttle technology, which proved to be a general failure. If we had the hindsight, maybe Apollo would still be alive.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[gothfox]

Ever try to vote a communist premier out of office?

Try to vote democratic premier (e.g. a corporate whore) out of the office. Just to be replaced with another corporate whore. Same difference.

Also, the scientists have more "incentive" to succeed, when a failure means poverty, bread-lines, and possible execution.

Strangely, I don't remember any lines or poverty until USSR started to fall apart under good old Gorbachev. Some things were hard to buy, yes, but no lines for basic stuff.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[dbIII]

by the system of communism which is a proven failure?

Because the political ideology is usually completely irrelevant to engineering. When it is relevent we get things like challenger exploding, becuase the work is split up to porkbarrel multiple electorates and you get two parts instead of one in the earlier design and faulty seals between them. With the russian space program the objective was the space program - with NASA it was never so clear (hence splitting up the constuction to ensure vote winning jobs in different areas and the weird attached on the side compromise of the shuttle in the first place).

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[sznupi]

Interesting...because in Poland there was poverty and bread lines even at the beginning of the 80's. Also people were executed up to then. Society of law...well, people were equal when it comes to the law...but some were more equal then others. And PL was often considered "bloody west" by Soviets...how in USSR could be better?

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[sznupi]

You missed the point...there were obviosly regions/groups that had to deal with bread-lines and poverty...and Soviets could decide if you and your family should belong to them or not.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[sznupi]

A bit arguing...

Yes, Russians lost a lot of man...but most unrevealed was of the type "accident during assembly at launch platform", in which workers, etc. died. If astronaut died, it was quite public... (and we started this discussion from safety of the Soyuz after all, ergo: during mission ;P )

And do you really think that Soviets haven't improved also? You know, serious Soyuz accidents were only at the begginning of the programme, and practically the same serious malfunction never happened 2 times...

And I don't understand the point about Saturn vs. N1 (not to mention some facts are wrong). NASA simply made better decisions when it comes to the realities of race (any race): they took simpler approach. Yes, N1 was a total failure, but the Russians made the decision of taking some very risky design path. Overall the idea behind the engines of N1 wasn't bad in any more sense than Space Shuttle is bad - its quite marvelous actually when properly implemented...but this needs more time, resources (for more tests/test launches) and money. Russians didn't havy any of it. And this resulted in problems. And BTW, your descriptions of problems is BS, it was vibrations/lack of understanding how engines would behave en masse that caused the problems (alone they are pretty good - so good actually that they bere bough a decade ago by some american and japanese companies for use in launch vehicles)

You know, you've lost me with the comment about russian shuttle.
Just look at the top raw of photos and say no more... http://tinyurl.com/7hz93
I'll just add...the Russian didn't have to use some cargo plane for test glides, their test vehicle had jet engines and was able to fly by itself. It took longt to build because it started much later (when it was clear the NASA is going for the Shuttle - so it was mostly political decision) and again - lack of funds.
"Theirs just took to long to build and costed to much and in the end they were able to do much more for less with the old soyuz capsules."
Uhmm...and why exactly NASA is scrapping Shuttle and going capsule way? From the precizely the same reasons! In that case (contrary to Saturn vs. N1), the NASA made a bad decision, and Russians unfortuantelly followed, but pulled out rather quickly (but anyway, Russian design was simpler/better this time; more capable and overall the types of failures that happened to Challenger/Columbia were impossible in Buran). Ironically they unfortuantelly didn't have the money to not pull the plug completelly and Energia died; if that wasn't the case they'd have the system NASA is building now (safe and robust crew vehicle/rocket + super-heavy cargo booster) 2 decades earlier than NASA'll have...

In the end, it's not really about NASA vs. comunism, but NASA vs. Russian Space Agency, and that's it. Sometimes one makes bad decision, sometimes the other.
And politics doesn't help. Quite the contrary. If you'll reserach into early stages of Shuttle programme, you'll see that political considerations made it the POS it is...
OTOH...Russian Space Agency had the "luxury" of having to fallow only one political agenda...but this agenda also sometimes had too much ego, and not enough resources to support it.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[gothfox]

there were obviosly regions/groups that had to deal with bread-lines and poverty

Name three. I traveled a lot through USSR (the european part, mostly, but anyway) when I was a kid and USSR still existed. I don't remember this. Basic stuff was always available, no bums no nothing. I remember that some regions had _higher_ standard of life (Latvia, etc.) than we had in Saint-Petersburg, but not lower.

When the foundation started to crumble, then yes, it all came down in pieces. I remember lines for basic stuff, I remember food coupons, all kinds of shit. But that was so called Perestroyka, when my country was getting fucked like there is no tomorrow and USSR was already defunct.

and Soviets could decide if you and your family should belong to them or not.

What soviets? We were all soviets, including me - your regular soviet kid. I honestly don't understand what are you talking about.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[sznupi]

Well, yes, the Euroepan part...you do realise that farer to East, the worst? (up to some point) And surely you must've heard about Gulags, with all basic stuff readily available for every happy inhabitant, when such institutions still existed... Sad there are still people who think that behind the Iron Curtain there was no poverty, unemployment or heavy crimes. Everything was there...just hidden. The fact that "general city public" was hit during Perestroyka doesn't mean it was nice for everybody earlier... Yes, Soviets. Soviets != Russians (or put any other nationality from any other of former republics here). In most places Soviets have similar range of meaning to Stalinists for example...

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[cheesybagel]

From what I have read, in the USSR they managed to produce large quantities of food, clothing, steel and other base products. They mostly suffered in production of electronics, automobiles or other so called luxury goods.

The system started to crumble when the USSR had an energy crisis (oil shortages) just before Gorbachev came to power. Then it all went downhill. The Far Eastern regions might have been poor, but in other countries such isolated regions are seldom rich either.

Their space sector was very prolific because they simply had more design experience for building rocket engines and there was plenty of competition pushing them forward, while research was shared. The Russians used liquid rocket engines for a lot longer. Their military rockets were huge (e.g. Proton) and there was constant and sanguine competition between Korolev, Chelomei, and Yangel, among others. They made competing designs for every proposal and the best was picked by the scientific commitee.

You could actually argue that NASA was less competitive and more centralized. Basically Werner made the top level design decisions, and then they farmed off the actual work to individual subcontractors.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[tftp]

I never had a chance to visit Poland, but I remember that Valensa was active around that time, maybe just beginning his career.

Poverty can exist only when someone is richer than someone else, and in USSR that was not the case - nobody could earn more than his neighbor, salaries were very much the same. If Poland somehow allowed some people to get rich, then it could not stay in the socialist mode any longer (which is exactly how it played out.)

Bread lines imply free selling of bread, but short supply of it. In USSR bread was always available, and it was not rationed, so there would be no point in forming a line for a product that is easy to get from any small store. Meat products, on the other hand, were in short supply around 1990, and you could stand in line for that.

how in USSR could be better?

USSR was more in control than Poland. The CPSU leaders knew well that bread and vodka must be always available, whatever the cost. I believe a good deal of grain was bought on the international market, but the bread was always available.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[sznupi]

But they were awful in managing that produced things...even though production was high in ceratin areas, a lot was wasted and often the regions producing things (you know, basically each countyr had certain "tasks": heavy industry and agriculture in case of mine) were lacking them in reality...

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[cheesybagel]

Yes, it is true that they had logistical problems distributing goods to the places which needed them most. That is one problem with centralized control.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[sznupi]

It couldn't be better...did you know that one of main express trains to Moscow, stopped in my little city? Why? Because it fallowed some obscure, non-used, single rail line, not going into innards of big cities whenever possible. Besides windows weren't exactly "clear". It was so much better here. And yet - it was bad. "Poverty can exist only when someone is richer than someone else, and in USSR that was not the case - nobody could earn more than his neighbor, salaries were very much the same." You've lost me here...I should post "ROTFLMAO" if I woudln't be emotionally connected with the issue and so...how sad it is :/

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[tftp]

I didn't say "better" - in fact, all East European countries, with Yugoslavia on top of the list, were seen as far advanced in terms of availability of fancy stuff. At that time USSR was quite dull and, as I said, one could have his daily bread and vodka but not much else.

You've lost me here...

Ok, maybe I should have said "when everyone is equally poor the poverty is not that obvious" :-) With an engineer earning 150 u.e. and a worker earning 250 u.e. there is not enough difference between the two, especially considering the difference in the required physical labor.

But it's all history now, with Poland and Russia moving in the same general direction but at their own pace.

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[sznupi]

Yeah, you were quite directly repling to my question why better...nevermind. But you still delude yourself if you think everyone was poor...and anyway somehow we get to my point - having bread and vodka doesn't do much for normal standard of living... And, IMHO, you delude yourself if you think they're moving in the same direction...look at Belarus and Ukraine, these two fronts of current battle illustrate good what I mean...

Re:Honest commies are better than NASA

[What me a Coward]

True the Soviets lost a number of men during construction of the launch platforms but as i had stated and is verifiable if you had watched (Secrets of Soviet Space Disasters on the History channel which does air in repeats) their were several accidents during actual missions that resulted in the deaths of cosmonuats more so during the early days of the soviet space program than during the early days of the US space program. Some cosmonuats died during re-entry to earth even, which didn't happen with the US Space program till the early part of the 21st century with the columbia disaster. Yes the deaths of US astronauts was quite public but the deaths of soviet cosmonuats wasn't thats kinda the point the US program successes as well as failures were very much in the open which was not so with the soviet program which ended up producing the soyuz capsules. Yes this started out about soyuz during missions and that is why i made the statements i did the early soviet program wasn't any safer and indeed was less so than the early US program which does argue against the statements about the commies being better than Nasa, you know the main title of the parent post in the subject header which itself argues against your statement about this not really being about Nasa vs. comunism (I mean how could you make such a statement when the very parent post has that in the subject header?) I mean comeon how stupid do you think i am making a statement like that when the parent subject header says that. That was the whole point of the parent post that commie's are better than nasa and hence why i posted to argue that no they weren't for the reasons i pointed out in my post.

Ok i lost you on the comments of the soviet shuttle mainly i guess because you didn't make the connection partly due to your own inability to see the reason in it i guess. What i was trying to say is that the reason Nasa went to the shuttle was to try and cut down the cost of going to space with a re-usable space shuttle and was hence the reason the soviets started work on their shuttle but because of not being able to see it through to making use of it because of the colapse of the soviet government it was abandoned or rather never made use of during the soviet space program which i guess looking back was a good thing as neither the US nor soviets were really ready for shuttles. The fact that older soyuz capsules are better or rather simpler and hence easier to use than the current US shuttle shows this but it doesn't show that commies are better than nasa quite the opposite in fact. Nasa was better with it's early US program than the soviets were with their early program and the fact that the US actually got shuttles made and put into use earlier and was able to make use of them while the soviets had to fall back to soyuz also shows this. But the fact that Nasa couldn't make the shuttle work without failures and disasters (both of which were the result of pressure put on nasa with an ever shrinking budget to continue to perform and have ever increasing success with less and less money to do so with) was more the cause of politics not of nasa itself so the comparison that soyuz which is arguably a simpler craft from an ealier time and much easier to use without problems isn't a fair one given the circomstances. I don't know what my ealier post about the soviet shuttle has to do with you linking to it has to do with me saying no more? I never said they didn't have one in fact im the one that said they did so the statement and link is redundant. The reason nasa is scrapping the shuttle i think has more to due with ever increasing public attention being paid to shuttle launches looking for any and every little thing that could spell a disaster for that mission and making a very public deal about it even though the US shuttle program had only 2 failures in over twenty years of launches which resulted in deaths of astronuats is pretty good when you think about it compared to the early soviet program which as i said had several deaths during l

Re:I've just been laughing so hard

[WilliamSChips]

If the states around you seceded, you'd probably secede. Especially during or before a possible war. Read: North Carolina(which is actually where I live) during the Civil War(which is a misnomer, but that's another story).
Although I think CyricZ's scenario is actually referring to the entire US collapsing, since that's what would happen if the liberal states plus the South left. The remaining states would probably not be able to hold themselves together.
Oh, and I'd say that the US government is quickly turning into what the Founding Fathers said to overthrow.

Really humble.

[miffo.swe]

I didnt imagine the US and NASA have it in them to be humble enough to admit it has failed to produce a usable space vehicle. The NASA had really good tech but abandoned it for the cooler looking but useless space shuttle. Looking back the space shuttle must be the stupidest decision ever made in human space exploration history. Hopefully this meens no more dead americans and perhaps NASA can shape up and make rockets instead of flying PR machines.

No one to blame but ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

This just makes me sick. To think that I sat with my uncle, who skippered the most advanced nuclear submarines in the world, and watched American astronauts make that first landing on the moon... And now we're reduced to buying Russian space craft just to make it to low earth orbit.

Even more sickening is the fact that I can't blame it on Bush and his pro-faith/anti-science political machine. Of course, Reagan got pro-faith/anti-science started, so maybe we can blame more of it on the Republicans. But, shit.

Hey, remember when we could laugh at a good Onion article like Russian Scientists Announce Six-Month Delay in Carving New Space Station? Those were the days, right?

I hope those Russian engineers haven't taken their eyes off the ball the way we have...

Moon by 2018

[biraneto2]

Looks like NASA is giving another step further to achieve the moon by 2018. :) Wouldn't it be a veeery big irony going to the moon by the means of russian technology?

If you're talking about NASA managers...

[ThomasFlip]

probably not.

1,600 successful launches (read a BOOK.)

[kulakovich]

Geez. Will some of you take up reading already? 1,600 successful launches makes the Soyuz the sturdiest vehicle Homo Sapiens has going. We'll have Klipper, and the CEV up soon. Until then Soyuz is a perfect choice. Quit yer bitchin'.

kulakovich

Re:1,600 successful launches (read a BOOK.)

[pimpimpim]

You mean the russian-developed Kliper I guess? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper (with european investments as well).

aw crap..

[N3WBI3]

Does this thing have a setting lower than mute? --Brian the dog..

Bye Bye indigenous American manned space pgm

[gelfling]

See in the end what we were good at was high profile single purpose missions because we convinced ourselves we could spend and do whatever it took to get there. But now we see that the Amerikanskis are rather bad at the utilitarian aspects of space engineering.

Good idea!

[lonesome phreak]

The new design of NASA's next (or second-next) manned program is going back to more of a capsule design anyway...so really why not use Soyuz vehicles until our own capsules are ready to go? NASA has already basically admitted the capsule idea is safer and cheaper anyway for our level of tech.

Personally, I would much rather be sent to the ISS in a Soyuz than go up in a Shuttle. The ride might not be as comfortable and roomy, but my chances of surviving are far higher. It might be a bit cramped, but that's far better than flying apart on re-enrty due to having a too-complex system.

I watched some C-SPAN where NASA was talking about the new safety measures they implemented with all the cameras and such. Honestly, it's cause people to freak out more than it does to pacify due to the ability to see all the little problems that occure during lift-off that normally aren't seen. NASA had to explain a dozen times that "that's normal wear-and-tear, people" because the press was worried about all the little problems no one have ever really looked at before because of the new camera system. The good news is that most of the manuevers they did to fix it all are brand-new and never before done, and has given NASA much needed experience in dealing with space-based repair.

Get Real

[WindBourne]

Off hand, I would say that you are trolling. This story has NOTHING on it that is troll. It is purely about us having an alternative way into space. This story fits into space better thananything else. In addition, zonk (or the submittor) provides a quick background (why the senate voted to ban doing business with Russia).

If you posted logined, I would suggest that /., nuke your account.

Re:Get Real

[tftp]

a quick background (why the senate voted to ban doing business with Russia)

A quickest background would be like this: US Senate found that the ban banned USA from manned access to space. No wonder it got cancelled. Russia is currently the only country with a practically working space program, and it has the upper hand by definition - until the STS is fixed, or until China revs up its own manned spaceflight. My bet would be on China.

Simple

[WindBourne]

Support GWB at every posting. The vast majority here are NOT leftists. The vast majority of points are going to far right wing conspirecy type ppl who blame everything on Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, or FDR (notice a pattern there?).

Re:Simple

[bhiestand]

who blame everything on Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, or FDR (notice a pattern there?).
C, C, J, K, T, F...
C, C, J, K, T, F...
I don't see it.

Wait, maybe you mean numerical pattern:
68, 68, 74, 75, 84, 70.

Still don't see it.

Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, FDR..
Womanizer, Do-gooder, War President, Womanizer, Do-gooder, War President!!!

Was that it?

Re:Simple

[WindBourne]

Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, FDR..
Womanizer, Do-gooder, War President, Womanizer, Do-gooder, War President!!!

Was that it? ROFLMAO. Thanx. That was funny.

Re:Simple

[tomhudson]

*B*ill Clinton
*J*immy Carter
Lyndon *B*aines *J*ohnson
*J*ohn F Kennedy
Harry S Truman
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Only 2-1/2 BJs - Damn - the "much suckage of male members" theory was looking good for a minute ...

Re:Simple

[FidelCatsro]

I think I have found the connection . They are better present than the current President of the USA
Though not quite as much as Bush .. ranked 54th best president .. so i guess he can't be that bad..oh wait

Re:Simple

[bhiestand]

I think I have found the connection . They are better present than the current President of the USA
Yeah, this coming from FIDEL CASTRO. If you wanted to shock me you could've praised capitalism and christianity.

I'm not going to argue about who is or isn't a better president because I don't really have any objective method of measuring such a thing. All I'm going to say is that President Bush is very, very good at what he does. I'm just not quite sure what he's doing all the time, and many of the reasons are eluding me. He's obviously quite good at it though, otherwise he'd never have been elected twice. And don't give me that crap about stealing an election. Even if that's true and all he did was stuff ballot boxes, he's damned good at it! Right now he's the best out of all the politicians, and that takes SKILL, my friend.

All that being said, it'll be really interesting how history views this in 20 years. Some presidents have presided over absolute fucking chaos. Lincoln is a great example of this. Brutal marshall law imposed against the citizens for a war many thought was stupid and pointless. Hundreds of thousands of casualties. A horde of DARK PEOPLE unleashed upon society! But our opinion now is that it was the Right Thing (TM) because it ended up in a way that we feel benefits us and is better than the alternative. Only time will tell how this affects the future. We may end up thinking it was a huge blunder, and we may end up praising the man for his convictions. One thing's for sure: As the older generations die off, the younger generations will get older, consider themselves wiser, become more conservative, and start worrying about the younger generations.

My money is on the USA doing the same thing it did in Vietnam. Stick with it for a long, bloody time, then get fed up with it and pull out at JUST the right time so that massive repercussions await those who allied with us. Ever talked to someone who managed to escape south vietnam in its final days? I have met quite a few. Their story is usually along the lines of "I thank you for what you did for us, but I don't know if I can ever forgive you for what you did to us." Basically that we pulled out, entire families were brutally slaughtered all over the place, especially for their support for America. A lot of people that escaped were the only survivors in their family. Why? Because America gets sick of dying for other people. Even if its the only thing keeping those other people alive. Also because politicians, in the end, cater to the largest and loudist lobbying groups, and nothing is fucking louder than a group of war protesters.

I'm not saying whether any of this is right or wrong. I'm not saying whether America's leadership is a bunch of assholes or heros. I'm just saying that these are things that people need to rationally look at, preferably without the political blinders on, and discuss the ramifications of. And then keep in mind that most of us are probably wrong.

Not likely

[WindBourne]

It is the USA managers and CEO that have placed america where it is today. I seriously doubt that any none american company wants that. Here is a HINT of how our leaders are doing:

who is the top CEO that ran up a large deficit at the only company that ran, and had to be bailed out by Saudia Arabia, and now has THE top post and is again running up the world's and historical largest deficit? That is where managers are leading us today. Also check out United, US Airways, Delta, Northwest, The steel industry, shortly Boeing, clothing manufactuers, etc. About the only ones doing OK is big tobacco, and big oil. And I think that both are about to change.

Definition of winning the Space Race

[crusty_architect]

I guess this really does define who has won the space race. When you have to go buy the other guy's space ships to keep flying, you really are conceding defeat. Not really any different to buying Japanese cars or Chinese cordless drills. They do it better, cheaper and more reliably. Not meant to be a troll, just a statement of (sad) fact.

Re:Definition of winning the Space Race

[MissingDividends]

Definatly have to agree with you there. Still can't figure out why they cant just add something batween the "killer foam" and the heatproof tiles...

Re:Definition of winning the Space Race

[Midnight Thunder]

Truth I really feel that if we, as humanity, spend time in space then we are all a winner. The only ego that really needs somewhere to go is that of humanity as a whole. If friendly races and competitions help us eventually get beyond the outer reaches of our solar system then it will have been healthy. Just don't let personal egos get in the way of the the one that really needs some support.

Re:Definition of winning the Space Race

[Anonymous Coward]

As a sometimes confused and disenchanted Russian-American, thankyou sir. More people need to hear this.

Welllllll......

[jpellino]

The Soyuz record is "Near 100%", true. But that's not 100%. Neither record is 100%.

We had Apollo 1 on the pad (3 dead) - they had R-16 on the pad (over 90 dead).
We had Challenger and Columbia, both fatal flights (14 dead), they had Souyz 1 and 11 - both fatal flights (4 dead).
We had a near miss on Apollo 13, they had one on Soyuz 5.
We each tossed a space station into the drink, arguably prematurely on both accounts.
Both have a full compliment of Charlie Foxtrot flight moments, and ground crew / training fatalities.

The usual rhetoric includes references here on /. such as "nasa's core competencies whish seem to be killing astroanuts in groups of seven" is glib and gratuitously derisive.

Re:Welllllll......

[Edmund Blackadder]

yeah but the last Soyuz fatality was in 1971. Since then they have designed new versions and the ship has been the workhorse of the russian space program with no fatalities. I think that is a pretty good safety record.

But I agree labeling NASA as astronaut killers is irresponsible. Spaceflight is just dangerous.

Re:I've just been laughing so hard

[william_w_bush]

Oh, and I'd say that the US government is quickly turning into what the Founding Fathers said to overthrow.

Nobody should ever type that on a computer connected to the internet.
The world has real repression and political persecution, places where ever trying to type things like that would buy you a short trip to a painful execution (Talibanistan comes to mind).

Even the founding fathers would have been executed for that, under the heading of sedition against the state(=king) and treason. It's terribly fashionable and insanely cliche to say how much the government is screwing us and how badly we need to change it, but unless you plan to pick up a rifle and walk down to your state legislature, or file a damn petition or even distribute a pamphlet, your "hehe, fuck the govt, hehe yeah" bullshit attitude is a joke.

Have you read the constitution? Not like in school, but really? The best part of america right now, or really ever is the argument always continues. Federalist vs. Nationalist, Socialist vs. Liberatarian, Laisser-Faire vs. Regulatory, these fights have never been authoritatively settled, because there is no right answer, and as long as people keep fighting about it, we stay in the happy medium. If the country starts moving too far to one side, it suffers and inertia builds to push it the other way. That is the system the founding fathers built, and I imagine they'd be surprised as hell to see their delicate balance lasting 200 years and governing 300 million people, when most governments before lasted as long as the king survived, and governed maybe 10 million.

The founding fathers built a system that learns from experience and tends to promote successful thinkers in a way that no other system has been proven to do even remotely successfully. You want a place where your point of view always wins and never is contested? A place where your interests are always respected because you are the only person who really knows what's right? Go to Africa, become a tin-pot despot in charge of some democracy in name only.

America is the triumph of majority over the dissent of the individual, which is a lot more stable and evolutionarily successful than the reverse, and the only people who say otherwise are the people pushing you to hate and fear the rest of america so they can tell you "oh, but support me, and I'll make all your problems, caused by all those other evil people go away, I promise".

What the founding fathers would be pissed about is the shallowness of modern american politics, and that isn't the fault of the us government, it's because of the shallowness of the us citizenry.

Re:Stop The Politics Stories!!!! --Oh I dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that it is an interesting counterpoint to the article a few days ago in which military folks were quoted as saying something to the effect that "you can't win a war without space"

I, for one, welcome our soyuz-borne overlords.

NASA and Commercial ISS Transport

[FleaPlus]

It's worth noting that NASA has also previously announced that they will be offering commercial contracts to US companies for transportation of cargo and eventually crew to the ISS. These would be fixed-cost contracts for services rendered, rather than the more traditional cost-plus contracts which reward inefficiency and waste. Unfortunately, none of the US companies are where they need to be yet, although it's looking like SpaceX should be there in a few years.

From this article:

NASA will soon solicit offers from firms interested in delivering cargo and crew to the international space station (ISS), but NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said he wants to buy services, not dole out development contracts to newcomers who were shut out of the competition to build the space shuttle's replacement. ...

Griffin said he also would like to see a robust commercial space transportation industry take root and thrive, and said the best way for NASA to help is "to utilize the market that is offered by the international space station's requirement to supply crew and cargo as the years unfold." ...

Griffin promised that NASA would give priority to non-government services should they become available, although he cautioned that deliberately "under utilizing" a NASA-owned and -operated system could encounter resistance from lawmakers intent on protecting government jobs. ...

Another difference between a traditional government contract and the deals Griffin hopes to make is that they would emphasize "performance rather than process." While NASA would insist on "certain standards," Griffin said "It's not up to me as the procurer of that service to determine how the engineers working for you, the provider, provide that service." ...

Charles Miller, president of Constellation Services International, said he was "enthusiastically looking forward" to NASA's crew and cargo solicitation. Constellation Services Internationals, Woodland Hills, Calif., is developing what it calls the LEO (low Earth orbit) Express standardized cargo container, which could launch atop virtually any rocket, as an affordable, near-term solution to NASA's space station re-supply needs.

Elon Musk, president of Space Exploration Technologies, said he was "definitely encouraged" by Griffin's remarks. "This is a market SpaceX has been interested in for a long time," Musk said. ...

The Difference

[everphilski]

The difference is in the trends. Both Soyuz accidents happened early in the life cycle and were addressed. They havent had an accident in how many years? That's a very valid metric that is completely in Soyuz favor. There are other factors that leave the ball in the Soyuz court as well. Cost is a huge one.

-everphilski-

Re:The Difference

[DerekLyons]

The difference is in the trends. Both Soyuz accidents happened early in the life cycle and were addressed.

Both Soyuz accidents? I can think of over ten right off the top of my head - all of them pretty evenly scattered across the life of the program to date.

Oh, right - like most uninformed people you seem to think that accidents are only important if you kill people. That's an emotional arguement, not an engineering one.

They havent had an accident in how many years?

It's been three years since the failure of the flight control computer on TMA-1. (A failure the Russians have yet to comment or provide a report on.) It's been two years since the docking incident on TMA-2. (Recontacted ISS after undocking. The Russians haven't provided a report or comment on this one either.) It's been just over eighteen months since the uncommanded pyro activation on TMA-4. (And like TMA -1 and -2, the Russians are busily pretending it never happened.)

That's a very valid metric that is completely in Soyuz favor.

It's an emotional argument, not a metric. The metrics pretty clearly state that Soyuz safety and reliability are little better than the Shuttles in some areas, and far worse in others.

There are other factors that leave the ball in the Soyuz court as well. Cost is a huge one.

Care to state those other factors? (Cost is a red herring - Soyuz is cheaper, yes. However the differences in performance are astronomical - I.E. apples and oranges.)

Re:The Difference

[everphilski]

I define "accident" as a catastrophic failure, not as missing a/some mission objective(s). You can have a successful mission even if you miss a/some mission objective(s). It's not the one you wanted, but that's why space is still considered "a frontier".

One huge factor is reentry stability. The soyuz capsule is inherantly stable. Once it performs a retro burn it is set to go. Natural aerodynamic stability (just like Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, and hopefully the CEV). The shuttle has no such thing. If it loses power, we lose the shuttle. That is huge. Another factor is that the Russians use the same and similar launchers/flight hardware/flight computers to launch Progress computers. Now I know, while a system is a sum of its components the unique combination of its components will lead to uniquenesses in the system, but having the additional flight time on those components gains experiance and system use time.

The Russians also have much higher flight rates in general. Shooting rockets isn't a special event to them it is the status quo.

I'm not knocking the shuttle - it was a good piece of hardware, and honestly the two accidents that occured were due to management errors. But the Soyuz system is a good system with a lot of merits and is honestly where we should have went post-Apollo (and is where we are going with the CEV).

-everphilski-

Re:The Difference

[DerekLyons]

I define "accident" as a catastrophic failure, not as missing a/some mission objective(s).

That's an emotional definition, not an engineering one. Even so, let's look at the record: Soyuz-1 and -11, both fatal. Two catastrophic failures of the booster. The nearly fatal re-entry on TM-5... That's 5 catastrophic failures on 93 flights. That's not a pretty picture.

Now I know, while a system is a sum of its components the unique combination of its components will lead to uniquenesses in the system, but having the additional flight time on those components gains experiance and system use time.

That experience has given the Russians no advantage. Both the Soyuz booster and the Soyuz spacecraft (which are different craft despite the name) have a failure rate that has remained steady over time, rather than decreasing. Additionally, the failure rate is not significantly different than any non Russian booster or craft.

The Russians also have much higher flight rates in general. Shooting rockets isn't a special event to them it is the status quo.

Which explains why the Russian booster sucess rate is around 99.1%, and the American booster sucess rate is around 99.00%. That's a difference of one part in one thousand - statistically insignificant. (And the Soyuz spacecraft has flown only 93 times - compared to 113 times for the Shuttle, despite the Soyuz flying for over a decade longer. You can't really count Progress in the Soyuz statistics, as they are significantly different - especially as Progress does not re-enter, which historically is where most of the Soyuz accidents and incidents occur.)

'm not knocking the shuttle - it was a good piece of hardware, and honestly the two accidents that occured were due to management errors. But the Soyuz system is a good system with a lot of merits and is honestly where we should have went post-Apollo (and is where we are going with the CEV).

The problem is, the Soyuz isn't a system that's any better than the Shuttle. Period. It has an ongoing record of significant problems, many of which have come close to killing the crew.

Re:The Difference

[cathouse]

The preceeding post is quite clear and AFIK correct in pointing out the inherant stability of the several capsule systems and also re the lack of such stability in the Shuttle.

What needs to be made clear is that such stability is common to all BALLISTIC flight just as the *lack* of such stability is essential to all DIRIGIBLE flight.

A stable vehicle cannot be *steered* and a steerable vehicle will not be stable. A shuttle type vehicle is unlikely to land on a mountain top as did one early Soyuz capsule, but the price of control must always be less stability.

Evaluating trade-offs will always be a thankless job with the knowledge that no matter what you decide someone will always say you were wrong.

Troll or not the sharpest spoon in the drawer?

[everphilski]

- SpaceX hasn't launched to LEO

- SpaceX only makes boosters

- Noone currently makes a capsule (man rated, cargo rated, whatever) that mates with a SpaceX rocket.

If you could link to their website, I presume you could take a minute to read about their engine testing program and lack of actual (sub-orbital or orbital) flights.

-everphilski-

TV and film outsourced

[Anonymous Coward]

to actors from 'lapdog' countries

"A" people at "C" prices

[Tablizer]

So you want "A" people at "C" prices? It's traitors like you making excuses to bypass US workers to save a buck. You want to do to technology what was done to farm work, and we will see farm-worker salaries. Fuck You!

Re:"A" people at "C" prices

[tftp]

Well, Sir Business Genius, let's say the customer pays $100K to design the $FOO, and the prospective employee wants $200K/yr, and the job takes exactly one year. Where will the missing money come from?

Re:"A" people at "C" prices

[Tablizer]

Well, Sir Business Genius, let's say the customer pays $100K to design the $FOO, and the prospective employee wants $200K/yr, and the job takes exactly one year. Where will the missing money come from?

Why do they expect that price? What are they comparing it to? Overseas companies? If we put tarrifs on the buggers, then cheap labor won't pay anymore. We should not offer open trade unless they purchase an equal amount from us. Defecits just make for nasty bubbles anyhow. Thus, "normalizing" it with tarriffs simply does what the market will do anyhow, but with less swings. Risk is part of investment decisions also, just just raw cost. The US used to have far higher tarrifs, and there is no objective evidence that it hurt our economy back then.

Re:"A" people at "C" prices

[tftp]

You are asking very good questions. I don't have all the answers. But here is what I understand myself.

Take, for example, the government purchases. The customer (the US Government) is, by law, required to award the contract to the lowest bidder. So if you want to bid you have to come up with the lowest possible price, and if you don't - then you get nothing. So the market pressure (that free market thing, you know, that something that determines the cost of goods) is often defining the price. In this sort of game you either half-starve your workers, winning marginally profitable bids, or starve them completely, by going out of business. That's how things are; smaller businesses, without lobbyists, run very lean here.

More often, though, the customer (the government) has the budget allocated already - such as "we are building the bridge from here to there, and here is $5M to do it." Then the cost is predetermined, and the bidders compete in cutting corners. One popular corner to cut is the cost of labor force...

But government orders are a world in itself. We don't need to focus on those. Let's have a look at something more common, like selling stuff to other businesses. For example, you hire 10 engineers to develop and maintain a Moogle Search appliance for Intranet searches etc. - you know what it might be like. The engineers are employed full time because you add new plugins for new data types all the time, and you update the box from time to time. With $80K per soul, all the overhead taken into account, you burn through (80K / 12)*2*10 = 130K per month, or $1.6M per year, and that is a very rough number (your overhead is higher than that.)

Now, let's assume each of your Moogle Boxes is sold for $3,000. You then have to sell (130K/3K) = 43 boxes per month, or two per business day, just to make it even. This rate does not include any advertising, any taxes on profit, any salary to you personally, as a business owner, any warranty costs, any sick pay, or anything else of that sort. It doesn't even include cost of parts that go into the product.

As you can see, the cost of labor is immense. This is the greatest expense a US-based business carries, and it is recurring, and it is growing. Note that a business is usually spending on a worker about twice of his salary because of taxes and benefits and insurance etc. etc.

If you need to hire just one worker at $200K/yr rate this will set you back about half a million dollars by the end of the year. It is up to you to decide if you can get out of this worker anything that you can sell to compensate. In most cases it is not possible because of one simple reason: the employee is overpriced. Basically, a normal human can't produce anything worth of giving him ten new cars every year.

So what do we have here? We have the very reason why it's practically impossible to manufacture most products in USA. The labor costs kill you. For example, it will cost you $5K to make a most basic TV set. How can you sell that? No way. You are out of business.

You definitely can trace this reasoning back to its roots, financial and historical, and untangle the whole sorry mess. The premise stays the same - the labor of an american (or generally Western, since Europe is not behind at all) worker is too expensive compared to the value of goods he produces. That, in turn, is because he is paying mortgage on his $2M home, and that is because the land was appraised at $1M and the construction company charged him $1M to put some lumber together, and that is because... etc.

This explains why only specific types of businesses remain in USA - such as service, and military, and ultra-high-tech. China can manufacture a whole alarm clock, with radio and LED and everything, for the equivalent of 30 minutes your work time. Can you produce this clock, out of thin air, within 30 minutes? If not then you are overpaid; your true labor price, per hour, is equal to the cost of goods you can manufacture per hour.

We

Shuttle safety DECREASES over time

[Vitus Wagner]

Shuttle safety doesn't remain same over time. It decreases. Precisely because shuttle is reusable, and each of them gets worn out with each flight.

Soyuzes are built freshly for each launch, so each time it flies, it is brand-new system which may or may not have improvements in technology.

Re:Shuttle safety DECREASES over time

[MichaelSmith]

Shuttle safety doesn't remain same over time. It decreases. Precisely because shuttle is reusable, and each of them gets worn out with each flight.

But the O rings on Challenger and the foam impact on Columbia were once off events on (mostly) disposable hardware. The Shuttle ET is new for every launch. The leading edge TPS is inspected and maintained after each flight.

Both spacecraft were brought down by an invalid assumption that a particular problem (cold affected O rings, foam seperation and impact on the TPS) were not a significant risk.

If each Shuttle had been totally new these disasters would still have happened.

The most recent flight (Discovery) was probably the safest shuttle flight ever because workarounds were in place for known problems. Not the ideal situation, but better than having more unknown and untreated bugs in the system.

You are completely wrong about An-124's

[ktulu182]

No we don't have an An-124, it's the largest plane currently flying, built by the russians partly as an expression of national pride, and it cost shitloads. Only flies a few times a year btw, not a lot of people need that much lifting power.

They were built to carry miscellaneous military and civilian equipment like a couple of tanks or Buran buster. They fly every day, and carry anything from Sony Playstations to US military shipments to Afganistan. Volga-Dnepr Airlines has 10 An-124's in active use. New An-124 would not cost more than 80 millions of dollars - this can be hardly described as "shitloads" for the plane of its size. You might try to tell american military or u.s. companies like General Electric and Lockheed-Martin that they do not need this kind of lifting power, though they are not likely to listen to your advice.

So please stop being an idiot, and do not bullshit me and everybody on matters you have no slightest idea about.

Re:You are completely wrong about An-124's

[william_w_bush]

Someone else pointed that out, I apologized. I confused the An-225 (designation condor?) with the An-124, a, still very large cargo hauler. It's been a while since I read up on soviet-era cargo jets, my bad.

Wow... I wrote like a bunch of shit regarding the nature of scientific expertise, specialization in a global economy, design and production cycles, and you come back to me with "Oh yeah, well that's the wrong plane!"

Anything? I mean innovation in the global economy is a huge subject in itself, with many contested theories, not counting the neccessity of a body like NASA to keep developing new vehicles to ensure a strong base of expertise.

Cause, I mean yeah it's the wrong plane, but I mean wow, you missed the real argument 2 exits back on the interstate, cause it's really about NASA having completely lost it's global relevance by focusing too much resources on cold-war programs that are no longer economically or politically feasible. Spending money on a Soyuz program buys them 2 things: time, to support the ISS and continue spaceflight without their primary launch platform, and expertise, from the soyuz to build a more efficient launch system capable of serving nasa's current needs safely and economically.

Just saying.

Re:You are completely wrong about An-124's

[cheesybagel]

The USA actually has a military airplane in that weight class with a similar configuration to the An-124: the C-5 Galaxy.

It is just that the US military added so much useless fluff to the requirements, it made the cost of a C-5 Galaxy ludicrously expensive compared to the much more cost effective An-124. The result is that the An-124 gets used for civilian cargo transport, and the C-5 Galaxy is for the military only.

Now check the dates

[SmallFurryCreature]

When was the last fatality with the soyuz? How many decades ago do you say? Many a /.er wasn't even born yet?

The entire space race is more about propaganda and carefully chosen facts then about real accomplisments.

I see it very simple, US has the money, USSR got the tech. The cold war is over so why no cooperate for once. When the two worked together before they succesfully killed a lot of germans. Maybe the new US operated soyuz will be a commercial sucess. Or maybe it will crash on germany. Either way the world wins.

For interest of full disclosure, any country that started two of the two world wars should not now seek a seat on the security council. The proper role for such country is to be quiet.

Re:Now check the dates

[jpellino]

Yes, I understand when and the respective rates. Much of this discussion has begun to sound like "NASA kills astronauts, Russia doesn't." That impression is not true.

Soyuz /Progress are lifeboat and tugboat respectively. They are not attempting anywhere near what the Shuttle is capable of.

Plus, it may work but it's hardly the path to what we eventually want to do in space. Ever seen any photos from inside a Soyuz? There's barely room to get a camera far enough away from you to take a picture. Three people, as much room as a subcompact front seat. It's a three day have-to trip, not a want-to. The pressure suits are secured with a giant rubber band. I'm not making this up - watch SpaceStation IMAX and Sue Helms suiting up for a ride in the Soyuz.

Soyuz as it stands won't go to Mars, it won't go back to the moon. It can't even approach doing things like satellite capture and repair.

Renault made the model 4 and the model 5 side by side as late as 1992, the 4 being a 60s throwback but it worked, sliding windows and all and it cost very little money. This is parallel to the use of the Soyuz.

But it's not the path to the future.

Re:Now check the dates

[Anonymous Coward]

"It can't even approach doing things like satellite capture and repair."

An almost unused ability.
IIRC, it has been used on about five missions, most in the 80s.
When day dreaming about fun stuff, it's all good to talk about the coolest and most capable machines, but the reality is that they are often not a good choice/solution.

Near Perfect?

[sr180]

Just to be picky, is there really a such beast as "near perfect". From where I see it, if it has had any failures at all, then it is NOT perfect. Something is either perfect, or not perfect. Anything that you call 'near perfect' isnt perfect at all .

Bureaucracy? Over complexity?

[Black.Shuck]

Maybe we should hand over the space-programme to Apple?

It is too bad they are betraying our principles

[tknn]

It is sad that they have to support a government that is increasingly authoritarian, that supports our enemies (or soon to be enemies) and violates nuclear non-proliferation. We couldn't buy a Japanese launch vehicle instead? We couldn't insist that they cease aiding Iran as a condition of buying billions of dollars of space equipment?

Re:It is too bad they are betraying our principles

[meringuoid]

It is sad that they have to support a government that is increasingly authoritarian, that supports our enemies (or soon to be enemies) and violates nuclear non-proliferation.

Hilarious, coming from (we can only assume) an American, from that land of inviolable freedoms and religious adherence to international treaty obligations.

We couldn't buy a Japanese launch vehicle instead?

Nope. Chinese, maybe. You reckon they're better? Only the USA, Russia and China have operational manned spacecraft. It's pretty obvious that the Shuttle can't be relied upon, and the Chinese are only just getting started in this business. You want a reliable manned spacecraft, you fly Russian.

Japan and Europe both have some very nice rockets, and are pretty damn good at flying robots, but neither has ever gone in for manned flights (although ESA did once put a good deal of work into a spaceplane called Hermes).

We couldn't insist that they cease aiding Iran as a condition of buying billions of dollars of space equipment?

I doubt it. Iran is likely paying the Russians rather a lot for help with their missile programmes and nuclear power project. After all, they've just seen what happens to countries that the US takes a dislike to that don't actually have real WMDs with which to fight back. Unless the USA wants to buy a whole hell of a lot of Soyuz launches, I think you're going to be outbid on this one.

pedant alert

[Cally]

columbia makes all the cocaine,

Actually, it doesn't. Other countries exporting significant quantities of cocaine include Peru and Bolivia.

Clarification on the 1,600

[jpellino]

That's the record for the Soyuz FG lifting body - not for manned missions on the Soyuz T/TM/TMA.

High tech is _coming_from_ (going to) Russia

[egork]

In space research it comes from Russia, just to remind you. Remember, who was first to launch a sputnik? :-)

Just had to say it.

Re:I've just been laughing so hard

[WilliamSChips]

Well, I've read the constitution, and it is amazing that it's held this long. And I didn't say it was at the rate of tyranny yet--but it does seem to be coming dangerously close with things like the PATRIOT act(which needs to be taken to court, to prevent such a thing from going any further--let's just hope that Bush doesn't take over the courts too). Censorship seems to be winning out in America--just look at any /. story about violent video games or porn. The CDA(which was overturned, thank $DEITY) contained a provision to ban debates on abortion.(see http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/CDA.html) I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican government tried that again--now that Republicans in specific, and pro-censorship politicians in general, control all three branches of government(making a judicial overturn much harder), freedom-lovers need to be twice as vigilant as before. Yes, there are many, many governments much worse, but acting like the US is immune to becoming like that is helping the US become like that. I know it's cliché, but "The only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

They should fund the CXV

[xiphosuran]

http://transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pro jects.view&workid=CCD3097A-96B6-175C-97F15F270F2B8 3AA

A proposal to use an air-launched booster, possibly the SpaceX Falcon V, to launch an Apollo-type four man capsule that can reach the ISS.

Productization, not R&D

[smithmc]

  I like to think of the United States being the world's R&D department. We come up with the ideas, bungle them, and then someone else picks it up and does it properly.

I think it's more like: some other country comes with a fledgling new technology, we discover it, and figure out how to make a product out of it that we can make money on. Then, we reap the profits while the margins are high. Later, when the product becomes a commodity, we leave it to other countries to start banging 'em out.

The Brits invented the computer, but we're the ones making all the money. The Germans invented the automobile, but until 20-30 years ago, we were the ones making all the money, and now it's the Japanese and the Koreans. Ditto for the jet engine, the television, etc.

The key to the US economy is the ability to find The Next Big Thing, and turn it into a moneymaker. One can only hope that our current Bible-thumper-influenced government will not stifle biotech and genetics research to the point that we lose our opportunity there...

Aaaah ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you subscribe to the same bestiality site as me?

Re:Aaaah ...

[Anonymous Coward]

But believe me on sunscreen...

Three Words = Robotic Hubble Mission.

[jpellino]

They haven't needed it since the solar max and hubble servicing missions, until recently with Hubble's diminished capacity - and what happens? People start talking about some imagined robotic mission to service the hubble again as if it were a near-term possibility. That's the daydream/

Only no such robotic capabilities exist, while the human/shuttle servicing missions are proven solutions.

The last statment is simply derision masking as glibness - ask a pilot or astronaut if they think the reality is that the "most capable machine" is "often not a good choice".

And it's really a question of decision making and nerve - apparently we're planning to go to the moon in a gilded Apollo replica, when a week earlier almost none of us thought we needed to go to the moon. But it makes headlines and "Returning to the moon is an important component of the President's Vision for Space Exploration." Who knew.

Rusia the better tech...

[PermanentMarker]

Wise from Nasa to buy more advanced tech then they have. The russians, have still the only turbo charged rocket engine, with an afterburner, in the world. As always it's hard to admit that another nation might be sometimes better in science.

NASA To Buy Soyuz Vehicles

[jaq1an]

Never thought I'd see the day when NASA would be seeking to buy the Russian Soyuz in order to keep flying. I think its great that NASA has to buy the Soyuz in that they are a bit a huble pie here. Wasn't that long ago that the US space program looked down on Russia & MIR. At the same time its a terrible indication of how bad things have become in NASA. Stalin must be laughing in his casket.

Nuclear Israel

[Teancum]

In case you havn't noticed, Israel has had nukes for several decades now. They got them in a seemingly unhold alliance with South Africa (pre-Mandella) and Taiwan. All three of those countries have nukes now, although none of them openly proclaim the fact. All three are seemingly surrounded by enemies and only very distant geographical allies.

I even got a codename for you: The main Israeli nuke is called the "Jericho". I think it is an appropriate name as well, at least from a historical perspective. I think they even have one call "Gamorrah", but I'm not so sure on that last name. All told, I think Israel has about 50-100 nukes in their arsenal. There are many reasons why there hasn't been a major war in the Middle East involving Israel since the 1973 war, and the nukes are one of them. Think about it and do some research if you think I'm wrong.