Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
So....
IT is outsourced to India
Manufacturing is outsourced to China
High tech going to Russia
U.S. will supply the world's managers?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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 ...
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.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah ok, I'll just get my 4 guys together, pull the parts list off the internet and roll out a few FUCKING SPACESHIPS!
... 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'.
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
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.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
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...
Oh well, what the hell...
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.
Seastead this.
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.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
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
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.
"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 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.
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
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.
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).
/., nuke your account.
If you posted logined, I would suggest that
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.