Slashdot Mirror


Russia Wants To Work With NASA On a New Space Station

HughPickens.com writes with news that Russian officials are talking about working with NASA to build a new space station as a replacement for the ISS after its operations end in 2024. Igor Komarov, head of the Russian Federal Space Agency, was unambiguous in his support for such a partnership. He added, "It will be an open project. It will feature not only the current members of the ISS." NASA, while careful not to discourage future cooperation, was not so enthusiastic. They said, "We are pleased Roscomos wants to continue full use of the International Space Station through 2024 -- a priority of ours -- and expressed interest in continuing international cooperation for human space exploration beyond that. The United States is planning to lead a human mission to Mars in the 2030s, and we have advanced that effort farther than at any point in NASA's history. We welcome international support for this ambitious undertaking." They reiterated that there are no formal agreements in place as of yet. These comments come as three crew members arrive at the ISS, two of whom will be up there for an entire year.

152 comments

  1. call it the Ukraine-2 by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    or something like that.

    1. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, the situation in Ukraine isn't the doing of the folks at Roscosmos (I'm guessing mostly scientists, engineers, managers and administrators like Nasa), but you can be sure otherwise mutually beneficial cooperation will an early casualty of the political fallout. Too bad. I'm surprised all cooperation hasn't already be suspended actually. Politicians mustn't have got around to it yet.

    2. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe a more American name - DroneBrownPeople

    3. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, Putin is pushing for IKillEveryoneWhoDisagreesWithMe. Yeah, unwieldy, but in russia it appears everyone finds it really catchy...

    4. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe a more American name - DroneBrownPeople

      You stupid race baiting bigot, the US will drone terrorists of any color. Did you forget the US fought the Germans, Italians, Japanese, North Koreans, and Vietnamese, all within living memory?

    5. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      they call ukraine "new russia"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

      i suggest the usa call kamchatka "new alaska"

      china can reclaim outer manchuria they lost to russia in the mid 1800s

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

      fuck you russia, imperial bullying douchebag

      we should not be doing any space program with these assholes, we should be shutting down programs

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      Well, the situation in Ukraine isn't the doing of the folks at Roscosmos (I'm guessing mostly scientists, engineers, managers and administrators like Nasa),.

      Why? There was a military installation in Ukraine - the rocket testing facility or something. All the personnel was nominally military and really scientific. When all this Ukrainian crisis began all they were to be sent to Donetsk to kill "vatniks" and "kolorads". They plainly refused, were fired and I believe they work for Roskosmos. We Russians are in need of good personnel.

      PS. Vatnik is a derogatory term for a person incurably poisoned with Soviet Communist propaganda ("vatnik" was a jacket with cotton heat insulation worn by Soviet soldiers and inmates). Kolorad is a derogatory term for Donetsk rebels due to similarity of their insignia to a back of Colorado beetle.

    7. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      If you know the history you should know that the historical Ukraine is the minuscule part of modern Ukraine, while Novorossia and Crimea attached to it by Tsars, Bolsheviks and Khruschev. And the last piece was Sevastopol annexed from Russia in 90-s.

    8. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      if you know your history, the area is ottoman, tatar, lithuanian, polish...

      history can be used to justify any ignorant adventurist shit you can devise

      what's actually important is the fucking borders of a fucking sovereign nation, and that modern states respect that

      you didn't notice the imperial bullshit russia did on georgia in 2008?

      russia is doing imperialism 1850 style. it needs to be, and will be, punished for being a stinking pile of destabilizing shit because of insecure nationalism. oh glorious russia has fallen from historical highs, boo hoo. and it will fall further now

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      What Russia did to Georgia in 2008 is a continuation of what Georgia did to itself in the early nineties. It was the same story as in the Balkans. Besides, as funny as it may sound, Russians were sort of the good ones in 2008. The then-president of Georgia saw his popularity dwindling and wanted to boost it - especially within the nationalist circles - with a little war on the break-off population which was de-facto independent for 15 years.

      what's actually important is the fucking borders of a fucking sovereign nation, and that modern states respect that

      You are very funny. Even Germany here has been bombing several foreign countries in the past 20 years, forgetting the "never again war" concept as soon as USA called. Any respect for borders of a sovereign nation only exists when it is politically convenient.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    10. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      What Russia did to Georgia in 2008 is a continuation of what Georgia did to itself in the early nineties

      i stopped reading there

      russia has no right to invade a sovereign country. do you understand? of course they have a "reason." do you have a functioning brain? can you see through their bullshit?

      russia meddled in an *internal* georgian dispute that occurred within the internationally recognized borders of georgia. then it divided the country into a "new" bullshit country abkhazia

      is it ok if the usa invades the mexican district of sonora and announces that it is a new country? why can the usa do this? uhhh... drug smuggling. yeah, that's our reason. perfectly good reason, totally understandable, right moron?

      what was russia's reaons for invading georgia? guess what: it has no fucking right to invade and divide a sovereign country on those hopped reasons. do you understand what sovereignty is?

      can the american fbi go into canada and arrest people? no? why not. can the us army occupy ontario? why not? because canada is a sovereign country, you dumb fuck

      why do you think it's perfectly normal and ok for russia to invade and divide it's smaller neighbors? it's not normal. it's not acceptable

      no country, anywhere in the world, does what russia did to georgia and ukraine without consequences. not south africa and mozambique. not china and vietnam. not brazil and uruguay. countries do not invade other sovereign countries and that's just normal and fine. do you understand?

      if you do, continue speaking on this topic. but if you continue to assert russia invading and dividing georgia and ukraine is "reasonable" then you do not understand what the fuck sovereignty means and are therefore announcing yourself as a complete moron or a propagandized idiot on this topic and you should shut up

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    11. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      i stopped reading there

      And this is a part of the problem. Saying "la la la I can't hear you" doesn't change the facts. Kindly read completely, then respond.

      russia meddled in an *internal* georgian dispute that occurred within the internationally recognized borders of georgia. then it divided the country into a "new" bullshit country abkhazia

      Abkhazia is not a new bullshit country, it is, in fact, a very old one, but it is a different history lesson. Russia meddled in an internal Georgian dispute because, among the civilians in Tskhinvali, their peace keeping forces stationed there were also shelled. That is the official reason.

      is it ok if the usa invades the mexican district of sonora and announces that it is a new country? why can the usa do this? uhhh... drug smuggling. yeah, that's our reason. perfectly good reason, totally understandable, right moron?

      Was it okay that USA has bombed Serbia - a sovereign country - into submission and divided the country during the civil war, recognising a new independent country there? Even though Kosovo has been a part of Serbia for almost a thousand years? This has set a dangerous precedent. Meddling on other civil wars (Lybia and Syria quickly come to mind) hasn't helped the argument about internal affairs of a sovereign country either.

      can the american fbi go into canada and arrest people? no? why not. can the us army occupy ontario? why not? because canada is a sovereign country, you dumb fuck

      In fact they can. CIA routinely abducted people, torturing them in secret prisons (some of them were on Poland's soil, and these bastards call themselves Europeans). Guantanamo bay is full of them.

      no country, anywhere in the world, does what russia did to georgia and ukraine without consequences.

      Well, apparently this is not the case. See my example above with Serbia. Invading sovereign countries and topple governments, meddling in civil wars, bringing suffering to civilians is a favourite past time of NATO countries. USA, UK, Germany, France, Turkey, Poland, Australia and many more.

      By the way, Georgia and Ukraine also took part in the Iraq invasion. For them it was just normal and fine, because their big brother USA has asked.

      if you do, continue speaking on this topic. but if you continue to assert russia invading and dividing georgia and ukraine is "reasonable" then you do not understand what the fuck sovereignty means and are therefore announcing yourself as a complete moron or a propagandized idiot on this topic and you should shut up

      Sovereignty doesn't mean much really if a strong enough country decides a military action is in order. That is what we in Germany call "die Realpolitik". I am personally not happy about this at all, but, unfortunately, when it comes to international relations, might makes right.

      And speaking of internal problems, since Russia is the legal successor of USSR and the breakup of it was processed... well, let us say, not exactly constitutional way, one could, being a devil's advocate, argue, that it is an internal problem of Russia and all these countries are just illegal separatists. Somewhat far fetched, but the breakup was really handled bad, leading to several wars (The aforementioned civil war in Georgia, then Transnistria, the Armenia-Azerbayjan war, Tajik civil war, wars in Chechenia and Ingushetia, the current situation in Ukraine, which was bound to happen sooner or later and so on). This is why I can only sadly laugh when I see people here on Slashdot say that the breakup was peaceful.

      I speak Russian fluently, although, obviously, with a German accent, and have visited several former Soviet republics (going to Ukraine in two weeks BTW) and east European countries, this - and being born on the other side of the Iron Curtain - gives me a somewhat different perspective on all that.

      P.S. there was really no need for insults there. We both are grown-ups and can hold a polite discussion.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    12. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sovereignty is forfeit when you become a nuisance to those around you. The fact is Russia knew without a single doubt that they could re-claim Georgia and Ukraine and not face any real consequences. The Europeans are still pitiful when it comes to protecting any old Warsaw pact countries. And if Europe believes they can sit on the sidelines and hold the Americans coats while they do all the heavy lifting they are in for a surprise. US military power is know relegated to the protection of the US sovereign territory. Let the ME burn itself out. Maybe when the dust settles the survivors might be a tad more tolerant of those around them.

    13. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      You know what?
      Fuck you and the horse you rode on in.
      You lack reading comprehension, you have no experience in life, you are myopic, haven't seen different countries, don't speak different languages and only know what your school books have told you. You are grandstanding about sovereignty, but in your eyes sovereignty is only important when it is about oh so evil Russia. Other countries may invade at their will, because it is apparently a different sovereignty.

      Talking about Czechoslovakia and Austria, but have you been there? Do you speak their language? I've been there and I bloody do. Have you ever seen what a civil war is like? I have.

      And here you are telling me that I am not your equal? Well, guess what, I am not. I am better. I have seen more, I have known more. You are a disappointment, really. Now bugger off my lawn.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    14. Re:call it the Ukraine-2 by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      ah yes, when dealing with an intellectually dishonest individual, one encounters upset resistance rather than the simple ability to concede a point

      you're welcome for the education on sovereignty

      Other countries may invade at their will, because it is apparently a different sovereignty.

      and where the fuck did i ever say that you dumb shit? are you talking to me or some made up boogeyman in your head?

      delusional AND stupid

      it seems the german education system is failing its children as much as german mental health facilities are failing its pilots

      zero respect to you. you are not an equal. you are a child

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  2. Why do thei retire the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do they retire the ISS? Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to keep it in orbit and expand/maintain what we already have up there?

    1. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes you just need to build from the ground up. Look at the cost of maintaining old buildings for historic purposes vs demolition and new.

    2. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The materials are not radiation rated for much longer than 2024, and we simply don't know how long some of the seals will last.

    3. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they should send up Sea Lions to do the job!

    4. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by Chuq · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking ... even if all modules eventually get replaced, Ship of Theseus style. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      - Chuq
    5. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sometimes you just need to build from the ground up.

      That's gonna be difficult for a space station.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    6. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Where do you think they built from all of the other times?

    7. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      There is a Russian nationalistic joke:
      Q: Why did the Russians send the Tajik (variant: Moldovian) cosmonaut to ISS?
      A: To replace the ceramic floors there.

    8. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.
      Hilariously enough, despite how much that huge chunk of materials cost, it was still designed pretty cheaply and corners cut.

      NASA doesn't have a budget, it has leftovers.
      NASA was and still is the first series of Red Dwarf, shoestring budget at best.

      What could be done is new modules snapped on to the old ones, an airlock module could be between the old and the new station.
      There, now the old station is still in orbit and materials aren't going to waste.
      Now over time, the old station could be taken apart and remade in to something new UP THERE instead of letting it burn up in the sky.
      The first steps would be to take the old station apart and reconfigure it to make it more compact so it isn't as dangerous to manoeuvre it around via the new station bridge.
      After stripping old modules apart, some could be re-used for storage by reinforcing the hull of it using another module.

      There, just saved the space industry several billion, where's my damn job?

    9. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, I didn't realize they had seals up there! I would assume that at most there would be some otters...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    10. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by GreyFish · · Score: 1

      The station is exposed to full daylight and darkness each 45 min orbit. Apparently the thermal cycling caused by each hot/cold change forms microscopic cracks in metals so they are worried about the structure losing strength over time.

    11. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seals can be replaced. And I have no idea what "not radiation rated" means. If materials succumb like that, then they should be shielded better.

      The entire space station thing smells suspiciously like a welfare program for the military-industrial complex. You'd think that at $10000 per pound for launch costs, you'd keep materials and equipment running for as long as possible. But the ISS will be the third major space station (and the most expensive so far, at $150 billion lifetime cost) that we let get destroyed. You can't build anything industrially meaningful when you just destroy everything you build within 20 years.

      I used to be a space buff. Then I had to face the truth: Humans will never expand into space. Not like the way we're doing it. This latest effort to just jump off to Mars is part of the same unsustainable transport model. It's sensationalism that is just covering up the uneconomic-ness of the entire exercise.

    12. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Seals can be replaced. And I have no idea what "not radiation rated" means. If materials succumb like that, then they should be shielded better.

      The entire space station thing smells suspiciously like a welfare program for the military-industrial complex.

      Thank you mister "I have no idea". Replacing the seals would take a dismantling and reassembling project costing more than putting up a new station. Sending up more shielding would have probably also cost more than sending up a new station later. In the end, it's up there to do experiments enabling them to to build a new space station after twenty years so three can then build a better space station.

    13. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think that at $10000 per pound for launch costs, you'd keep materials and equipment running for as long as possible.

      Since the space shuttle was used to send up most of it, it's more like $30,000 per pound for launch costs. The ISS itself has cost about $150,000 per pound one way or another over its history.

    14. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      The space environment puts incredible wear on hardware. Remember that in LEO, it gets extremely hot, then extremely cold every 90 minutes (orbital period), and this puts a lot of fatigue on the hardware. It's unlikely that they'll keep the hardware around after the ISS hits end-of-life.

      OTOH, it'll be exciting to see what the US can do, with the availability of a 100 ton-class super heavy lift rocket. Maybe something with huge, pre-fitted Skylab-like modules? I'm sure they'll be looking for something with 1) may more capability, 2) way cheaper to build and launch and 3) way cheaper to maintain, as the current station requires huge amounts of work to keep running.

    15. Re:Why do thei retire the ISS? by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      What kind of radiation issues would you expect to see? Would that be anything like neutron embrittlement in nuclear reactors?

  3. Caution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Watch out for little green men showing up. Sure, they will claim to be locals just protecting fellow Russians, but it never goes well.

    1. Re:Caution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      “I stopped speaking Russian,” says a Russian-speaker.
      “Why? ..."
      "I'm afraid Russians will come to protect me.”

  4. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Station Spaces you!

  5. Time to support private space stations by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I know there are at least a few efforts at work on private space stations, including space hotels.

    To me it no longer makes sense for government to work on a space station, when they could be helping to fund private efforts by guaranteeing to lease some of the space aboard commercial stations for government use.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Time to support private space stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Come up with a business case for one.

      Balance the risks.

      It won't make sense.

  6. In short, NASA's response.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We really don't have the budget, and unlike roskimos, we normally don't make blatent proclimations of a project without getting some sort of funding first".

    If they had an actual roadmap of collaboration, ala: moonbase, la grange point, mining/self-sustainment, mars. I as a tax payer would be all for this. We don't need another LEO station that does nothing but a few microgravity experiments and human life science experiments, we know microgravity is harmfull, its a dead end. We need to develop stations that simulate their own gravity, we need to develop systems that can re-create our own magnetic fields for shielding and protection. We need to open the door wide open for fission for massive amounts of available power.

    Without any of these three things man kind is gowing no where but LEO....and thats the bottom line.

  7. Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprised Putin doesn't want to work with NASA on missil--er, new rockets and peaceful technology like that.

  8. Need the ISS by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2

    If the US wants to go to Mars for more than a single short mission, it's going to need the ISS or a replacement. We'll need to be able to build ships in orbit so they aren't limited by the constraints of the first hundred or so miles of the trip (lifting the ship up from the surface to Earth orbit), that's the only way we'll be able to build them large enough for the crew, supplies and equipment needed for a mission of more than a week or two. And if we want this to be a sustained thing, sending more than a couple-three missions, we're going to need to be able to build ships without shipping the majority of their components up from surface.

    We can already see the parallels from large historical construction projects in the US. For Hoover Dam they didn't ship the concrete in from the nearest cities and they didn't have the workers commuting between the dam site and those cities. They set up the cement plant on-site to make the concrete from local materials and a town sprang up at the site to house and supply the workforce. For resources (silver, gold, timber, cattle, oil, etc.) it's worked the same way, people moved to where they were needed and the facilities and infrastructure to house, support and feed those people grew with the population. Because frankly you just can't run an oil field in Texas with all your workers and suppliers back in New Orleans.

    1. Re:Need the ISS by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I strongly have the feeling we'll see space elevators before we get to Mars. Moon will be before that, and probably in my lifetime.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Need the ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why I'm a big moon base advocate, the closest place for insitu materials off earth is the moon. Get to the moon and we can begin to set up our "gas stations" and infrastructre along the way for all the workers to get there in the first place..

      The hoover damn would have never been built if every worker had to build his own car, make sure it could get there on one tank of gas, build there own house once they got there, figure out how to sustain their own life support (growing food, power, ect) individually. Not to mention any hope of leaving or going back home if they wanted.

      We can't expect a build it and they will come approach, we need to develop a pipline to get there (and back) first.

    3. Re:Need the ISS by phayes · · Score: 1

      Who says ISS is better adapted to performing on-orbit construction better than something newer built for the purpose and without the political circus that comes with ISS? You?

      If, as hoped, Space-X brings it's MCT online with as few problems as the Falcon 9 has had, ISS's assemblage of bite-sized modules is going to look old real quick.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    4. Re:Need the ISS by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      Do you really think there are going to be humans in LEO turning bolts with hand-held wrenches, and that's how the Mars ship will be built? Did you not notice that even in the safety of Earth's factories, humans aren't really doing that kind of stuff anymore? By the time we get around to building a Mars ship, I doubt our automated manufacturing machines will be worse than now, and unlike humans, these machines can actually be designed to perform optimally in space.

    5. Re:Need the ISS by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Nah, permanent moon base and yep, free for all mines. You get there first and you stake your 1km by 1km mine and develop it within a decade, then it is yours. Want to stake a hundred, you had better develop them all and get them in production, else you will lose them. Think that is unfair, exactly how easy or hard do you expect it to be to develop a mine on the moon and that mine to start producing the materials for a larger moon base, a real space colony station and then a much larger space ship than people would expect for a trip to Mars, more a mobile space station.

      We can either turn inward and become slaves to the greed of the 1% consuming the planet to death or we can reach out to the stars, focus on a sustainable planet and space as the only opportunity for growth.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Need the ISS by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the US wants to go to Mars for more than a single short mission, it's going to need the ISS or a replacement. We'll need to be able to build ships in orbit so they aren't limited by the constraints of the first hundred or so miles of the trip (lifting the ship up from the surface to Earth orbit), that's the only way we'll be able to build them large enough for the crew, supplies and equipment needed for a mission of more than a week or two. And if we want this to be a sustained thing, sending more than a couple-three missions, we're going to need to be able to build ships without shipping the majority of their components up from surface.

      And the ISS will help how, exactly? The entire ISS came from the Earth's surface. Unless you have a really fancy plan to do asteroid/lunar mining, that's where all future materials will ultimately come from too. The ISS is way, way down in Earth's gravity well so if you could do mining you wouldn't build it there anyway. We can assemble a ship in orbit with or without the ISS, nothing really gets easier. What we're building must have a crew module, so any astronauts working on assembly can just live there. Not that I really see the need, the assemblies could dock like spaceships do and just interlock with bolts.

      Star Trek has ruined a generation's sanity when it comes to space stations. The only reason you'd want a space station is so you can have a ship come in for maintenance, repair, upgrades or refueling in orbit so they don't have to go down the gravity well. If all you're doing is sending ships out never to return, it's a total waste of time. Unless you get to the point where you have a shuttle taking things from Earth orbit and Mars orbit and returning for a refuel it doesn't make sense. And it probably doesn't make sense unless you can refuel in Mars orbit. Which means it's not happening in this century.

      Space stations are not like gas stations where you just drop by as you pass one by. Unless you're planning to be in Earth orbit, entering Earth orbit to dock with the ISS and deorbiting to get to your destination costs a helluva lot of fuel. And that is the crux of the issue, it almost never makes sense to build a waypoint into your route as opposed to just going to whereever you were planning to go in the first place. If possible you might not even want to assemble in oribt, just launch multiple rockets on the same trajectory and have the bits assemble in zero g before firing off to their final destination.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Need the ISS by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      And the ISS will help how, exactly? The entire ISS came from the Earth's surface. Unless you have a really fancy plan to do asteroid/lunar mining, that's where all future materials will ultimately come from too.

      Yep, it did. And yep, we will need asteroid or lunar mining of some sort to get raw materials. Like I said, we can't sustain orbital manufacturing and construction while lifting the majority of the materials and supplies from the surface, which means we'd better stop dismissing lunar and asteroid mining and such as sci-fi dreams and start figuring out how to make them work. As far as the ISS, it helps because it's there. A city doesn't just appear full-blown, and neither does orbital infrastructure. The ISS is a structure already in orbit you can expand to house more people, so that your workforce for the next step can have a place to stay in orbit rather than commuting to and from the surface all the time. It may be in low orbit, but the biggest fuel cost and the biggest constraints on weight and size aren't in getting from low orbit to high orbit, they're in getting from the surface to low orbit. And ultimately it'll end up being recycled into raw materials or basic parts for something else once it's no longer needed (for instance if the solar panels are still in working order they can be disconnected and attached to something else that needs more power capacity).

      No, it's not going to be easy or simple. Colonizing North America wasn't easy or simple either, but we did it. And as for Star Trek having ruined a generation's sanity, all it did was encourage them to set a goal and then figure out how to go about getting there. Though I'll admit that attitude does seem kind of insane to the couch potatoes. Not really my problem though, my entire career my motto's been "They don't pay me to not get the job done." and the older I get the less reason I see to change it.

    8. Re:Need the ISS by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      That's why I said "or a replacement". At the least, the ISS can serve as a construction shack while assembling that replacement, and as a source of parts and refined/processed raw materials to expand it's replacement. It's replacement may not even ever be truly separate, it may start as new modules attached to the ISS and once those new modules have enough space the original ISS modules would be disconnected and cannibalized.

    9. Re:Need the ISS by phayes · · Score: 1

      Who says that the best plan is to perform lots of lengthy construction in LEO? Beyond dwarfing the lift capacity of the modules that form ISS it may also render Mars direct (or almost - send up one with all the hardware & fill it's expansive resevoirs with a second or even third) preferable.

      As for reuse of raw materials, other than for consumables like water and maybe ammonia, there is little to profitably mine usefully from ISS for a Mars mission. If the seals are unreliable to the point they want to abandon ISS, nobody will risk lives reusing them as modules.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    10. Re:Need the ISS by itzly · · Score: 1

      If the US wants to go to Mars for more than a single short mission

      They don't. The only (poor) reason to go to Mars is to plant a flag. Mars is a barren wasteland, with high radiation, low temperatures, almost no atmosphere, and no easily accessible materials or water. Apart from the coolness factor, there's nothing to be gained from having a few people walk on the surface.

    11. Re:Need the ISS by itzly · · Score: 1

      We have plenty of 1x1 km areas on Earth that you can go mine for a lot less effort, but there's very little interest for most of them. On the moon, where everything will cost magnitudes more, mining is even less interesting.

    12. Re:Need the ISS by Kjella · · Score: 1

      which means we'd better stop dismissing lunar and asteroid mining and such as sci-fi dreams and start figuring out how to make them work

      Well then start there, not build the Enterprise and say "When we're ready to build the warp drive..." because even Mars One got more realistic plans for travelling to Mars than anyone got for lunar/asteroid mining.

      your workforce for the next step can have a place to stay in orbit rather than commuting to and from the surface all the time.

      The effects of radiation and zero-g, not to mention humane working conditions means you'd want to rotate the crew a couple times a year. Nobody will live in space any more than they'd live on a nuclear submarine, unless it's another massively shielded artificial gravity sci-fi dream.

      And ultimately it'll end up being recycled into raw materials or basic parts for something else once it's no longer needed

      Nobody has such plans for the ISS, if you don't want to spend $3 billion/year to keep it in orbit all the plans I've heard for it is to deorbit it into the Pacific.

      No, it's not going to be easy or simple. Colonizing North America wasn't easy or simple either, but we did it.

      Who we? The 15th+ century colonists who managed to settle in a land already inhabited by Native Americans in the south to Inuits in the north? You're talking about living in an area where humans have lived since long before we had any kind of civilization or technology. It doesn't even remotely compare to the hostility of space.

      Though I'll admit that attitude does seem kind of insane to the couch potatoes. Not really my problem though, my entire career my motto's been "They don't pay me to not get the job done." and the older I get the less reason I see to change it.

      But on a wild bet I'd say it's not NASA paying you... if I'm an armchair naysayer, you're an armchair quarterback. And if you worked for Ford, we'd all be travelling around in flying cars by now.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Need the ISS by phayes · · Score: 1

      It, being Space-X's planned MCT in case that wasn't clear.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    14. Re:Need the ISS by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The ships used for a mars colony should be re-used. Construct ship (at station), fill ship, send to mars, unload (at station), return to earth.

  9. The official Russian position: by duckintheface · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I propose that the United States delivers its astronauts to the ISS with the help of a trampoline." Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin
    http://bit.ly/1BSlzlo
    That's why the US can't trust the Russians to be part of a future joint space project. As soon as they have some leverage, they will use it.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:The official Russian position: by xfizik · · Score: 1

      How do you explain the fact that Russia is still delivering US cargo and people to the ISS?

    2. Re:The official Russian position: by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      One should not throw stones when one lives in a house of glass. US is currently massively leading in top politicians making stupid talking points just to advance certain agenda, ranging from the entire Iran ordeal to the current conflict between branches of government that made country half-ungovernable.

    3. Re:The official Russian position: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about, you dirty foreign bastard

    4. Re:The official Russian position: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's cheaper to buy passage than to maintain a costly program that does the same thing. The time and money saved can be put to better use in other areas like the development of the Orion capsule and X-37 class of reusable space planes. Running a taxi and grocery delivery service to the ISS is something the Russians can handle most of the time while also providing them with a source of hard currency.

    5. Re:The official Russian position: by dbIII · · Score: 1

      As soon? When did the last shuttle fly again?
      Yes they have leverage now but we handed the lever to them long ago.

    6. Re:The official Russian position: by meerling · · Score: 1

      And still the #1 nutcase politician running a country that isn't North Korea is still the shirtless russian by an entire furlong.

    7. Re:The official Russian position: by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Out of interest, what do you then call US leaders who reacted the way they reacted and continue to act when Castro took power in Cuba in an overthrow of massively unpopular US-supported dictatorship then? Or when he took USSR nuclear missiles?

      That country didn't even have direct ground access to US, nor had been used as staging ground for assault on US heartland several times before in the history. Let me remind you of an obvious fact: all countries do things that Russia does and much worse when they feel their survival is threatened.

      The best part is that you're massively anti-democratic with that statement - overwhelming majority of Russian people specifically support the current policy of Russia. Not the leader but his policy. Even pro-Western organisations doing polling in Russia are in full agreement with this. How would you feel about comparing US leaders to North Korean ones in terms of "sanity"? Because one could easily make the point that they are far more crazy. Whereas North Korean leaders are quite logical in their actions being driven by survival of their dictatorship in their country, US leaders are often driven by severely conflicting interests that end up hurting the country itself as they feud with one another.

      Please remind yourself that "insanity" and "not being pro-Western" are only synonyms in propaganda.

    8. Re:The official Russian position: by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Money, lots and lots of money, billions of dollars of money.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    9. Re:The official Russian position: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The danger today is that people do not recognize the difference between democracy and populism. One is a participatory system with checks and balances that allows dissenting views to be aired without punishment. It is by no means a perfect system but it tends to work most of the time and it does evolve as the world around us changes. The other is a system where right and wrong are determined by emotional impulses that produce chaos and unrest but rarely result in any positive changes. A system where the number of tweets and "likes" determine right or wrong instead of factual information. Add in the fact that a lot of people also do not understand the difference between "privacy" and "anonymity" which has created another emotional way point which that has so far not created any positive results or changes. You can't shit can the NSA unless you do the same thing to all of the other intelligence services in the world. Until that happens the NSA should continue and expand it's foreign intelligence programs without pause.

    10. Re:The official Russian position: by xfizik · · Score: 1

      In other words, Russia fulfills its contractual obligations despite all the politics and actually CAN be trusted.

    11. Re:The official Russian position: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:The official Russian position: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  10. Why does it need to be replaced? by BlueCoder · · Score: 2

    Please explain to me why it needs to be replaced? It's took a lot of money to get all that weight up there in the first place. As an engineer I want to reuse and expand and not throw anything away.

    NASA can't build tin cans that can survive in space for a hundred years? There are planes from WW2 that are still flying and those rattle. And yes I can understand that they can turn into swiss cheese but that's what patching and welding is for.

    Hopefully at some point Elon Musk will be able to back away from the day to day operation of SpaceX and start recycling and manufacturing facilities in space. Things get at least a hundred times cheaper when they don't have to survive the stresses of liftoff. I can see a day when everything is covered with shielding panels and as they get corrupted are replaced, melted down and recast.

    1. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are planes from WW2 that are still flying and those rattle.

      Name one unique plane from WW2 that is still flying.

    2. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

      And quite frankly I think we missed the ball in putting up a "space station" that is used for research rather than a "space garage/machine shop". The garage could build science stations and other garages.

    3. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      A seagoing vessel is probably a better analogy (boats fall apart just floating around) - while there are ancient boats still floating, pretty much everything in them has been replaced at one point or another. In a dock - which is a pretty benign environment. It may be impossible to disassemble the ISS and replace the bad parts in orbit. Look at how much effort goes into just putting a new refrigerator on the outside of the thing. We just don't have the technology to uncouple a module, re weld a section and bolt / weld it back together again.

      We likely should be working on that ability but this sort of construction and repair isn't sexy enough, I guess. Space is hard. Very hard. Budget constraints have made it so the US and Russia are really just jogging in place on the ISS - very little real research (such as in orbit assembly) is even being contemplated.

      ISS-2 will be put together on the ground and boosted into segments and snapped together in orbit, but it won't be 'built' in orbit. There won't be any machining, welding, wiring, insulating or any of those types of functions done in space. We are no where near being able to do that past the sound stage.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Name one unique plane from WW2 that is still flying.

      I hope you don't mind that there is more than one.

      Mid-Atlantic Air Museum

      Get behind the wings of these authentic WWII warplanes

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      That is wildly unrealistic with our current capabilities and well in the realms of fiction. In space you have countless problems when trying any kind of significant production, ranging from access to work force, access to hardware, having to lift all components and all machinery from the planet's gravity well into orbit, to things like power supply problems, cooling problems, highly hostile environment problems, and countless others.

      Even if we had the technological capability to do what you suggest, the costs would outstrip making same things on the ground and then lifting them to orbit by what is likely order(s) of magnitude.

    6. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one unique plane from WW2 that needs its replacement parts shipped into orbit.

      It's a stupid analogy and you've been on /. long enough to know to ignore it.

    7. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats idiotic. Even if the ISS was built to be a "space garage/machine shop", we would still have to contend with the problem of getting TONS of raw material into space.

      At that point, you might as well just pre-build the stuff on Earth and then send it up in "modules".

    8. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As an engineer I want to reuse and expand and not throw anything away.

      If you were truly an engineer (a real one, not just someone with an overinflated title), you'd know that things age and wear out.
       

      NASA can't build tin cans that can survive in space for a hundred years? There are planes from WW2 that are still flying and those rattle.

      A real engineer grasps the impact of parts count and complexity. Not only is the ISS not just a "tin can", those planes are orders of magnitude simpler than the ISS.
       
      Not to mention that those planes take hundreds of man hours a year to maintain in flyable condition - and man hours in space cost tens of thousands per.
       

      Things get at least a hundred times cheaper when they don't have to survive the stresses of liftoff.

      Sure, as any engineer knows, you can easily manufacture things given enough infrastructure. Since you're an "engineer", you should be able to estimate the cost of developing a (currently non existent) weightless capable factory complex, and the costs of placing hundreds to thousands of tons on orbit, and the ongoing costs of logistics, support, and maintenance needed to produce those "hundreds of times cheaper" parts. You'll also be able to understand that a space craft is made of hundreds of different kinds of materials, only a few of which are amenable to recycling.

    9. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they have a problem with creeping crud, despite spending lots of time scrubbing and degunkifying surfaces, especially areas that condense moisture behind panels. I know that was one of the big problems with Mir. Even vacuum wouldn't kill off bacterial and fungal spores (and likely would damage a much hardware).

      I'd welcome hearing from someone who actually knows.

      Vacuum welding? Radiation hardening of components?

    10. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by zamboni1138 · · Score: 1

      It may be impossible to disassemble the ISS and replace the bad parts in orbit.

      Why? You have EVA access to all external parts of ISS Alpha. You should have access to all internal parts of the station. The real issue I've seen come up is all about seals. The station is mostly modular, single piece segments attached to a node. Just seal up that node junction internally (like it was before the module arrived), disconnect external connections, use the station arm to pull the module free, replace the seals, reconnect.

      I can think of at least a Lego and a car analogy, but I can't be bothered to type it all out.

    11. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Name one unique plane from WW2 that is still flying.

      Harrison Ford's plane.....oh, wait

    12. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      I thought the ISS was modular and not all modules are the same age. Can't they just start decommissioning and replacing the oldest ones first? I would assume when they were touting a "modular design" this would be the idea...

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    13. Re:Why does it need to be replaced? by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      I understand the difficulty now, but maybe in 30-50 years, we'll be able to reclaim and re-use materials in space much easier than we can now. So, why not aim for middle ground? Aim to boost the ISS into a higher more stable orbit as a decommission method, to create a 'orbit landfill' if you will. I'd think it would be better than de-orbiting and burning up all that tonnage.

      Maybe they could start a show on TLC called Space Hoarders and have interviews with astronauts to cover the cost of that orbit increase :P

  11. What's wrong with the old one? by Whiteox · · Score: 2

    So what happens in 2024? They shut ISS down? I expect to see another crater somewhere in the middle of Australia soon after.
    Anyway, if you are going to build another one, then move it far out at null gravity between the Moon and Earth, instead of stuffing around in Earth orbit, i.e. stationary. Make it count as a stepping stone at least.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    1. Re:What's wrong with the old one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send it to MARS!!!

      A slow push, higher and higher, sling shot to Mars, filled with food and O2 bottles, so whne the we finally get there. there is base ready to move in a resupply.

      Simular to B4 moving back in time for the Minbrai.

    2. Re:What's wrong with the old one? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      I believe that the null gravity point is about 90% from Earth. It should remain stationary and would be a true space station and not orbital. It could be out of the earth moon plane as well, so you wouldn't have issues with eclipses.
      I agree with the AC that the next one should be an unmanned freight depot about half way to Mars.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  12. Of course they do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course they do!

    We paid them to build their parts of the current space station out of surplus parts. We then had to build and install converters because they didn't build their parts to match what we already had up there. And, we pay them every time they bring an astronaut of ours up or down because we don't have any rockets of our own. When they found out we were decommissioning the shuttles, they jacked the price from $20-million to $55-million.

  13. Orbital construction framework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next space station might end up looking like a giant drydock. I hope they get serious about assembling ship pieces in orbit to make an end run around the rocket equation.

  14. New space station by nuke49 · · Score: 0

    I would be in favor if they built something like this: http://vignette3.wikia.nocooki...

  15. Re: The true sticking point - China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh please.

  16. Re:The true sticking point - China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to have an industrial supply of stupid availalbe for posting. By the way, you forgot that probably the worst casualties inflicted on Russia were by the Communist government. Does the terror famine in Ukraine ring a bell?

    You also seem to have forgotten the border fighting between Russia/USSR and China.

    Even better, the USSR actually asked permission of the US to nuke China in the 1960s. The US said "no."

    You seem to be confused on multiple levels.

  17. We didn't need this space station, either! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    The ISS was a huge waste of NASA money, costing as much as all of NASA's "space exploration activities" combined (source:). This prevented, killed and neutered many missions that would have produced genuine science. It was simply a mistake. So hooray, let's make a bigger one!

    1. Re:We didn't need this space station, either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      source: [kerbalspaceprogram.com]

  18. Quote by Rei · · Score: 1

    "We are pleased Roscomos wants to continue full use of the International Space Station through 2024 -- a priority of ours -- and expressed interest in continuing international cooperation for human space exploration beyond that. The United States is planning to lead a human mission to Mars in the 2030s, and we have advanced that effort farther than at any point in NASA's history. We welcome international support for this ambitious undertaking.

    Yeah, that's basically "Go F* yourselves" in diplomatic speech.

    And as it should be.

    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    1. Re:Quote by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      NASA currently has two critical projects: the ISS and congresional pork. They simply don't have any money left over for a third major project.

  19. Re:The true sticking point - China by khallow · · Score: 0

    That is the sticking point - USA, a racist country, doesn't want anybody from China to get into space

    No, the US, a racist country, doesn't want its stuff stolen by China, another racist country. Given that the US already works with Russia, Japan, and the ESA countries, which are all racist countries, I'm sure something can be arranged. Probably what would happen is that the relatively secret stuff that the US has on the ISS like the communication system (TRDSS) will either be opened up or a few wheels will be reinvented in order to eliminate a good portion of the stuff that China would want to steal.

    Moving on, I think the real problem with this concept is how badly the ISS turned out. It's an awful lot of money spent for little outcome. I suspect that the parties involved would both want a bigger and flashier space station than the ISS, would want the US to pay most of the cost, and there would be the same massive inefficiencies, vast cost overruns, and corruption as were present in ISS

  20. Re:The true sticking point - China by Strider- · · Score: 1

    Probably what would happen is that the relatively secret stuff that the US has on the ISS like the communication system (TRDSS) will either be opened up or a few wheels will be reinvented in order to eliminate a good portion of the stuff that China would want to steal.

    Actually, there's nothing really secret about TDRSS. They're just bent-pipe communications satellites like all the others, just with a bit of an odd frequency set. The Radios on the space shuttle were derivatives of those used on military aircraft, but that's about it.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  21. I know exactly why the Russkis want this : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is because OUR Germans are better than THEIR Germans.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    ( those who saw the film "The Right Stuff" may recall the above line of
    dialogue in that film )

  22. Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you Russia

  23. The Russians poisoned the well by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    We forgave them after the cold war and they've just started it all over again.

    We could have been their partners before. But because their treachery we could only accept them as subordinates in any cooperative arrangement going forward. They have shown themselves to be unworthy of being trusted as equal partners.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes of course, Russia is to blame for the buildup of NATO around its borders and USA meddling in the politics of its closest neighbours. Treachery I say!

    2. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      No, Russia is to blame for thinking that it has a say over where their neighbors' alleigances lie, and for referring to engagement as "meddling"

    3. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      No. Gorbachev agreed to reunification of Germany in exchange to nonproliferation of NATO. Proliferation of NATO occurred well before Putin's rule, in 1999. NATO is simply not trustworthy. Moreover. You Americans told us Russians that we are freed from terrible Bolshevik oppression and are part of Free World. For your internal use, you won in Cold War and coined a medal in commemoration. We Russians tried to be part of your World Economy and quite soon found that our oil money cannot buy anything except consumer goods. It took us about 20 years to understand it. The Chinese have the same problem.

      Do you remember Gadhafi? Once he leased European politics quite a lot of money. What did you? You asked us to support the no-flight zone. Imagining ourselves a part of you Free World we agreed like a last idiot. Instead of no-flight zone, you simply bombed Gadhafi out of existence. No Gadhafi - no debt. Are you trustworthy at all?

      Remember "Marschal Taburetkin" Serdyukov? He had a task to convert Russian army to money and invest these money to the world economy. Well, he almost killed Russian army but it was you who didn't allow the money to be invested. No problem. Shoygu and Rogozin do what they should. You just taught us the hard way.

    4. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

      Yes, it HAS a say according to Gorbachev's agreement about reunification of Germany.

      You may deny that such agreement took place. Then, you should either agree that Cuba has the same right to change allegiance as Baltic countries and Poland and do not suffer US embargo, and that placement of US rocket defense in Baltic countries and Poland is as legal as placement of Russian nukes in Cuba,

      or confirm that the US is the only superpower using this fact against the interests of others, and the others have at least moral right to protect theirs interests.

    5. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      In regards to non-proliferation of NATO, that can't hold indefinitely.

      The people of the world can make alliances if they want and associate with whomever they want. What is more Gorbachev gave away things that he couldn't control anymore. Much as the French sold parts of America to the United States. Of course they did... they couldn't hold the territory so they sold it. Had they not sold it, they would have lost it and gotten nothing for it.

      As to your economic situation, the US has offered Russia help with economic development for many years. Your country could have rail running from Europe to China. You are in the middle of everything and you could profit by being a trusted interlocutor between powers and economies.

      Your natural resources are also vast... on that alone you could be incredibly rich. Look at the Norwegians, they are very wealthy in large part because they have oil from the north sea. Russia has vastly more oil and so much more. And yet you fail to exploit it properly.

      Recently Russia said "hey we could have a highway through Alaska and Siberia that connects the Americas to the Eurasian continent. No one is going to sign off on that because we don't trust you.

      And we don't trust you because of this sort of behavior. If you just stopped being crazy for awhile we'd invest in you more. But we don't feel safe investing in you because we know you'll just use it as leverage to hurt us.

      On topic with this push for a new space station, the US felt the shared voyage into space that our countries shared could help bridge a gap between our cultures. We thought, maybe by cooperating with that we could grow closer together and become friends.

      When we needed your help launching things into space, you instead used our lack of launch capability as leverage to hurt us. You said things like "maybe the americans could use trampolines to get into space"... This was a betrayal and a petty one.

      We don't need to go to the ISS station at all. The only reason we have the ISS at all was for political reasons. We wanted to be your friends. It was a shared project.

      And when we tested whether it had been at all successful... you betrayed us. The ISS is a failure. Our diplomatic efforts with your country are a failure.

      And because you won't stop... we're going to have grind you down for a few more generations until you're so weak that your neighbors start eating at your borders. We won't invade you. But the Russian frountier is large and your neighbors are only kept in check by fear of retailiation. You will grow weaker and they will grow stronger.

      Your country has spread nuclear technology around the world.And to where more than anywhere else? The countries near you. You are sowing the seeds of your own destruction. You will be torn apart by a dozen countries... while we watch.

      Your are the children of the Eastern Roman Empire... and like your forefathers you have made the same mistake all over again.

      We could have been friends. But you have shown yourselves to be unworthy of that. We trust the Chinese more than we trust you. They're smarter than you. It is why they broke with the Soviets during the cold war and made peace with the US.

      Look at the result. They have prospered while you have withered.

      I pity your children. They do not deserve the consequences of what your generation and your father's generation and your father's father's generation has brought upon them. But it is unavoidable.

      We could have been friends... *shrugs*

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You can't dictate who sovereign nations ally with or not. Who the hell do you think you are? Does the US go to war or engage in hostilities because country A1 makes an alliance with country B1? The US is not telling people who they can and cannot ally with and why Russia would think it has that right is beyond comprehension.

      You're just another country. Get over yourself.

      Time is running out for Russia. The economic ruin you are setting yourselves up for will cause your military to collapse and when that happens your more violent neighbors will eat you alive.

      And America will watch.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't dictate who sovereign nations ally with or not. Who the hell do you think you are? Does the US go to war or engage in hostilities because country A1 makes an alliance with country B1?
      Sorry, but can't really believe that...
      Look at what happens in middle east... or to the possible alliance between Russia and Europe... now shattered because of what happens in Ukraine, and yes that _is_ USAs doing... trying to force a war between EU and Russia (Yes, the Russians want UA anyways but not necessarily the conflict with the EU). And sorry, your country fueled that.

    8. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Gryle · · Score: 1

      You've got enough posts on this story that I don't think you're a troll. As such I'll engage you like a human being: 1) What do you think your oil money should be able to buy in addition to consumer goods? 2) Cite your source for Gadhafi's loans to European politicians.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    9. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Stop.

      Where did the US go to war because a given country allied with another country?

      Cite an example or not only can I believe that but I am right and you are wrong.

      I await you admission of error.

      As to the possible alliance between Russian Europe, that could only have happened if Russia were willing to act in the best interests of both parties. Given that Russia is a largely parasitic power that does not profit allies... your alliance with Europe was not going to happen with or without the US.

      You have confused the willingness of the West to forgive your transgressions in the cold war and integrate you into the world economy with some possibility that you can spin some oil wealth into global domination.

      You are deluded. And your consistent hostility to people that really just wanted to live in peace with you damns your country to poverty, decline, and humiliation.

      We wanted to be your friends. We wanted you to be rich and powerful and happy. But you have proven too barbaric, treacherous, and stupid to be worthy of it.

      I pray those that come after you are wiser and that something is left of your country before people like you have destroyed it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    10. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ? Does the US go to war or engage in hostilities because country A1 makes an alliance with country B1?

      Yes, it does.

      The US is not telling people who they can and cannot ally with

      Yes, it does.

    11. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you watch documentary The Act of Killing? In more recent history, US is quite well known for giving money to opposition of all sorts, fuelling Arab Spring and probably the Ukranian protests as well.

    12. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm touched. I'm sure that US would never skyrocket a price for something just because they had monopoly on it. Cause that's not how capitalism works, right?

    13. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I can't respond to vague accusations.

      Be specific please.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    14. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      When did the US skyrocket the price of something they had a monopoly on?

      I'm getting kind of tired of the retarded accusations in this thread. People keep saying intensely stupid things.

      Be specific with your accusation and have it be contextually relevant to the discussion.

      I mean, we're not even talking about prices or monopolies? So what the fuck are you talking about? We're talking about war.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re: The Russians poisoned the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia != Putin.

      It is not Russia that is pushing this. It is Putin. America/nato are not allowed to ally with Ukraine and support her militarily, which we did not. But, no where in the gorby treaty does it say that we are not allowed to talk to Ukraine or help them economically.

    16. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by BigFootApe · · Score: 1

      I'm personally against any missile defense program that doesn't operate by overwhelming international agreement. Russia should have been brought on board as a partner, as everyone else should have. If I recall correctly, they offered the use the Qabala radar in Azerbaijan. Having said that, the performance capabilities of the intercepters deployed in eastern Europe preclude interception of strategic weapons. If Russia's complaint is that they can't target Poland with IRBMs anymore, I don't have a lot of sympathy for their position. Being on the stick end of nuclear blackmail is the worst form of bullying. They know it from experience.

      That's the fundamental problem here. Proprietary meddling by great powers has always ended up stomping on the small players whether it be in Central and South America, the Middle East, or Eastern Europe. This sets those weaker countries on the path of looking for a means of answering back. The legacy of these heavy handed policies pushed Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Balkan states into NATO's arms, just as similarly insidious policy from the US has created strong (sometimes violent) sentiment in various parts of the world.

      The ideal for long term stability and security is to see all nations in the world equally held to account for the damage they do by their choices on the international stage.

    17. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite a tall order there: lumping millions of people into one plain set of character traits; and your tirade oozes oversimplification.
      Also you're incredibly full of your own opinion and seem to think you're inherently better than others, which makes it difficult for them to reach an agreement unless they concede and completely submit to you (a behaviour typical of many assholes I've met).

      But most importantly: that word "friends" you keep using... I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it means. Nobody would want to be that kind of "friends" with you if they can avoid it (which sadly, many countries can't). Praise Empire something something...

    18. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      As to lumping people together... this is possibly the most idiotic and obtuse comment I've seen all day. Good work.

      I am obviously referring to the Russian government. If I call the North Koreans stupid, I'm not referring to every single fucking one of them you complete fucking idiot. That is directed at you by the way. You are a fucking idiot. But when one references a nation, one is generally referring to the government or official policy of that nation... ESPECIALLY when talking about foreign policy.

      Anyone that wasn't a complete asshat would know that. Since you didn't... *shrugs*

      As to me being full of myself, well... all things are relative. Compared to you, I am a God King of the universe. Compared to someone else, I might just be another jerk. All things are relative, chum.

      As to no nation wanting to be friends with the US?

      So, Europe does, Eastern Europe does, about half of the middle east does, Egypt does, Japan does, South Korea does, China does most of the time... I could go on.

      Friends means what I said... friends. Russia has no friends. The US has lots.

      Countries invest in the US all the time and feel their investments are secure. Investment in Russia is minimal because no one trusts their fucking stupid government.

      Happy there? I said there government and not their people? Even though, their government is only in power because their people put it there and like it. Putin isn't pushing Russians into work camps from what I can see, so the average Russian has to take some responsibility for this bullshit.

      I await your rebuttal. :)

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    19. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As to lumping people together... this is possibly the most idiotic and obtuse comment I've seen all day. Good work."

      This was what I was thinking after reading your comment above and which made me write a reply for the first time in months (haven't logged in in years though).

      I'm sorry to say that bothering with the likes of you was a mistake and I honestly haven't read the rest of this comment of yours beyond this first line, as I know it would be a complete waste of my time (got a dinner now). I can tell by having wasted enough time on narcissistic keyboard warriors over the years... I'll wager without reading that your writing is completely worthless safe for serving as your personal echo chamber.
      So I guess you'll just keep venting and hoping for that one moment where your drivel changes somebodies mind. Have a nice evening!

    20. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      An AC throws out some meaningless insults? Shocking.

      I read your whole post and didn't find a coherent argument in it anywhere.

      You say you didn't like my post... but don't say why.

      You then presume to "know" me despite openly admitting to not reading my post. Which means you're literally prejudiced... that is pre-justice... what happens when you judge things without bothering to looking into it.

      And then you cap it all off with some more dumb insults.

      *golf clap for the AC*

      If there is anything that would improve this community it would be removing the ability to make anonymous posts. It isn't as if you're writing under your own name as it is... but to be such a cowardly POS that do such under a fake fake name? And it is thus no wonder that the ACs are the most likely to not make any effort to constructively contribute and just troll.

      Garbage.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    21. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be specific with your accusation and have it be contextually relevant to the discussion.

      I mean, we're not even talking about prices or monopolies? So what the fuck are you talking about? We're talking about war.

      The article is about US and Russian cooperation on a new space station. Pricing and monopolies on human transport to space is very relevant. Listen, I think that Putin is one of the worst possible leaders a country could have, but everything that seems to flow from your hands onto the page just makes you and the US look bad and Russia look a lot better in my eyes. Just from your sheer arrogance and hypocrisy.

    22. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly haven't read the rest of this comment of yours beyond this first line, as I know it would be a complete waste of my time (got a dinner now).

      Quick synopsis. He called himself a "god king of the universe". He qualified it by claiming that it was only relative to you, but I think we can all recognize him as a megalomaniac by now. Oh, he also used a lot of expletives and insults to refer to you, then, in his post replying to the one I quoted above wrote:

      An AC throws out some meaningless insults? Shocking.

      So, basically a giant hypocrite incapable of recognizing his own hypocrisy or objectively assessing his own opinions. Megalomaniac.

    23. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      In regards to human transport to space, do you have examples of the US monopolizing a good? What exactly are you referring to. I asked you to be specific. You cited something the RUSSIANS attempted to exploit. Not something the US has attempted to exploit. We want more nations in space and we make an effort to share such technology.

      As to your opinion of me and my nation changing because of an internet post... That frankly speaks poorly of you. The "way" you speak about anything will not cause me to change my opinion about a thing.

      I am not a child that is moved by emotion. I am a rational adult. That is not arrogance. It is hard won and earned maturity. I make no appologies for it, offer no excuses, and find any notion that I must misrepresent myself to make thin skinned people feel comfortable a little tedious.

      I do not say this with any wish to offend you. I merely don't care if I do or do not offend you. I am focused purely on being honest and accurate.

      As to your claims that I am being hypocritical... you are going to have to be specific about that. Absent specificity, your comment will have to be assumed to be a baseless insult rather than any attempt at rational discourse.

      As to Putin being a fool... we agree on that at least. Let us try to focus on our shared perspectives and opinions.

      Diplomacy requires a meeting of minds. I am prepared to meet you half way. But do not expect me to meet you farther than that.

      I am not your enemy unless you want me to be your enemy. Do not make the same mistake that so many people from different cultures make... to assume that not abiding by your culture that i mean any offense to you. I mean you no offense. This is my culture. I am not your enemy but neither am I obligated to make you comfortable.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    24. Re:The Russians poisoned the well by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      still waiting for you to cite a good the US monopolized.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  24. they want to work with NASA? by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

    Let me guess its gonna be like the current one, owned by Russia, but US pays more then 75% of the costs to build it?

    1. Re:they want to work with NASA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      YES. Thank you!
      Not only that, but check out the orbit it was put in... The orbit more favorable to Russia, of course.
      Oh, and the cost to launch one of their "partner" nations' astronauts into orbit?? 3-5 times that they charged the "space tourist" guys to go up.

  25. Re:The true sticking point - China by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

    1) "Terror" famine in 30-s was EVERYWHERE in USSR. There are some territorial variations of famine but they are depended on structure of agriculture, not on nationality. Being a grandson of kulak I know these facts from my parents.
    2) The famine was result of mass exchange of grain to Western industrial technologies, and destruction of peasantry created masses of hungry industrial workers. Both were needed to survive WWII.

  26. Re:The true sticking point - China by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

    If you know history of space exploration you should know that it were Americans who actually bought the Russian technology of long spaceflights, including the space toilet.

  27. Re:Yeah by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

    Well, let Saakashvili kill 80'000 South Ossetians and Poroshenko make a Crimea-wide massacre similar to Odessa May 2,2014?

  28. Re:The true sticking point - China by khallow · · Score: 1

    Actually, there's nothing really secret about TDRSS.

    They're encrypted, TDRSS communications is routed through US military infrastructure, and the US military is the primary user of the system. There might not be much secret about the TDRSS system and protocols, but a lot of stuff associated with it is secret (in the sense of (IMHO legitimately) classified as secret).

  29. screw the space station by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia should be working with all of the ISS partners, along with private space, to go to the moon. That makes the most sense for the next move.

    As to leo space stations, let private space handle that.

  30. Re:The true sticking point - China by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    Shit! We have a real TARDIS?... (googling - !)... damn, I was so disappointed that TDRSS was NOT a typo.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  31. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to hear it. I bet most comments here will degrade to political shit talk. But you know, i think this is a great step for man kind.

  32. Re:The true sticking point - China by khallow · · Score: 1

    1) "Terror" famine in 30-s was EVERYWHERE in USSR. There are some territorial variations of famine but they are depended on structure of agriculture, not on nationality. Being a grandson of kulak I know these facts from my parents.

    Those "territorial variations" ended up with Ukraine getting much harder than anywhere else.

    2) The famine was result of mass exchange of grain to Western industrial technologies, and destruction of peasantry created masses of hungry industrial workers. Both were needed to survive WWII.

    This is an interesting rationalization. We have here the bald assertions that Russia had to starve Ukrainians in order to have industrial technologies and that there had to be "destruction of peasantry" resulting in "masses of hungry industrial workers" in order to survive WWII.

    The US went through trying times too during that part of history, but they didn't have to starve millions of an uppity ethnic group in order to survive those times.

  33. Re:The true sticking point - China by Thor+Ablestar · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia: The Soviet famine of 1932–33 affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union, leading to the deaths of millions in those areas and severe food insecurity throughout the USSR. These areas included Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Volga Region and Kazakhstan,[1] the South Urals, and West Siberia.[2][3] The subset of the famine within the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is called Holodomor or "hungry mass-death." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    If you look at the map there you could see the hunger hit all the grain producing regions (which supports my theory that potato-producing regions survived). But you remember Ukraine ONLY, not North Caucasus, not Volga region. Why?

  34. Re:The true sticking point - China by khallow · · Score: 1

    But you remember Ukraine ONLY, not North Caucasus, not Volga region. Why?

    Because most of the deaths were Ukrainian as reported by Wikipedia's sources. And Ukrainians would have died elsewhere than just in the Ukraine. A lot of people had been moved around during this period.

    Second, I find it interesting that considerable argument has been put forth that there was a weather/climate contribution to the Holodomor, but no one can say what this contribution was. Along this vein, I see no evidence that Romania was suffering from this famine despite being right next to the Ukraine. Instead, their cereal production was higher in 1933 (which would have been the peak of the famine) than in 1932, despite a nasty economic depression.

  35. Re:The true sticking point - China by Pi1grim · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and sometimes Enterprise docks to restock on photon torpedoes. You got your assumption that "Chinese already have a space station in orbit" from the movie "Gravity", didn't you?

  36. Response by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Dear Russia,

    We would be happy to cooperate on this project.

    However, you get to pay for it this time.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear U.S.A

      Do you want your astronauts back ???

  37. Re:The true sticking point - China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the US, a racist country, doesn't want its stuff stolen by China, another racist country.

    It's *waaaay* too late for that, we've been handing them our technology for 40 years. There's a reason all our stuff is made in China now... sure, cheap wages, but *also* that our companies have been sending them our technology know-how for all that time too. And what we haven't given them they've stolen (govt secret stuff).

    Most countries don't want their "stuff stolen" to protect their workers/population. Here in the US, the politicians really only care about their owners, the corporate interests, and really could give a crap about the people.

  38. Please, not another LEO space station!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't put it in Low Earth Orbit if you do another ISS. Space junk is one reason, another reason is that it's too simple to simply put another station in LEO. With the Orion project it should be feasible to put it in Lunar L1 or L2 or orbiting the Moon or even in GEO. Please raise the bar a little so that we see that it evolves.

  39. Torus? PLEASE! by CCTalbert · · Score: 1

    I'd say we team with Satan himself if we could just build a Stanford Torus. Or *anything* that spins. I want to look up and see this with my telescope before I die!

    Sure there's difficulty and complexity there, but so many of the problems we have (both biological and station operation wise) are fixed or at least minimized with a little artificial gravity. ANY "permanent" outpost needs artificial gravity. Many industrial processes we'd like to do might benefit from some weight/acceleration too. (and of course some stuff works better weightless- with some spin it's easy to have the best of both :) ) We've GOT to do this, let's stop stalling!

    And many of the human issues of long duration flights to Mars or asteroid missions are minimized/eliminated with some spin. People bungie-corded to a tread mill is not a clever solution, it's an embarrassing duct-tape patch. People should be coming back from space ready to walk away and live normally.

    Unless some clever physics/math/etc. geek comes up with a magical artificial gravity field, our only choice is to spin.

  40. Before the US does that it should update by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    it's fleet of trampolines.

  41. Re:The true sticking point - China by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    that sounds pretty weird, if you look what actually happened.

    they deliberately arranged so that they were running out of food, what they did with the food is not related to that. in fact, they would have been better equipped to get industrialized without the famine.

    and hungry industrial workers were needed to survive wwII?? industrial workers were required, but also the men were sent to the fronts, having nothing to do with that class of people being created from peasantry dying in masses due to famine.

    and most importantly of course there were areas where people weren't dying from lack of food during the famine that was "everywhere". and no offence but people on gulags of course experienced famine, no matter where the gulag was - they were put there to experience famine!

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  42. Kessler Syndrome by ks*nut · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they (the Russians and the U.S.) should concentrate their efforts in cleaning up the objects currently in low earth orbit. It wouldn't make much sense to assemble a brand new space station and then have it ripped to shreds by all of the junk they put up there. The current space station makes numerous orbital maneuvers every year to avoid potential impacts.

  43. Putinbots by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    This thread was all right until it got invaded by Putinbots.

    I imagine their bizarro reality to be a bit like the raving Republican Right right before the Iraq War. A crazy, demented, sad place, full of crazy demented, sad people.

    Sputnik News/RT is Russia's answer to Fox News.

    And Putin and his entourage are basically the Slavic equivalents of US Republicunts, but with a bit more intelligence and rat-cunning.