SpaceX will be launching cargo soon, and it's starting feel that it's not soon enough.

Too bad the Russkies don't have the use of our space shuttles...oh, I forgot, we don't have the use of them either!! Idiot government.

Our government is what it is. Go vote, if you have a problem with it. We will have our own NASA run option along with the private sector and their options. Soon enough America will be more capable than ever in terms of space faring.

Orange you glad I didn't say banana, tovarisch?

Too bad the Russkies don't have the use of our space shuttles...

Yeah, because the shuttles had such an excellent safety record!

Maybe a saboteur in the Russian space program? Lets hope they don't lose a manned Soyuz! NASA should have been funded to fly the shuttle, at least 2 of them, until a viable system was up and flying to replace it! Shortsighted politicians make me sick!!!! NASA should simply get 3% of the federal budget every year and Congress and the President should have no say in how they spend it!

kevin,

under the original plan, Griffin (the head of NASA) wanted to dispose of the space station. He had no use for it. So under that plan, there was no real need to rely on russian rockets because there would be no space station to service.

"Russian inteligence, are you mad?"

Jonathan,

The loss of Columbia seriously delayed and then changed the ISS's completion date and it's final configuration, Griffin, imo, was out before the ISS's final plans were written in stone, even if Griffin wanted to de-orbit ISS in 2010 he would have been an island and lost that battle very quickly. Europe, Japan and Russia have invested heavily in ISS and as long as it is a viable platform they will fight to keep it on orbit the day NASA does lose interest!

Kevin:

Not from the vehicle itself. In fact Columbia was going to be retired after the flight (she had no more flights on the manifest) because she was to heavy to fly to the space station.

But as I said Griffin had no use for the space station, or for the shuttle. His dream when he took over from O'Keefe was to turn nasa back into the Apollo style agency. His vision was manned exploration. Not science, not a variety of operations, but a single minded organization. This would have been so with or without Columbia. Hell his planning for Constellation was for no more than about 4 flights a year (all of their costing was based on this). While he may not have stated this outright, if you actually look at his plans, it was painfully obvious that he had no use for the station. Griffin didn't need to complete the station to make that a reality.

And no Griffin was out after Obama was elected (there weren't too many tears shed over that one either, most within NASA were glad that he was gone).

You are right though, the ONLY reason why the station got an extension past 2015 was because of all the foreign involvement. I just wonder if anyone ever really saw the so called coincidence that Orion wouldn't be flying until the station was deorbited in 2015. Hmmmm .... it wasn't a coincidence.

And the other countries CAN'T show an interest. The Outer Space treaty prevents transfer of ownership once an item has been launched. Once owned by the US, always owned by the US.

@ Dem in Texas: Russian intelligence is an oxymoron.

What a disappointment for them. :(

Perhaps the Russians figure finally out that it is not good to buy stuff from the Chinese. That crap just does not work.

Russia just has a lot of problems this year.

-Progress M-12M fails

-Fobos-Grunt is stuck in earth orbit

-An oil rig sinks in the Sea of Okhotsk

-Other such incidents

-And now this, a communication satellite falls after launch

Russia has some problems these days. Even after a brutally oppressive communist country is gone, it still leaves scars, and this is one of them. Now, because America has to rely on the Russians for human space transportation, who knows if America will get one of those scars? Look deeper into it, and you'll see that this is all Lenin's fault.

The Russians have some of the best mathematicians and physicists in the world. I know because I've worked with one of them. Those of you who have only no child left behind, deal with it.

They were severely outdated and getting rapidly more and more unsafe. I just don't get why we can't find some money for NASA to get replacements. With all the advancements space exploration has given us, you'd think we could cut a ton of the frivolous spending and give it to NASA.

Brooke: I don't understand WHY we shut down the shuttle program.

Ruken: I just don't get why we can't find some money for NASA to get replacements

The Space Shuttle fleet is a one of a kind vehicle with awesome capability and it will be sorely missed by a good many of us. That being said, there were many factors that played into the shuttle programs retirement. After the Columbia tragedy there was a sense that a new direction needed to be taken in order to ensure safety and also to reduce costs (after all it's politicians who ultimately decide this stuff). So, the idea of Constellation came up. Constellation would have separated crew and cargo. You'd have strictly crew flights and strictly cargo flights. One of the best aspects of the Shuttle was that you could launch AND return a good amount of sensitive cargo.

Anywho, in the Vision for Space Exploration (the centerpiece of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005) it was decided that the space shuttle were to be retired in order to use the shuttle programs funding and divert it to finishing the construction of Constellation program architecture. The idea was to end the shuttle program in 2010 and fund the shuttle replacement thereafter. The politicians seemed to feel that it would be acceptable to rely on Russia for the space flight gap. It never made sense to me, but that's how they planned it out. At 50 to 60 million dollars a seat for several years we really weren't saving any money in that way. But that's another discussion.

NASA's money is decided on by Congress. Congress is really bad with budgets and ultimately they don't address the issue like a group of engineers would with a big project on the horizon. If your a carpenter and you want to build a cabinet you know what you need to build and how you need to budget the project in order to get a high quality cabinet. Congress doesn't know much about funding a shuttle replacement. You'd think they'd be great at it considering they have been trying to replace the shuttle for a VERY long time (long before constellation). But, each time, they fail. Even before the financial meltdown they failed to realize the funding imperatives associated with building the next generation of space craft. Even just building a new shuttle would cost at least a billion dollars, and yet Congress can't seem to get behind the idea of funding a real space program like the one they talk about wanting. It seems that most folks are behind the idea of a big goal, yet no one in Congress seems to get any support for passing funding measures that align with those kinds of goals.

Human spaceflight is expensive. We gain a great deal by investing in it. But for some reason there are a lot of people who don't see the value in investing in NASA. Congress passes a half trillion dollar defense package EVERY year, but we can only seem to manage 17 to 20 billion for NASA. Don't ask me to find the logic in that scenario, cuz there ain't any to be found.

The shuttles may be old and outdated, especially after having been refurbished as recently as 2005, but when I hear "new, safe, and reliable", Soyuz is not the first thing that comes to mind.

People can say all the negative things about the shuttles, how they were old, tired, broke down, unsafe, maybe. They were also one of the best things that ever happen to space flight in our country, and were retired way to early. Now we don't have a reliable or maybe safe way to the space station!!

The space shuttles were one of the best things that ever happened to space flight for any country.

1) Taken as a whole, the Russian Soyuz program has the best safety record of any system yet. If you compare Soyuz to the Space Shuttle, for the same time period, it is 3 killed for Soyuz and 14 killed for the Space Shuttle. @Bill, it should be the first thing that comes to your mind because it is the safest launch system in existence at this time.

2) The Space Shuttle (and the ISS) were designed to military specifications and were always to have a "secondary" mission of carrying reconnaissance satellites and weapons pods into low Earth orbit. The bay was actually designed around a reconnaissance satellite of the time. When the Pentagon saw how expensive and dangerous, and what a long re-cycle time the Shuttle had, it lost interest and walked away.

3) When the Space Shuttle was finalized, it was over the objections of senior scientists who wanted a big dumb lifter to replace the Saturn series. They wanted the most punch to the Earth-Moon LeGrange Point for the least money with the greatest reliability. The fighter jocks who ran NASA and the military which was doing some of the funding wanted a jet plane.

4) The Space Shuttle is a near-Earth only vehicle. It can't carry payloads that require altitudes over about 170 miles. That includes most of the satellites being launched today --- most going into geosynchronous or polar orbits that the Shuttle can't do.

5) Just as the Space Shuttle was designed as a weapons platform, the ISS was also intended as a potential surveillance and weapons platform by the military. The military insisted that it be below 150 miles altitude. And, they correctly pointed out: Any higher and the Space Shuttle could not reach it. So the combination of Space Shuttle and ISS became a closed feedback loop that sucked a huge amount of money out of NASA.

6) One reason that getting a replacement for the Space Shuttle is that linkage to the ISS. The fighter jocks can't see past low Earth orbit. The scientists, on the other hand, want any replacement to be able to reach any of six LaGrange points.

7) One piece of interesting reading is the Russian evaluation of their own Buran shuttle. The Buran was developed completely separately (and NO, it is not a copy) from the Space Shuttle and tried to remedy several of the Shuttle's problems. The Buran had a much better payload capacity, had its own internal engines and fuel, and could actually reach lunar orbit directly. But when the Russians had it developed they quickly realized that it could never be turned around quickly enough to be of use and that launches would be incredibly more expensive than the Soyuz system already in place. Their bottom line was that since the Space Shuttle had no real use except for low Earth orbit that it had to be primarily military in nature and they had no use for such a military vehicle and cancelled the program. But as a hedge, they kept the one complete one in a hangar until recently when a heavy snow collapsed the roof and destroyed it. When asked how he felt about losing the Buran, a senior Russian space official replied, "Good snow!"

The Space Shuttle was a poor design that looked much sexier than it actually was. It can only just barely make it to the fringes of space with a very expensive "throw cost." It had already claimed 14 lives and outside quality evaluators (hired by NASA) projected a 1-in-5 chance of a "castrophic event" for the final flight and about a 50/50 chance of a "castrophic event" should the program be extended for a full cycle of three launches. NASA had some ways of calculating the odds that made it look much safer, but unfortunately these faulty evaluation methodologies were partially responsible for both Shuttle disasters.

Chris, it almost sounds as if you are saying the U.S. military designed the International Space Station.

Chris

1) The space shuttle may have had 14 fatalities, BUT the space shuttle also had FAR MORE FLIGHTS than Soyuz did. SO much so that I believe more than 3/4's of all astronauts/cosmonauts are such just because of the shuttle.

2) The ONLY part of the space shuttle design that had military input was the length of the payload bay and the delta wings. That was IT. Actually the delta wing design was more a consequence of the requirement than a requirement itself. (It was the only way to accomplish the requirement).

3) The scientists didn't want a manned program at all. That is STILL largely the case. This is under the false assumption that if there was no manned program, then the funds would go to the science program. But the reality is that if there is no manned program, the money would just instead be eaten up by other non space programs.

4) The space shuttle is a LEO orbit vehicle. Yes, but that is ALSO true of Soyuz.

5) The Space Shuttle was NEVER designed as a weapons platform, but the military requirement was for it to be used as a deployment and retrieval platform. However, even before the shuttle was finished, the military realized that the use of manned vehicles put in far more complexity than was gained by its flexibility.

The ISS has had absolutely NO military design implications. Even the Soviets abandoned their military space stations (Salyut 2 & 4 were military space stations and they stopped as well realizing that unmanned satellites were far more cost effective.

6) Scientists do not care about sending men to the lagrange points. I have never heard of a scientist demanding that. I have heard them wish that there was no manned program at all, but hey, note my point above on that.

7) You have no clue about buran, because it was most definitely NOT able to reach anything other than LEO. The 'engines' you refer to was ONLY on a test vehicle and was NOT on the only space validated orbiter built (Buran) and was not on any of the others that were being built. The test vehicle had the jet engines on it SPECIFICALLY because they didn't have a carrier vehicle that could allow the vehicle to be released, so that 'orbiter' became THEIR ENTERPRISE.

The main physical difference between Buran and STS was that the main engines were on the booster instead of the orbiter.

The space shuttle was the best design given the requirements. You can challenge the requirements, but not the design that came from them. If given the same requirements, you would pretty much come up with a similar design today.

And your outside quality evaluators, I would like to see your reference on that one, because the risk estimate was extremely low on the last few flights. Why? well cost was not a concern at that point because the program was ending.

So post your 1 in 5 estimate reference.

Dave-Where was it mentioned that alcohol was involved with this crash? I guess I didn't read that part.

Rob: We are talking about the Russians. Does one really need to mention the obvious?

Then it must be a good thing that American astronauts all have to hitch rides now, because they're all obviously so fat from eating fried chicken that they can't fit in the space suits.

@ Dave! Apparently, you've forgotten who was first to orbit earth? Oh, and you can be damn sure that if the Russians weren't considered that reliable, we wouldn't be hitching rides on their Soyuz. And, by the way, the "seats" we pay for on each, and every ride, are far less expensive than keeping the Shuttles operating.. WE painted ourselves into this corner.... the Russians didn't!!

duuug

Actually if you work it out, the cost per seat is about the same or slightly more than if NASA kept the shuttle operating. They are in addition, far less frequent.

I fully agree.

It was obviously a joke, unlike one of the responses to it. However, keep in mind that Eastern Europe contains the top 12 countries that consume the most alcohol per capita. ;)

I would coment on this, but as an Irishman, I am simply to durnk to tipe.

--O'Stoopid

@chuckzul, the guy was obviously making a joke. But, the thing about stereotypes is that there is a great deal of truth to most of them. By the way, is your Russian of the mail order/internet marriage variety?

You married a cosmonaut?

Is it a Ford Exploder?

Chuckzul - Funny thing about stereotypes; the have a basis in reality.

Depends on if you are living in reality.

I like the lousy-automobile conversation better than the cultural-stereotype conversation.

My Ford Taurus is like a brown dwarf. It's huge and it just won't fire up, even though it's fully of gas. And it's maroon, not brown.

What are we talking about again?

Christmas.

;-P

So how much are Russian Brides going for now adays? Hope you didnt waste too much of your money she will be leaving soon LOL

Ruken,

maybe one of those runaway Toyotas can get us into orbit?

LOL. Like you never waste money. That's funny.

What technology was stolen from the US (list your sources)? Maybe some history would help on who was first.

Indeed. Russia did many things first, like satellites and human beings in orbit.

Both with and without pressurized space suits

Rob: You list the sources, I did the looking into when I was in the Air Force, your turn to do the homework. Fine if the Russians did a few things first, like got into space. Most of their improvements came from American inventions, discoveries and research.

A country governed by a former KGB agent! A country wallowing in corruption ( oh no, here comes your line about America, as bad as we might be, we pale in comparison with the Ruskies). Of course, they steal anything they can get their hands on.

Roger, I'm sensing some serious long-held unresolved issues. Would you like to talk about them? You have no enemies here.

Mob: Thanks for the invite. I hope you are sincere!

The funny thing is that many people cowtow to the Russians on global issues while deriding America for the slightest thing it does - and often does not do. Why is that? America has a free press, Russia does not and never has had a free press. During the cold war the only news we got out of that closed society is what our "people on the ground" could gather and send back. They were masters at keeping their million secrets secret. Of course, today's bleeding hearts call that propaganda and consider Russia another victim of the American spin machine. If people only knew what Russia was then and still is today, they might, just might, understand why the U.S. has to be what it is today. Look at Bill Clinton and Obama and their dealings with Russia. You extend them an olive branch and they extend a forked tongue.

We stole from the Germans and so did the Russians along with the rest of the world. We did create the bomb. And the rest is history. Spying and stealing is part of our world. Oh and my SUV is a Tahoe.

Gene-340754

We stole from the Germans and so did the Russians

Actually, the Germans stole from the US

Read about Robert Goddard, the shame is that the US didn't give him the time of day when that stuff would have really come in handy in 25 and again 50 years later.

I doubt that the germans got anything from goddard other than a hey look at me, I'm doing this!!!. The stuff that goddard was doing was extremely primitive compared to what the germans ended up doing.

mob barley, Russia may have been first into space but that was only because they, and their Germans, were very motivated to do something big in the wake of the nuclear age. They would likely have never gotten there without the Germans. Other than a military posturing machine Communism wasn't good for much. Technologically everything they had they got from another country or stole. This by no means indicates any dislike for Russians on my part. They're a lot more like us than most of you realize apparently. They were just held back by 80 years of Bolshevism/Communism. We've had plenty of failures in the space program as well people. and we've lost many more people than Russia has on in flight disasters. We've got no place to talk, it's a dangerous undertaking.

they also too more short term risks, whereas the US program was much more methodical. The end result, the US could sustain the program and the russians couldn't. That the russians are still using a 45 year old design based on a General Electric proposal (not design, but proposal) indicates as much.

At this point in time, the russian program should have NO failures. Everything they are using is tried and tested. But all indications are that they are having serious quality control issues that need to be resolved. This is something that seems to show that years of funding shortfalls is taking its toll.

Seriously.. I was referring to aircraft design, like the ME262, the automatic machine guns and the first automatic assault rifle. Not to mention their tank designs and tactics for mobile warfare. I know Goddard labored in anonymity and eventually the Jet Propulsion Lab carried on his work, well after Germany had built the V-2s.

The Me262 never really went anywhere, for anyone. There were some other designs where the concepts led to planes like the Sabre, the Mig15 & 17, etc.. that are probably more pertinent examples (though the germans never even built the plane I am referring to).

@ Gene-340754

Machine guns and A/R's yes, shape-charge munitions for sure, but give credit where credit is due.

The Russian's sloped armor has become a mainstay of the modern MBT, and an American engineer, Walter Christie actually developed the excellent independent suspension before WWII that the US Army never adopted, however it found its way onto the Russian T-34 tanks in WWII.

In any sense, most modern MBTs have little in common with tanks from WWII save for cosmetics and basic operating principles. What the US has adopted from the Germans re: tank warfare are the tactics; Blitzkrieg and numerous tactics featured by some of the greats like Rommel.

German tanks in WWII were fantastic, but finicky. They were gasoline instead of diesel, they were insanely more expensive and much harder to repair/replace which made them painful to lose, and they took what seems infinitely longer to produce than the T34 or Sherman.

Many more American and Russian units had an MBT to provide fire support, moving cover, and stalemate-breaking abilities. Even though the German tanks were vastly superior to the Sherman, due to the significantly smaller numbers, Germans had to perform tactical triage on many occasions, ceding ground or taking serious risks with handheld AT-weapons against armor when a panzer or better wasn't available to go toe-to-toe.

As for aircraft, like Jonathan pointed out, while innovative, the Germans didn't really reshape a lot of future aircraft designs like they did assault weapons and rocketry.

Tommy: If you consider a dealdy plane crash from a sh***y MIG exciting, then, by all means, invite Russia.

Have you been to Walmart lately, or any store that sells things for that matter. America is not one to talk when it comes to buying stuff from China.

that hat trick...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX7WgJEHgyg

it was the squirrel, it was the squirrel. I know it was the squirrel...

Stevezam:

Your response took me by surprise and provided a GOOD laugh for the day. Thanks.

(I can still hear her voice.) (....June Frees)

GLORY would have been nice to have. I was sad to see the faring failure.

needajob2: Yeah, we have heard about and discussed NASA's past failures and misfortunes. It's Russia's turn for criticism and comment with this article.

.

I see what you mean. But the fact remains that, as far as the ISS is concerned, there will always be more Russians in space than Americans. For the rest of the planned ISS Expeditions, when there will be 6 crew members aboard the ISS, there will be 2 Americans and 3 Russians. The other 1 crew spot will be filled by someone from the Netherlands, Japan, Canada, Italy, or Germany.

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

Russians in space. Hmmm!!! Maybe we should be concerned rather than impressed - or embarassed - that they outnumber out there.

Where are they with Mars and the Kuyper Express? Oh, that's right, that's America's doing!

Roger, what is it with you and the Russians???? Did they piss in your Wheaties or something. God, give it a rest. You are full of hate.

Verno: Don't presume to tell me what the hell to do with my attitude toward the Russians. People have reasons for attitudes, I'm not the type to just grab an attitude from thin air.

Then how about taking it somewhere else? This is about a spacecraft, not your whine session. And hate spewing.

I don't need to take it anywhere else. And this is not a whining session. And who are you to say whether I am spewing hate?

Always room for an 'Armageddon' quote. lol

economykiller: That stuff? Not hardly!

Nah, They'd have to pay me more than that.

the beev

no, the price was 25 million, and that is no longer available as the agreement between the american company that was selling the flights and Roscosmos ended.

Ummmm, ou812, YUGO's were made in Yugoslavia, not Russia.

The International Space Station is working good, so I take it all back.