Kevin's Watch

NASA wary of relying on Russia
Moscow soon to be lone carrier of astronauts to the space station

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23512686

For five years or more, the United States will be dependent on the technology of others to reach the station, which American taxpayers largely paid for. To complicate things further, the only nation now capable of flying humans to the station is Russia, giving it a strong bargaining position to decide what it wants to charge for the flights at a time when U.S.-Russian relations are becoming increasingly testy.

I am somewhat shocked by this turn of events. I've read about it for the past couple of years but it still boggles my mind. How could we have let this happen?

The gap in American capability to reach the space station is the result of factors including the 2003 breakup of the space shuttle Columbia, the subsequent decision to retire the three remaining shuttles by September 2010 and the lack of additional funds to quickly build a replacement.

No surprise, we're caught short-sighted again.

It's like the 1950s all over again.

"The page you are seeking has expired." Hmmm. Expired... like NASA's budget?

But seriously, I'm disappointed too that there is a "lack of sufficient funds to quickly build a replacement" for the space shuttle. What happened to NASA's next-gen space plane? Maybe I suffer from too much idealistic BS, but I feel like Bruce Willis in Armageddon, bewildered by NASA's lack of a contingency plan - and we aren't even facing a killer asteroid this time.

this bodes well for the budget black-hole that are manned mission to mars will become.

The development of a new payload vehicle has been delayed for well over a decade. It's a damn shame.

time to figure what nasa does to deserve their budget.

What, other than maintain our satellite network, explore space, and provide us with tech developments like DVDs, MRIs, cell phones, smoke alarms, composite materials, GPS, microchips, Velcro, and pacemakers....Not much.

I've always held great regard for America's space program, and for the achievements of the Russian/Soviet program.

I believe in the value of space exploration. (It's the idealistic kid in me again.)

Cail wrote:What, other than maintain our satellite network, explore space, and provide us with tech developments like DVDs, MRIs, cell phones, smoke alarms, composite materials, GPS, microchips, Velcro, and pacemakers....Not much.

and these things couldn't be done by private enterprise? and maybe without killing people in the process? or the impossibility that is the manned mission to mars?

They were all done by private enterprise as a result of the space program. People are killed every day in every line of work.

How is a manned mission to Mars impossible (when a manned mission to the Moon was entirely possible multiple times 40 years ago)?

Cail wrote:They were all done by private enterprise as a result of the space program. People are killed every day in every line of work.

How is a manned mission to Mars impossible (when a manned mission to the Moon was entirely possible multiple times 40 years ago)?

have you seen the astronauts when they come back from a stay at the space station?

my nephew is arocket scientist (texas a&m.) he tells me that you couldn't survive, your muscles would atrophy. you heart would give out.

and honestly, if nasa can't keep them alive just orbiting the earth, what happens in space? and remember the mars rover that crashed into that planet? because two groups were using different means of measurment.

Outside of the contributions to everyday life that the space program has produced, there is a component that applies far beyond the idea that NASA is just a big expensive and dangerous toy that is siphoning off money from our government that ought to go to starving children. NASA at its core exists because we care about the future of humankind. If humans did not possess the desire to ensure a world for our children and their children's children then I suppose we'd never consider or anticipate the consequences of what might pose a threat to future generations. NASA is building the foundation for there to be a human presence beyond this world. The concept of colonies on other worlds such as the moon and Mars provide possibilities for humans to exist beyond a catastrophic disaster here on Earth. Off world colonies would also provide some relief for population issues as well. Then there is the benefit that space research may one day be responsible for diverting an incoming catastrophic threat. We'd sure as hell be thanking the good Lord above for NASA if we were depending on them to save our skins. There are countless other ways that space exploration and research provides. None of these things are fantasy speculation they are genuine concerns.

Good point Tom.

Our space program has paid us back tenfold and will continue to do so. canceling it or defunding it is short-sighted.

what world are we getting to? how are we getting there? what steps is nasa taking right now? what is the space shuttle contributing? boondoggle gentlemen. that is what we have with nasa.

sgt.null wrote:have you seen the astronauts when they come back from a stay at the space station?

my nephew is arocket scientist (texas a&m.) he tells me that you couldn't survive, your muscles would atrophy. you heart would give out. .

More than two hundred years ago people would have said, "have you seen what long sailing voyages did to sailors and passengers?" and think that such voyages are dangerous. Well, fear should never be the deciding factor in exploration or human venture; we'd be nowhere.

The fact of the matter is that how can we say that long space voyages are too dangerous when we do not know what advances in science will bring?

On another point, arguing about the cost of such voyages is futile, for spending it elsewhere is futile; there will be little return elsewhere.

I say we explore space, like the way the Europeans said explore the rest of the world.

aTOMiC wrote:Outside of the contributions to everyday life that the space program has produced, there is a component that applies far beyond the idea that NASA is just a big expensive and dangerous toy that is siphoning off money from our government that ought to go to starving children. NASA at its core exists because we care about the future of humankind. If humans did not possess the desire to ensure a world for our children and their children's children then I suppose we'd never consider or anticipate the consequences of what might pose a threat to future generations. NASA is building the foundation for there to be a human presence beyond this world. The concept of colonies on other worlds such as the moon and Mars provide possibilities for humans to exist beyond a catastrophic disaster here on Earth. Off world colonies would also provide some relief for population issues as well. Then there is the benefit that space research may one day be responsible for diverting an incoming catastrophic threat. We'd sure as hell be thanking the good Lord above for NASA if we were depending on them to save our skins. There are countless other ways that space exploration and research provides. None of these things are fantasy speculation they are genuine concerns.

Damn great post.

so continue to funnel cash to the black hole that is nasa's budget? do i have a right to expect returns? what have they accomplished as of late?

sgt.null wrote:so continue to funnel cash to the black hole that is nasa's budget? do i have a right to expect returns? what have they accomplished as of late?

They've accomplished ALOT.

Loremaster wrote:

sgt.null wrote:so continue to funnel cash to the black hole that is nasa's budget? do i have a right to expect returns? what have they accomplished as of late?

They've accomplished ALOT.

emphasis on accomplished.

now they seemed weighed down by red tape and disaster.

What do you mean by 'emphasis on accomplished'?

Second, define 'disaster'.