Discussion On Russian/US space relations

[Moonwalker]

That just shows that your view must be obstructed by too much bad science fiction.

I'm not watching or reading any science fiction stuff as you actually should know already

The Space Shuttle is almost 30 years in service. And not to mention Soyuz (yes, yes, all the "amazing" updates...). It's wright flyers of the last century...

The ISS is not only already the biggest structure in space (bigger than Mir), but it was also from the start the most advanced manned spacecraft. More advanced as Shuttle, Soyuz and maybe even more advanced as Orion. It's life support system is still the most advanced and still inferior to the originally planned system.

And also one of the biggest single projects in space. Not financial, but by the number of people involved.

You don't tell me something new. The ISS is bigger, consists of "new" materials and systems (but it's partly going to get its age too meanwhile) while more people work on it on ground as well as in space unlike on Skylab and Mir of course. But it orbits the Earth and is designed to orbit the Earth only. It can't do anything amazingly. The ISS is not advanced at all just because it is the biggest and latest single project of manned space flight history. The Space Shuttle is the most advanced spacecraft at the moment I guess. The ISS just is a big fat orbiting body intended to enter the atmosphere exactly one time...

What do you expect us to be able to do now?

To stop wasting money and time in LEO finally. The period from 1958 to 1968 shows that we're able to do a lot more than we've done in the past 30 years. We ended up in a carrousel-like infinite loop around the Earth instead of continue to finish Apollo, build an outpost on the Moon, advance Apollo (bigger crew module) and visit Mars these days.

Wrong. Russia does not even know all required skills and is still learning on-board the ISS. For example, we are still not able to do surgery in space. You had been able to do basic surgery on-board any wooden ship which sailed to the new world, but we still can't do that in space.

Russia has build, launched and operated Mir. I wonder what do they learn onboard ISS now...

Concerning the surgery in space: it is possible already to do basic surgery in zero-g. Two years ago it was done during 3 hours of parabola flight. You just would have to carry equipment to the ISS to do it in space.


-----Posted Added-----

That explains their absence from ISS then.

Can bees pollinate foodcrops in zero/low gravity?

We didn't need bees to fly to the Moon 39 years ago. We also don't need them to operate the Shuttle or the ISS. And we also don't need them to fly to Mars.

 

[Urwumpe]

OK - so you want us to leave Earth orbit, just for the sake of leaving it? No dealing with even identified problems? What you basically want, is looking at the Lindbergh plane and ask why it can't fly into space. All research and development is useless, as long as it does not take place at places we can't control.

If we could just fly to mars, without problems left to be solved, we would be doing just that.

Also, the surgery experiment does not mean, that the technology is mature enough to be used in space - in fact, the experiment was AFAIK not even completely successful, as they encountered already many critical problems.

 

[Moonwalker]

OK - so you want us to leave Earth orbit, just for the sake of leaving it? No dealing with even identified problems? What you basically want, is looking at the Lindbergh plane and ask why it can't fly into space. All research and development is useless, as long as it does not take place at places we can't control.

If we could just fly to mars, without problems left to be solved, we would be doing just that.

I think more than 3 decades offered enough time to gain experience by using Skylab and a potential possible lunar outpost. Instead budgets were cut and the direction was completely changed to earth orbital missions related to payload operations basically. In other words we completely stopped doing anything beyond LEO.

Also, the surgery experiment does not mean, that the technology is mature enough to be used in space - in fact, the experiment was AFAIK not even completely successful, as they encountered already many critical problems.

They removed a tumor of a 46 year old patient without difficulties as far as I know. It is assumed by the physicians who did this that even an appendicitis operation wouldn't be any problem.

 

[dougkeenan]

We didn't need bees to fly to the Moon 39 years ago. We also don't need them to operate the Shuttle or the ISS. And we also don't need them to fly to Mars.

Changing the subject is not answering the question. Even if you're not thinking about going to the moon or Mars to stay, many others are. We have a longer timeframe in mind and that requires more knowledge.

 

[Andy44]

It would be a shame indeed to see a split between US and Russia on ISS. Shades of Odyssey 2, huh? (Interesting that we are approaching the year 2010, BTW. All we need is a monolith). I've never been a big fan of ISS, but having invested so much into it we may as well get as much research data as we can out of it.

Fact is, the ISS is the closest thing to a crowning achievment for the Space Shuttle as we will ever see, except maybe for Hubble. All these shuttle missions and then to see it shut down so soon would really be sour.

In the meantime, NASA really needs the Soyuz; there is just nothing else out there once STS retires.

Perhaps the ISS crew should just revolt and start their own Heinleinian colony, and enlist the aid of Elon Musk?

 

[GregBurch]

We've learned a huge amount in developing ISS. Unfortunately, NASA doesn't seem to want to apply it. The system development and integration involved in ISS is really stupendous, and the project management is pretty amazing. As the head of my law firm's construction practice group, I know how HARD something like this is. I see how complex and expensive technology projects go wrong every day in my work. I never cease to be amazed at the level of professionalism evidenced by everyone involved in the ISS program when considered on a "whole project" basis.

So ... having put billions of dollars and oceans of blood, sweat and tears into the first real piece of space infrastructure, developing a treasure trove of expertise in space construction ... NASA wants to chuck the whole thing in the ocean and run their next project as a budget-choked Apollo clone. Now THERE's leadership!!!

 

[Donamy]

Where ? I don't see any leadership.

 

[SlyCoopersButt]

I'm really glad that Obama realised that delaying Constellation would be a bad idea. At least now both canidates are going to push for closing the gap.

 

[vyrago]

Allow me to jump in here. With the ever growing possibility of more Constellation delays, political entanglements with Russia and even the possibility of some form of denial of service from Baikonur (Terrorism, Natural disaster etc), I only see one option. Keep the STS flying. at least untill the Constellation timeline/development is more stable. They have the orbiters, they have the skillset. Besides the argument that the STS design is old (so are soyuz and progress! even older!), there is no concrete, rational reason to retire STS in 2010 given the recent developments and chance for more unfortunate ones in the future.

Sure, some of you might say "flying STS is dangerous!". more dangerous than a rapidly produced, newly created spacecraft? I doubt that. You might also say "dump rescources into Constellation and speed it up!". throwing money and guys with thick glasses at the problem might not guarantee a faster Orion flight.

The fact of the matter is only 2 nations currently possess the ability to fly manned missions to ISS. and one of those nations could deny that service or be unable to provide it for whatever length of time. that leaves only ONE current, working, viable option for manned flights and resupply of ISS.

to quote Gene Kranz "to stop in space, is to surrender."

 

[Moonwalker]

Besides the argument that the STS design is old (so are soyuz and progress! even older!), there is no concrete, rational reason to retire STS in 2010 given the recent developments and chance for more unfortunate ones in the future.

Inspection of the thermal protection system while in orbit as well as praparing rescue missions for non-ISS flights of the Shuttle can't be standard options to operate a spacecraft on a long run. If STS-400 should happen, then STS-125 will be the final Space Shuttle mission still this year. Without the existence of the ISS or without the commitment to assemble it by using the Shuttles, the whole Shuttle fleet already would be grounded forever.

In my point of view both, the ISS as well as the extended operation of STS, delays further manned exploration of the Moon and possibly Mars a lot. We really need to stop LEO opeartions if we want go further "again". Of course that's just my point of view but I don't see any different options at all.

Talking about Soyuz: it's old design and technology (which I call wright flyers since Urwumpe delivered me this funny example ) but nevertheless it's always a "new" spacecraft on each mission. Also, compared to STS, Soyuz is operated normally while the Shuttle is operated on its final breaths of possible rescue missions and inspections during flight. This is not an option to operate a spacecraft properly on a long run. It's still relatively "safe" but nevertheless not a good option of operation. It's like a ship which requires steady inspections of its bottom while it is accompanied by a lifeboat in case the crew and the passengers need to be rescued.

Sure, some of you might say "flying STS is dangerous!". more dangerous than a rapidly produced, newly created spacecraft? I doubt that. You might also say "dump rescources into Constellation and speed it up!". throwing money and guys with thick glasses at the problem might not guarantee a faster Orion flight.

Orion is not build more rapidly as Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab or the Space Shuttle. From the first Mercury flight to the first Lunar landing mission in 1969 it took only about 8 years to do so. It's almost 8 years from revision to the first manned flight of Orion while for the Space Shuttle 6 years was planned. But at the end it lifted off 9 years later but we have to keep in mind it's complexity. Orion even will be tested unmanned first while the Shuttle lifted off manned on its first launch into orbit. I'd call Orion/Ares rather safe (not to mention the early abort obtions compared to the Shuttle).

The fact of the matter is only 2 nations currently possess the ability to fly manned missions to ISS. and one of those nations could deny that service or be unable to provide it for whatever length of time. that leaves only ONE current, working, viable option for manned flights and resupply of ISS.

to quote Gene Kranz "to stop in space, is to surrender."

When we left Earth is a great documentary What Kranz says is rather valid but already happened in 1975 after ASTP and when Skylab was left alone. We stopped for 6 years. Then we build something which still is operated 3 decades later while today we return to the best design we threw away 3 decades ago. But we need to go back to continue in my point of view.

No flights for 4 years is a better option like to continue with operating old timers and fat earth orbiting objects like ISS for another decades.

 

[Urwumpe]

I personally think, the next step is not moon, mars or alpha centauri. Flags and foot prints are no achievements. Apollo 11 alone was IMHO a big waste of money, justified only by the later missions. Apollo 17 was actually the closest we have ever come to manned science in outer space.

What is more important is to change the rate. We need to launch more often and more important, need a infrastructure already in LEO. LEO is still 75% of the way to outer space. The ISS was a great project in not only assembly and international operations, but it also shows the weaknesses in our space station program - we rely too much on logistics from Earth and it is not possible to operate such a station for more than 20 years before critical parts will break down without replacements possible (we can't swap installed modules yet). The ISS is the largest spacecraft we have currently, but it still does usually not have more crew as the smallest manned spacecraft, the soyuz capsule. And this crew is mostly busy with keeping the large station running. Also bad.

In fact, all skills we would need for a real outpost in LEO are not much different to the skills required for a outpost on the moon. And it will be simpler to develop and test such skills in LEO as going to the moon to find out that a possible technological solution does not work.

Also, a cost-efficient way to LEO and assembly in LEO is better for the logistics to a lunar outpost - you would need to launch very often, and for doing actual science, transport lots of goods and many astronauts to the places of interest. I think, developing such a space access strategy is more important for any national space agency, as letting private entrepreneurs repeat the 1950s for fun.

 

[simonpro]

Bah, typed a big long reply and the goddamn forum ate it.

Anyway Moonwalker, I disagree with pretty much everything you've said. I can't for the life of me see the point in going on another set of deep space manned missions without a proper reason. "Because we can" no longer cuts it. We know we can do it, but we need a reason as to why we should.

Also, a fair amount of technology aboard Soyuz is newer than that aboard either the Shuttle or the ISS thanks to the TMA update. The ISS in some places uses vintage 80's gear.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, a fair amount of technology aboard Soyuz is newer than that aboard either the Shuttle or the ISS thanks to the TMA update. The ISS in some places uses vintage 80's gear.

Not that true... the ISS core computers and the Soyuz TMA computers are practically the same CPU hardware (radiation hardended 80386SX), but the user interface of the ISS, by using COTS notebooks with pretty recent hardware, is more modern. The oldest ISS hardware I can specifically point at is the russian docking system which is only slightly updated to Mir and early 1990s gear.

The coolest thing for old geeks: the latest Russian computer systems are programmed in good olde Pascal.

 

[GregBurch]

I personally think, the next step is not moon, mars or alpha centauri. Flags and foot prints are no achievements. Apollo 11 alone was IMHO a big waste of money, justified only by the later missions. Apollo 17 was actually the closest we have ever come to manned science in outer space.

What is more important is to change the rate. We need to launch more often and more important, need a infrastructure already in LEO. LEO is still 75% of the way to outer space. The ISS was a great project in not only assembly and international operations, but it also shows the weaknesses in our space station program - we rely too much on logistics from Earth and it is not possible to operate such a station for more than 20 years before critical parts will break down without replacements possible (we can't swap installed modules yet). The ISS is the largest spacecraft we have currently, but it still does usually not have more crew as the smallest manned spacecraft, the soyuz capsule. And this crew is mostly busy with keeping the large station running. Also bad.

In fact, all skills we would need for a real outpost in LEO are not much different to the skills required for a outpost on the moon. And it will be simpler to develop and test such skills in LEO as going to the moon to find out that a possible technological solution does not work.

Also, a cost-efficient way to LEO and assembly in LEO is better for the logistics to a lunar outpost - you would need to launch very often, and for doing actual science, transport lots of goods and many astronauts to the places of interest. I think, developing such a space access strategy is more important for any national space agency, as letting private entrepreneurs repeat the 1950s for fun.

We may disagree about almost everything when it comes to politics but, except for that last little snark, I'm with you 100% on this one. It's all about infrastructure. Imagine it's 1500 and you're contemplating the exploration and development of the New World -- but every time you launch an expedition, you not only have to build all the ships from scratch to be used only one time, but also all the docks, shoreside tackle and even things like ship supply warehouses and the carts and roads that supply them. That's pretty much where we are with the space endeavor.

I'm half hispanic. My Spanish ancestors were "Islenos" -- Canary Islanders dating back to the 16th centruy. Their little sub-culture grew up around supporting the Iberian exploration and development of the New World. Eventually, they moved on -- to the Spanish territory that eventually became Louisiana. In a rational expansion of humanity into space, I can see a recapitulation of this story -- the development of a robust support infrastructure in LEO is analogous to the staging area that Canaria was to the Iberian outreach to the New World. In my mind's eye, I can imagine Belters in the middle of the 21st century who speak fondly of their LEO ancestors ... "Leos" will have a bit of a haughty attitude to newcomers, I imagine, just like my Isleno cousins in Louisiana do about, well, everybody but other Islenos ...

Anyway, as to "private entrepreneurs repeating the 1950s for fun" ... well, you can imagine what I'd say about that

 

[n122vu]

I only agree with Moonwalker on one point: The STS is old, decaying, and costs more money each year to maintain. Unacceptable in my opinion. NASA has known for decades the STS would have an end-of-life, and also that it had a limited budget. IMHO, Orion or a suitable STS replacement should have already been thoroughly tested and deemed flight worthy at least one to two years prior to STS retirement (in an ideal world, that is). As smart as NASA is, there should never have even been the possibility of a gap in flight service due to a suitable replacement not existing yet. We should have been working with our partners in the ISS (ESA, Russia specifically) to help us develop a craft that could be a combination of Soyuz, Apollo/Orion, and CTV concepts so we would not be in this situation.

However, I do believe the ISS has benefit for future outward-travelling missions and also provides infrastructure, as Greg mentioned.

I believe that NASA needs to be partnering more closely with the private sector than they have been. With NASA's limited budget and mounting pressure and scrutiny in the media and general public regarding Orion, they should combine resources with companies like SpaceX/Virgin Galactic, etc. to get the job done in the event we lose the Soyuz as a resource.

 

[Moonwalker]

Bah, typed a big long reply and the goddamn forum ate it.

Just copy the text from time to time you write That's the way I always do since I lost a very long text a few years ago...

I can't for the life of me see the point in going on another set of deep space manned missions without a proper reason. "Because we can" no longer cuts it. We know we can do it, but we need a reason as to why we should.

I personally think, the next step is not moon, mars or alpha centauri. Flags and foot prints are no achievements.

Well, NASA has got a reason and new achievements single scientists and engineers already dreamed about for decades: preparing future missions to Mars by developing a new system and going back to the Moon. The Moon is going to act as test platform and not as a place for another few flags and foot prints. Just look at the new MK III space suit. NASA doesn't develope these things just for fun these days. If NASA would not do the job, who would in the near future? I say: exactly nobody. Nobody has the skill to fly to the Moon for now except NASA. Of course we know humans can do, but beside NASA (and even more important: the USA) nobody did. Talking about something like Europeans prefer to do is easy. But doing something like NASA did and right now is preparing to do once again is a big difference.

I don't know much about serious goals of other space agencies especially of Roscosmos. But the new goal and timeline of NASA is something really important if we want to fly to Mars one day.

Apollo 11 alone was IMHO a big waste of money, justified only by the later missions.

From a scientific point of view it was. But it was just the beginning and a test. Nobody knew how the spacecraft and space suits would really behave on the lunar soil. We knew nothing about possible contaminations and so on. It wouldn't have been a good idea to land for the first time, put the experiment packages and lunar rover onto the surface and start a 3 day stay like Apollo 17 you mentioned.


-----Posted Added-----

I believe that NASA needs to be partnering more closely with the private sector than they have been. With NASA's limited budget and mounting pressure and scrutiny in the media and general public regarding Orion, they should combine resources with companies like SpaceX/Virgin Galactic, etc. to get the job done in the event we lose the Soyuz as a resource.

I don't think so. What SpaceX does / is going to do NASA already did a half century ago. Virgin Galactic is going to bring fun to some space tourists in short suborbital flights. Neither SpaceX nor Virgin Galactic has any experiences and resources required for Constellation and manned space flight exploration.

 

[simonpro]

Ok then, but why do we want to go to Mars? What's the purpose of going?

At the moment your argument seems to be to go there for the sake of it. That's piontless.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Back on the Russian topic... So far it looks like the initiative in collaboration in space comes mostly from US Senate. EU Parliament may join them anytime soon. I think they've got power to deny any joint programs with Russia, launch services purchasing, manned program collaboration, etc. I have not heard yet that anyone in the State Duma or Roscosmos would speak up that a disruption of cooperation in space with Western partners would be a good idea.

A direct outcome of this: Russia gets kicked back in 1995 in scope of commercial and manned space. The ISS gets sunk no later than in 2015. Commercial customers lose contracts for Russian launches and begin storming Kourou and Shriharikota, losing much revenues. Atlas V will fly until Lockheed runs out of RD-180 supply. Sea Launch goes bust. Europe is on its own when it gets down to a manned capsule. Did I forget something?

Speaking shortly, this is a disadvantageous situation for both side, a route to space exploration stagnation or at least slowing down.

How do you think, is there any chance that Western legislative powers will swallow this and let the space cooperation with Russia continue?

 

[GregBurch]

Speaking shortly, this is a disadvantageous situation for both side, a route to space exploration stagnation or at least slowing down.

How do you think, is there any chance that Western legislative powers will swallow this and let the space cooperation with Russia continue?

I agree it's potentially very bad for everyone involved. The problem from the US perspective is that the mutual dependencies developed from the 1990s through now in the two national space programs were premised on a view of US-Russian relations that many in the US political and governmental systems (which are not entirely synonymous) may now come to view as anachronistic.

If there's any US political animal that has an even shorter attention span than a US president, it's a member of the US House of Representatives. If a particular political act doesn't have a pay-off in supporting re-election within the two-year current term, it's nearly impossible to build any meaningful support in Congress for it. With the Democrats having a relatively slim majority, and them being hypersensitive to any criticism that they're "soft" on US foreign policy issues right now, I fear the complex mutual US/Russian national space program dependencies will become tangled up with a whole host of issues that have nothing to do with simple space program management.

In other words, I foresee a high probability that the places where the two programs interact will become even more troubled ...

 

[Urwumpe]

EU Parliament may join them anytime soon.

You already have a misunderstanding of ESA here - European spaceflight is not depending directly on the EU, but on the science and education ministers of the member states (which are not always members of the EU, like Switzerland, which is full ESA member and pays about 4% of the show).

So, our governments can rattle and shout as much as they can about South-Ossetia, but the next chance for them to influence ESA directly will be the next budget conference (in 2010, AFAIK). Of course, they will be more critical about cooperation projects with Russia then, when the situation in the Caucasus is not resolved until then.

But I doubt we will be reading a lot about South-Ossetia in 2009. When OSZE observers find (again) indications of genocides and ethic cleansing against Georgians, Russia will stay the only country which recognizes South Ossetia - and if they don't drop this hot potato, will likely get damaged politically by a stronger distrust in it's politics, but the manned spaceflight program together with Russia will not end because of that.

After all, please remember: During the hottest phase of the cold war, European and Soviet-Russian scientists had already been cooperating in space. Of course it took a lot of effort and political work. But the gains outweighted the risk of giving too much scientific knowledge and skills to the enemy - and the European interest into a third leg for space access (after NASA and Arianespace) sort of saved also the scientific space program of Russia from getting stopped completely.

PS: Also, it would be interesting to see, if the recognition of South-Ossetia by the Russian government manages, what the separatists failed to do: Create a stable political infrastructure in their regions. And not the already existing Kleptocracies.