U.S. Russia Space Tensions Continue to Rise
Feud between SpaceX and ULA over space contract grows more intense, Washington Post
“This week, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said he would prohibit the export of Russian-made engines used in many U.S. rocket launches. That could eventually cause a disruption in how the Pentagon sends military satellites into orbit. And it plays into the hands of Musk, who is arguing that the nation’s security interests in space shouldn’t be dependent on the Russians.”
House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Questions Stability of U.S.-Russia Space Partnership
“As we move forward, it is important that we fully understand our nation’s independent capabilities with regard to ISS operations,” the letter states. “While this new development is not related to access to the ISS for our astronauts in the next few years, it certainly pertains to the strength of our partnership with Russia. If Mr. Rogozin’s statement proves to be accurate, we will have to take a step back and evaluate the costs and benefits of maintaining ISS beyond 2020 without our Russian partners.”
Letter
“the nation’s security interests in space shouldn’t be dependent on the Russians.”
Our security interests should never have been placed in the hands of our recent friends, the Russians, and we should never have given up our own indigenous capabilities.
The only reason we did was shortsightedness and corporate greed.
Now the US has a problem and we’d best get back to work.
Maybe we should also take a minute and take stock of who has been wanting to get China involved in the ISS as well. Because there is a lesson from this in that relationship, which is, we shouldn’t have even gone down that road to begin with.
Can we all agree, that such a thing is a terrible idea, on the scale of relying on the Russians to such a degree as we did, and is never going to happen after this hard lesson?
http://www.forbes.com/sites…
This article proves to me that commercial Space is already here!!
The Russians have most of their Space lodging commercially paid for.
Their human flights to space commercially paid for and they have a customer for their propulsion systems.
Good business would be for them to treat their customers better?
United States Taxpayer.
[laughs]
Seals? What no Space Marines?
Paul that’s it!!!!
SPACE MARINES!!! That’s the ticket
Get DOD astronauts up there!!!
Human space program!! Cool
Next mission after they liberate ISS, send them to the moon on SLS Orion to club that little Chinese rabbit.
Well I figured they could use a dragon as a moon lander since we have no landers right now.
How soon can we have SLS Orion ready?????
My tick pilots are ready for military training now!!!
Let’s take the universe!!!!
🙂
I see the following article about the Air Force expediting Space X approval as a very good sign.
Air Force Spending $60 Million for SpaceX U.S. Launches at http://www.businessweek.com…
I have a question??
Why does it cost 60 million and people working around the o’clock to get Spacex certified????
What are these people doing???
Shuffling paper?? Writing memos???
Aren’t these people already on the pay role? Is this all over time hours??????
Hey Spacex your rocket flew
Certified!!
Done
What’s the big deal???
Sounds Like more horse hockey to me!
Good point, you may be right. I hope even if it is a response to Space X’s lawsuit, however, it is still a step in the right direction.
Why don’t you spend some time actually trying to find the answers yourself? You have the internet available to use. Perhaps you’re not interested in the answers as they’d ruin your assumptions.
Google searches take very little time and even less effort. Even 5 and 6 year old kids can do them.
Your assumption is incorrect Mr. Squared
Which assumption? An assumption wasn’t made.
It doesn’t take much effort to find out what is required to achieve certification. Learning requires effort.
In the last save a satellite thread, I refer to a discussion you and I had earlier. Perhaps that will help you understand why I ask so many questions sir.
I don’t save discussions with you, but answers can be found through searching. Moreover, your questions tend to come with a certain implication. Let’s quote you:
“What are these people doing?”
“Shuffling papers? Writing memos?”
“Aren’t these people already on the pay role? Is this all over time hours?”
“Hey Spacex your rocket flew”
“Certified!”
“Done”
“What’s the big deal???”
“Sounds Like more horse hockey to me!”
Your last statement shows your bias. Note that I left out the extra question marks and exclamation points because I’m not 6 years old.
Your default assumption appears to be that if SpaceX doesn’t do it or control it, someone is doing it wrong. There are a lot of things wrong with what is and has been done in the space program, but there are also a lot of people that do good, honest work. Frankly, you insult those people quite a bit.
As for what it takes to get certification and why certification standards are what they are, again you can expend the effort to find out. That’s how learning is done and more importantly how attitudes are changed. It’s also through effort that objectivity is gained.
Mr. Squared all our conversations are recorded in our discus profile.
Years ago I made a NASA joke.
Being crudely funny.
I said how many NASA engineers does it take to torque a bolt. I suggested three or four. Well my joke lead to a tech explaining in detail how it takes 30 or forty people to get that bolt designed and installed. He exposed in detail all the wasted layers of management. His post was wonderful!!
Mr. Squared, I have a job were most of the time I am very busy and useful. At times my skills are not needed since I currently work outside what I was trained for. I know what its like to show up to get a check.
Also one of the projects we did failed to go into operation because the owner pulled out. Year of my life wasted but I got my check.
When someone asks a question in a classroom we all Learn Mr. Squared and I don’t mind beginning proven wrong.
Nothing worse than a small bunch of people knowing lots but not sharing because they weren’t asked.
I
You assumed or suggest that perhaps I’m not interested in the answers. Couldn’t be farther from the truth sir.
This train wreck has been coming for a long time. The President’s 2011 budget request is looking better all the time – we would be a year away from commercial crew capability and a new U.S. liquid rocket engine. How is “plan B” working out ?
http://www.spacenews.com/ar…
Russia is in a far weaker position than their hubris lets on. Earlier tonight another Proton upper stage failed, sending a big commsat to screw itself into the ground. Combined with their behavior this 6th Proton failure in 5 years is going to give potential customers pause. Another hammer blow to ILS would be a successful Falcon Heavy maiden flight.
For those who have not seen this, Russia’s space program has just received a huge funding boost according to ‘The Moscow Times’. See http://www.themoscowtimes.c… . I’d argue that Moscow is setting in place the foundation for a shift away from cooperation with the US (and more broadly, ‘the West’) on Space, and is about to seek closer cooperation with China. Some pretty major implications, including a post 2020 Russia-China space station, and the possibility of military cooperation in Space, as well as of course, cutting access for the US to ISS. I somehow don’t imagine Putin will be thinking about Russian presence in the high frontier purely for peaceful scientific endeavours or exploration. National Prestige, global influence, and military power will matter. Welcome to the new age of 21st Century space competition…
Basically, I think that the powers that be in the US (including the politicians and commercial leadership) considered Russia a conquered vassal that they could use to reduce their costs and increase their wealth. What they never realised was that Russia had never actually admitted defeat and, under Putin, has rebuilt to the point where they are ready to go their own way again. Unfortunately, the US has made itself partially dependent on Russia in many ways and isn’t ready, either practically or in terms of policy, for this new paradigm shift.