|
Author
|
Topic: US-Russian relations, Soyuz and Georgia War
|
E2M Lem Man
Member Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 08-11-2008 02:10 PM
   
Well, we have been asking ourselves, what would we do if Russia did anything that we didn't like and they held the keys to our transport to the space station?It is better that this happened now before the Orbiters were retired. Should we keep the Shuttles running? How do we deal with the Russians on-board the ISS? Should we give more funds to Orion/Ares and/or the commercial transport spacecraft and boosters? J.M. Busby |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-11-2008 02:32 PM
I think it would be wise to wait until there are direct indications that Soyuz operations will be disrupted before worrying too much about changes to the plan moving forward. This conflict is only days old and will hopefully reach a resolution before Soyuz becomes a concern. |
Mr Meek
Member Posts: 353
From: Chattanooga, TN
Registered: Dec 2007
|
posted 08-11-2008 02:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by E2M Lem Man:
Should we give more funds to Orion/Ares
Per the most recent thread in the Constellation forum, 2014 would be the earliest we could see a launch. Systems take time to develop. quote:
Originally posted by E2M Lem Man:
and/or the commercial transport spacecraft and boosters?
I don't see how this would be a viable option right now. There's no other man-rated boosters, and Orion has yet to be launched in any form.It may not be time to back-pocket the Shuttle just yet, but it does make you wonder just where the point of no return is for the end of the program. Has NASA gone too far to tack on more than 1 additional mission? Can the hardware be produced? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-11-2008 11:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Meek:
Can the hardware be produced?
Saving America’s space program (The Space Review) by Stephen Metschan Time is short. Senior NASA management is committed to beginning the destruction of the tooling used to construct the Space Shuttle’s External Tank as early as next month. This destruction is completely unnecessary to support the current Ares 1 production plan because the floor space NASA plans to use is not occupied by the External Tank tooling. If true, I found this truly disturbing. The author is preaching for its own launch system but still... if the Air Force managed to get two EELVs developed to secure access to space, I can't see why NASA shouldn't be allowed to do the same. Or at least given the funds to make the necessary studies, internal and/or independent. Chris. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-12-2008 11:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by E2M Lem Man:
Well, we have been asking ourselves, what would we do if Russia did anything that we didn't like and they held the keys to our transport to the space station?
The first thing you do is listen. Russia's has been trying to be heard via "diplomatic statements" for quite some time now but nobody (the West) paid much attention. So if the diplomacy option doesn't work, go for the military one. I'm sure Western countries will now listen. Or at least they better be. Let's hope that McCain and Obama got the message loud and clear (Bush is apparently deaf).Chris. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-13-2008 01:58 AM
AP Top News at 1:29 a.m. CDT Declaring "the aggressor has been punished," the Kremlin ordered a halt Tuesday to Russia's devastating assault on Georgia -- five days of air and ground attacks that left homes in smoldering ruins and uprooted 100,000 people. Both sides accepted the general outlines of a cease-fire plan, but Georgia complained hours after the Russian endorsement that bombs and shells were still falling. CNN: Georgia agrees to Russian-French plan to settle conflict The presidents of Georgia and Russia have agreed to a six-point plan to calm the conflict over Georgia's separatist territories, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said late Tuesday. The plan "cannot resolve the larger problems and issues," Sarkozy said. We need to work on those. But, obviously, it does underline and respect and guarantee Georgia's territorial integrity." The agreement calls for an immediate cease-fire with Russian and Georgian forces withdrawing to the positions they held on August 6, before the outbreak of hostilities. It also allows displaced civilians to return home safely and opens Georgia to humanitarian aid workers. The conflict centers on whether South Ossetia, where hostilities started last week, and Abkhazia will remain in the Georgian republic. AP NewsAlert at 1:48 a.m. CDT Top Georgian minister confirms his country's troops have left breakaway province of Abkhazia. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-13-2008 02:59 AM
Orlando Sentinel: Russian invasion threatens the Space Station The Russian invasion of Georgia may have claimed an unexpected victim: U.S. access to the international space station.U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., acknowledged Tuesday that Russia’s five-day invasion of the Georgian province of South Ossetia makes it extremely unlikely that Congress will vote to exempt the Russian-built Soyuz capsule from a law that bans trade with nations that sell nuclear material to Iran. NASA had been counting on the waiver to enable it to continue carrying people and cargo to the space station after the space shuttle is retired in 2010. The Soyuz is NASA’s only proven alternative to get to the station. “There will be consequences not just for Russia but for the U.S. too,” Nelson said Tuesday of reaction to the invasion. “That’s a $100 billion investment up there that we won’t have access to.” One senior House Republican staffer said the waiver is “dead on arrival. Nobody thinks it’s going to happen, and the reality is there is no back-up plan for the space station.” This thing is getting way out of proportion. Somebody will have to explain what's the relationship between Russia's action in South Ossetia, nuclear material to Iran and NASA... As for the "no back-up plan for the space station", well, that's what happens when you put all your eggs into one basket (valid for Ares too) or shooting oneself in the foot: the (blurred) Vision for Space Exploration - at the time hailed as the best thing that happened since Apollo, policy-wise... We'll see. This is fun. Chris. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 08-13-2008 06:25 PM
I have a feeling that SOMEBODY in Congress will do some serious arm twisting to get the Soyuz available if it comes right down to it. The typical attitude in Congress tends to be "I'll won't sign it, but I MIGHT sign if you give me something, such as..."Plus, depending on how the contract was worded, I have to wonder if there might be a loophole in it for a spacecraft "rental" or "lease" (which is meaningless anyway as a Soyuz is a one use craft). Very interesting situation brewing, that is for sure. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-14-2008 09:20 AM
Putin has made a calculated decision that our interests (and requirement for Russian support) to prosecute the war against Islamic extremism and Iranian nuclear proliferation will trump any significant backlash against their attempt to reverse the progression of pro-western regimes that have been enveloping the southern borders of Russia. Make no mistake, the move into Georgia has been planned for quite some time and is part of an overall strategic effort by the the Russians to reduce pro-western influence/reassert Russian dominance...This problem isnt going away anytime soon. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-14-2008 09:54 AM
So why Georgia made the first move?
The Georgian government gave the Russians a very good excuse to intervene. And I had quite a laugh when some of the Georgians actually thought that Uncle Sam or the EU were going to intervene!  Much like Chenchenya, there's oil in the background. Again. Chris. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 08-14-2008 10:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
So why Georgia made the first move?
Georgia didn't make the first move -- the South Ossetians (Ossetiites? Ossettis?) did. They (and Abkhazia) are aligned with Russia, and the Russians were already poised at their jumping off points to move in when the Georgians made their move.The intended audience for the effort was not the West -- it was the former Soviet states who are now aligned with NATO. The message is, "The US/NATO can do nothing to stop us from doing whatever we want in Georgia. Who do you think will stop us if we intervene militarily when you (Czech Republic) allow the US to deploy missiles on your land?" Ultimately, the war on terrorism will (IMO) trump NASA's access to the ISS on Soyuz... And please, cut it out with the "George Bush is an idiot" stuff. He heard the diplomatic messages from Russia. He chose not to roll over and give them what they want. I hope whomever becomes President will not give other nations around the world free reign to do whatever they want so that they will "like" the US. Leaders of nations don't do things because they like other nations... they do things because it is in their interest to do so. ------------------
John Capobianco
Camden DE |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-14-2008 10:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
I hope whomever becomes President will not give other nations around the world free reign to do whatever they want so that they will "like" the US. Leaders of nations don't do things because they like other nations... they do things because it is in their interest to do so.
 Mirror, mirror, what do you see? Chris. |
hlbjr
Member Posts: 475
From: Delray Beach Florida USA
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 08-14-2008 10:52 AM
John, I agree with your points fully. It is clear who has the most to gain from this incursion and Russia's extreme response is out of proportion and far outside the boundaries of the disputed issues and lands. Your point of Russia's preparations is also well taken. They didn't just get their forces together quickly and cross the border. This clearly was a well orchestrated, well organized military action which has clearly been weeks if not months in the planning. This has to hurt our relations with Russia and I don't see how it cannot bleed over into the space programs. Russia's message to all of it's former Soviet satellites is clear and even more importantly, Russia's economic message about the steps it will take to control the oil & gas supplies to Europe and the rest of the world can only enhance the price of their reserves. Instability is Russia's friend. I understand why the European governments are upset about this Georgian invasion...they've been on the wrong end of Russian bullying with gas supplies more than once. Russia has been spoiling for this fight for a while now and Georgia made the major mistake of taking the bait. Russia also can't seem to honor their ceasefires. Just when it's reported they're backing out, it seems they're probing further in. Their President has been making statements at odds with Putin which further strains their credibility with the rest of the world. I wonder how the guys on the ISS view this or do they just ignore it and agree it's an "off limits" topic?Harvey Brown
Delray Beach, FL |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-14-2008 02:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by hlbjr:
I wonder how the guys on the ISS view this or do they just ignore it and agree it's an "off limits" topic?
Well, they don't have much choice, do they?  More seriously, look at the women's beach volley competition at the Olympics, Russia against... Georgia. Everything went well and they hugged each other at the end of the match, not just a simple handshake. Chris. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 08-14-2008 07:29 PM
Yes, but I seem to recall the Georgian team members from that match were originally from Brazil. So there weren't any real ethnic roots between them and the Russian team. But there was one exchange of good will between Georgian and Russian competitors in the women's pistol shooting competition. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-15-2008 06:36 AM
This thread started by JM was a fair and hypothetical question, which to my reading, drew no immediate conclusion about Russian action in Georgia. However, this has drifted into the territory of "we don't like what Russia is doing" - assuming that the INTERNATIONAL contributing members automatically agreed with this. From this point it was doomed to drift away from any tenuous connection with space. Objectively let's just say that Russia doesn't have a monopoly on geo-political hypocrisy. Recent "global policing" by current and ex-superpowers shows that the motivational factors are often a lot darker than they appear. Paul
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-15-2008 06:47 AM
Though this thread has been allowed to meander a bit off-topic, please try to steer the discussion back to space policy as it specifically relates to the Russian space program. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-15-2008 09:41 AM
Isn't the basic underlying question this one: who owns, or can claim jurisdiction over, the space station if the US and Russia go back to Cold War status (or worse)? then what?Chris. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 08-15-2008 10:13 AM
I was wondering the same.Technically, who "owns" the ISS, given (a) the multi-nation modules and (b) the fact that the non-Russian, non-US modules could not have been delivered without Russian/US transport, leaving the other nations impotent when it comes to policy. Practically the keys are in the hands of the US/Russia as they control access, but what would the lawyers say? If a crisis arose could there be a territorial dispute 250 miles up? Paul |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-15-2008 10:23 AM
To quote the European Space Agency: Who owns the International Space Station?
The Intergovernmental Agreement allows the Space Station Partners States to extend their national jurisdiction in outer space, so the elements they provide (e.g. laboratories) are assimilated to the territories of the Partners States.The basic rule is that 'each partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its nationals' (Article 5 of the Intergovernmental Agreement). This means that the owners of the Space Station - the United States, Russia, the European Partner, Japan and Canada - are legally responsible for the respective elements they provide. The European States are being treated as one homogenous entity, called the European Partner on the Space Station. But any of the European States may extend their respective national laws and regulations to the European elements, equipment and personnel. This extension of national jurisdiction determines what laws are applicable for activities occurring on a Partner's Space Station elements (e.g. European law in the European Columbus Laboratory). This legal regime recognises the jurisdiction of the Partner States' courts and allows the application of national laws in such areas as criminal matters, liability issues, and protection of intellectual property rights. Any conflicts of jurisdiction between the Partners may be resolved through the application of other rules and procedures already developed nationally and internationally. So, in the case of a dispute, it would be "every man to his corner" while the lawyers duke it out on the ground... |
KAPTEC
Member Posts: 578
From: Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 08-15-2008 12:06 PM
Remember guys that all along the Cold War, and in spite of all other very important and dangerous questions, The Occupation Quartet of Berlin continued working togheter in the Prison House of Spandau without problems...(A little hope for the ISS and us.)  Jorge |
E2M Lem Man
Member Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 08-18-2008 03:08 PM
The Russians have made quite a few mistakes getting used to capitolism but on the subject, can we trust them over the next few years to get us to ISS?We have to have our own ways to fly and not depend on Russians or anyone. J.M. Busby |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-19-2008 12:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by E2M Lem Man:
The Russians have made quite a few mistakes getting used to capitolism
I don't see any correlation with capitalism (although I like the idea of Capitolism or further WhiteHouseism!). The Russians just followed the US foreign policy and probably got fed up with the "do as I say, not as I do" slogan. Now we have to deal with this; something no one apparently thought it would happen (like opening a box that should have remained closed and locked; easier to say in hindsight though). quote:
...but on the subject, can we trust them over the next few years to get us to ISS?
There are no alternatives, thanks to George. Unless you drop the ISS. But it's a source of revenue for the Russians, I'm not sure they are going to jeopardize that. But since the box is now open, who knows? quote:
We have to have our own ways to fly and not depend on Russians or anyone.
That's something Bill and George should have thought about (see I don't support one camp over the other!). Big question: can you afford and finance it? And there are other partners which are probably more reliable than the Russians but are presumably more hesitant to join the US (see Constellation). Chris. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-19-2008 10:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by E2M Lem Man:
It is better that this happened now before the Orbiters were retired. Should we keep the Shuttles running?
So returning to the original focus of the thread... how does retention of Shuttle capability through the Ares gap enable steady-state presence onboard ISS? Thanks to the short-sighted decision to terminate the X-38/CRV program and absent reliance on Soyuz there would be no lifeboat. |
Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-19-2008 11:13 PM
What is the longest a shuttle can remain attached to ISS in shutdown mode? Are there such contingencies?The US could consider not remaining on the ISS for long term visits, but continue visits that last longer with the Shuttle attached. A month at a time? I dont see why it couldnt work. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-19-2008 11:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer:
I dont see why it couldnt work.
The Soyuz can only stay at the ISS for six months because after that time, its fuel lines begin to degrade. The same is true for the orbiter's systems, but the length of time is shorter. I believe studies have estimated the shuttle's on-orbit lifespan to be about a month before the risk of damaging the orbiter beyond safe (re)use. The turnaround time between these longer stays would be greater too, as more in depth inspections would be needed, which would decrease the number of missions that could be supported annually. |
Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-20-2008 12:04 AM
Well we are talking about pushing the shuttle to its limits until a replacement comes along. Doing long term damage to the shuttle shouldnt be an issue as its only being retired anyway.I understand the down time between missions due to inspection requirements, I have been in the OPF during such phases many times before. But this is also a national security issue too, protecting American sovereignty in space. When did risk become a bad word? Isnt that what exploration is all about. It wouldnt have to be many trips, just enough to make a US presence possible if required and when required, we are not talking construction, simply showing the flag. Contrary to your belief this crisis will be short term, I think the Russians see the outgoing president as the lame duck he is, and are taking advantage of the election and transition to essentially take what they want. Their possession of the two Georgian regions will last months maybe years, not days. American wont stand for that, this crisis has just begun. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-20-2008 12:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer:
American wont stand for that, this crisis has just begun.
So it's a short-term crisis but it has just begun?  By the way folks, have you noticed where the 2014 Winter Olympics will take place? Sochi. And where is Sochi? Next to? to? Georgia! Chris. |
Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-20-2008 01:03 AM
My grammar may not be perfect, sorry... I tried to say: Contrary to Mr Pearlman's belief that this would be a short term crisis... I believe it has only just begun. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-20-2008 01:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer:
Mr Pearlman's belief that this would be a short term crisis...
I don't believe I have ever offered an opinion as to the extent of this "crisis"; I only offered a hope that it would be shorter than it would be necessary to find a replacement for the Soyuz, which is not until 2011 when NASA's exemption to the Iran Non-Proliferation Act expires. |
Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-20-2008 02:04 AM
Sorry if I misread that, we can only hope it doesnt go that long. I still wouldnt be surprised if the Russians held out that long. Poland's missile base decision may have triggered counter actions that will not let Russia ease its stand.In the meantime, to the point of the thread, the real question at hand: Can there be additional Shuttle flights made or is it too late to gain access to more ETs? SRB production can continue its a part of ARES, the launch facilities can be postponed from total changeover but without the ET its all mute. |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 2896
From: Titusville, FL USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 08-20-2008 07:49 AM
Think of it this way, in the 60's we went to the Moon as a result of a percieved Soviet threat. We were united and motivated.In this elction year, the two major candidates have begun to understand that our national leadership is threatened when we have no "manned" access to space after the shuttle fleet is retired. Fortunately for us who have been pounding this drum for a while the candidates agree that this is unacceptable. So now we have another situation that requires us to address. IMHO fly two shuttle missions a year while preparing Ares to fly. It will be expensive and be difficult - heck it will be a logistics nightmare but we can do it if we have the national will. Tim
|
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-20-2008 08:00 AM
The Shuttle Orbiter is not viable (as a lifeboat) - it is a much more complex spacecraft then Soyuz and cannot be fully "shut down" while on orbit. As Rob mentioned, decay and leakage of hydrazine propellant/affiliated pressurization systems are but one aspect which impact endurance, there are others - for example cryogenics which supply the Fuel Cells (mitigatable somewhat through the use of augmented power from ISS and installation of EDO pallets in the cargo bay but would net a maximum of 30-60 days and the presence of the pallets displace other payload which would be needed aloft). There are also issues with sustaining pilot proficiency; flying the shuttle is a skill requiring continual reinforcement through practice or it is attrited and increases the risk of accidental loss of the crew/flight-vehicle.
Even if the Georgian situation itself is resolved in short-order, Putin's demonstrated propensity to re-impose attributes of Soviet Union style influence over neighboring countries is indicative of future troubling geo-political flashpoints awaiting Western European/US and Russian relations; it should only reinforce the urgency to re-secure dedicated U.S. owned/operated space transport, lest our foreign policy and national security continue to be held hostage by such a dependency. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 08-20-2008 09:23 AM
The other bit about Shuttle is the human factor, even if it can be reworked for longer shutdown periods. There was a proposal from some engineers to do that with a shuttle years ago and fly it as an extreme long duration mini space station. John Young shot the idea down by asking if they were also going to "freeze dry" the pilots as well to keep their bodies from deteriorating while on orbit. There is a reason why MSes coming back from the ISS do it in a prone position afterall. To fly a shuttle, one needs to do it in a seated position. |
Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-21-2008 05:33 AM
Recumbent seats on the shuttle are for returning long duration astronauts but aren't necessary for stays of 30 days or so, not if the proper pre-landing exercise regime is maintained.Some Cosmonauts/Astronauts have walked away from post landing in Soyuz, everyone is different I suppose, but we aren't talking about 60 day plus missions here. There is a point where a recumbent seat is definitely required, but its not a do or die requirement for such short duration stays as mentioned above. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-22-2008 10:29 PM
Aviation Week: Cosmonaut Photographed South Ossetia From ISS Russia has claimed humanitarian motives in its use of the International Space Station (ISS) to collect overhead imagery of South Ossetia shortly after it invaded the breakaway Georgian province.On Aug. 9 Cosmonaut Oleg Kononenko used a digital camera equipped with an 800mm telephoto lens and a video camera to photograph "after-effects of border conflict operations in the Caucasus," according to the ISS status report for that day published by NASA on its website. Use of the space station for military purposes would violate the Jan. 29, 1998, ISS cooperation agreement between NASA and the Russian Space Agency, which makes repeated references to the civil nature of the orbiting facility. "The Space Station together with its additions of evolutionary capability will remain a civil station, and its operation and utilization will be for peaceful purposes, in accordance with international law," reads Article 14 of the agreement. Apparently with that language in mind, Russia's space agency Roscosmos informed the U.S. space agency that Kononenko's actions two days after Russian forces moved into South Ossetia were not military in nature. "Roscosmos informed us that the pictures were requested to support potential humanitarian activities in the area, including serious water resource management issues," said a spokesman for NASA's Office of External Relations, who added that NASA was not pursuing the matter. |
Lee Robert Brandon-Cremer
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-23-2008 04:08 AM
With decades of space station experience under their belts, anyone who understands the Russian space program knows that military observations of land and sea played a large part of their Salyut and MIR 'experiments'. The only real surprise here is that the news got out that they took such photos at all, as if they had nothing to hide. The reason expressed as 'humanitarian' seems rather hypocritical, since they were the aggressors. You can bet NASA doesn't want to stir this pot at all. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-26-2008 03:59 PM
The Orlando Sentinel reports that Senators John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and David Vitter of New Orleans "sent a letter to President Bush this week, saying that in light of tensions with Russia, the White House should tell NASA to stop any further dismantling of the shuttle infrastructure for at least a year to keep open the possibility of more shuttle flights beyond 2010."A PDF scan of the original letter can downloaded here from the Orlando Sentinel. |
E2M Lem Man
Member Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 08-27-2008 03:29 PM
Robert, have the US astronauts ever photographed anything at the request of any military branch of government?The McCain letter brings focus to what is happening at NASA about future shuttle flights. I still feel we need shuttle until we get Ares-5 or Jupiter flying. I say that because Ares-1 just doesn't have the payload capability (weight or size) to support anything more than manned flights to ISS. We need more than that, if we are going to replace shuttle with anything as capable. J.M. Busby |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-28-2008 09:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by E2M Lem Man:
Robert, have the US astronauts ever photographed anything at the request of any military branch of government?
Hard to tell since most of the Shuttle-DoD missions are still classified but since those missions were used to deploy spy satellites, I'm not sure there's any value in asking astronauts to take pictures of anything (satellites do it better). Chris. |
advertisement