posted 09-22-2005 10:02 AM              

------------------
Scott Schneeweis

URL:

posted 09-22-2005 10:26 AM               

It's necessary because of an extended period without U.S. human space launches. But, that's not new, the U.S. has been through periods like that before.

What is NEW is that the period since the loss of STS-107 is the first extended period with U.S. launches during without any interruption in U.S. human presence in space.

If working with international partners allows us to do things we've never done before, I call that a good thing.

posted 09-22-2005 01:06 PM               

You are of course right: the US space program is in solid decline, as became apparent with the Columbia accident and even more clearly after STS-114 that was rather the beginning of an end than the continuation of something. At present and likely for the next decade, the US will not have a fully operational manned space system, and the prospects of this new system are not guaranteed either. Instead of building a solid space programme, the US has indulged into ideological songs about privately funded spaceflight. Alas, while the semi-private Russian Energiya company is a dynamic enterprise proposing not only a current, but also a future system that as already assured some degree of fuding, and organizes private journeys to space, the large US companies have failed entirely to show entrepreneurial spirit and take the lead towards an operational space system. Where are the companies that promoted private flights to the Moon in the late 60s? Have they put their idea to business? Nah. Nothing but talk. It's a Russian enterprise that is now proposing private flights to the Moon.

It does not help to whine or to boast over and over again that you are the greatest - you got to put hard work, solid brainwork and serious money behind it. Stop the ideological bullshit - the Russians have done so thirteen years ago. Get things to work.

posted 09-23-2005 11:40 AM               

Yes, the Russians build an inexpensive and reliable launch vehicle and they have the manufacturing process down to science. I agree in this day of global out sourcing, it's cheaper to pay Russia to build our vehicles until the CEV is built.

What bothers me is how this country had the technology, the infrastructure, the skilled workers and the manufacturing process that was bought & paid for during M-G-A, and we threw it in the garbage. Now we get to start all over again and it's going to cost $100 Billion, for virtually the same thing we had developed during project Apollo.

I think short term it's wise to buy from Russia, but what happens when Russia decides no longer to manufacture these vehicles for us or there's some type of disruption that doesn't allow the US to fly? It's a dangerous precedent to have our space programs hinge on another country, especially given the multitude of problems happening in Russia today.

Another little known fact is the US military was only allowed to have weapon systems manufactured by US companies. Clinton changed this, so now many of our weapon systems are made outside the US. What happens when these countries decide not to manufacture anything for us because we've pissed them off?

Unfortunately the shortsighted politicans don't realize that it may cost more for US workers to build projects, the job is generally done right, it provides highly skilled jobs, the money is spent in our economy and if there's a problem, it's much easier to fix because you're a few hours away, not on the other side of the world.

posted 09-23-2005 02:16 PM               

I think the space programme is one of the few goods Russia can actually earn hard money with on the foreign currency market. Maybe some other with the Sukhoi's and the MIG's, but else there is pretty little that is competitive on a global level.