Russia launches European satellites into space

Nice to know with the USA not having a reliable launch vehicle...

Good for Russia for doing business with the EU...I trust that all the dire vilification of Russia didn't affect this space cooperation...

Stefanya wrote:

Good for Russia for doing business with the EU...I trust that all the dire vilification of Russia didn't affect this space cooperation...

Oh? No more fear that treacherous greedy West will rob Russia of its resources and steal its technology? LOL!

ana 8 wrote:

<quoted text>Oh? No more fear that treacherous greedy West will rob Russia of its resources and steal its technology? LOL!

Tvayar komuniska.

uther pendragon wrote:

Nice to know with the USA not having a reliable launch vehicle...

Why would you consider that nice? The USA is your country, is it not? It has provided the globe with all kinds of new scientific knowledge, and you think it would be nice if we had no reliable launch vehicle?

We have three major, reliable launch vehicles. One is the shuttle, which is growing near the end of its useful life, like Uther. The second is an updated and reliable pair of Delta rockets with over 300 launches. The third is the Atlas V (actually uses Russian engines in its first stage). There are at least three other launch vehicles that are competent and reliable: the Minuteman, the Peacekeeper, and the Trident.

Just launched is the first Ares 1-X. Whether that program continues or we go directly to the larger Constellation series is iffy.

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would you consider that nice? The USA is your country, is it not? It has provided the globe with all kinds of new scientific knowledge, and you think it would be nice if we had no reliable launch vehicle?
We have three major, reliable launch vehicles. One is the shuttle, which is growing near the end of its useful life, like Uther. The second is an updated and reliable pair of Delta rockets with over 300 launches. The third is the Atlas V (actually uses Russian engines in its first stage). There are at least three other launch vehicles that are competent and reliable: the Minuteman, the Peacekeeper, and the Trident.
Just launched is the first Ares 1-X. Whether that program continues or we go directly to the larger Constellation series is iffy.

As an American I have every right to consider the dumping of previous heavy launch vehicles to rely solely on the reuseable shuttle platform a bad idea. Perhaps you consider disagreement with NASA decisions somehow unpatriotic?

Apollo was in fact a better platform than Soyuz but was abandoned in favor of a bad idea.

I can make comments about bad bureaucratic decisions. Do you have any concept of free speach? It seems not.

uther pendragon wrote:

<quoted text>
As an American I have every right to consider the dumping of previous heavy launch vehicles to rely solely on the reuseable shuttle platform a bad idea. Perhaps you consider disagreement with NASA decisions somehow unpatriotic?
Apollo was in fact a better platform than Soyuz but was abandoned in favor of a bad idea.
I can make comments about bad bureaucratic decisions. Do you have any concept of free speach? It seems not.

You can babble your head off, I don't care. I guess you were being sarcastic, but you've jabbed the USA so many times, it was hard to tell your intent. I thought I asked a tactful question and in no way threatened your freedom of speech.

BUT what you said was "Nice to know with the USA not having a reliable launch vehicle..."

I pointed out to you the USA has many reliable launch vehicles. I do not think Apollo was a better platform than Soyuz. The Soyuz is an excellent and reliable manned craft.

The US had the Saturn V which was an outright dangerous launch vehicle compared to the Shuttle. It could not launch the mass that the shuttle now lifts.

Personally I think the ISS is a waste of money. How 'bout that.

Had we been smart, I think we would have built more Shuttles.

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>
You can babble your head off, I don't care. I guess you were being sarcastic, but you've jabbed the USA so many times, it was hard to tell your intent. I thought I asked a tactful question and in no way threatened your freedom of speech.
BUT what you said was "Nice to know with the USA not having a reliable launch vehicle..."
I pointed out to you the USA has many reliable launch vehicles. I do not think Apollo was a better platform than Soyuz. The Soyuz is an excellent and reliable manned craft.
The US had the Saturn V which was an outright dangerous launch vehicle compared to the Shuttle. It could not launch the mass that the shuttle now lifts.
Personally I think the ISS is a waste of money. How 'bout that.
Had we been smart, I think we would have built more Shuttles.

Shuttles forced the USA to concentrate on low earth orbit where the ISS is located. Without it what is their point? To update the Apollo/Saturn systems instead would have allowed a more flexible space program.

During the Apollo era you really think the Soviet platform superior? It was not. There is a reason the flags and the footprints on the moon are American.

Oh my oh my.

He's 'jabbed' the US. Call out the National Guard!

How about all those nasty workers circles at Toyota,'jabbing' upper management? What a horrible thing to do, eh?

Drove them into no. one car maker in the world I guess. What a fate. Look how lucky we are that nobody 'jabbed' GM that way. LOL

Oh Kenny, hon hom - my oh my. Have I ruffled a few 'love it or leave it' feathers again. Please DO excuse me, for I know not what I do.

I had an interesting conversation the other day with a Pakistani immigrant, hard working fellow that he was. Now get this, Kenny Poo - He blames US for creating the Taliban! That is, moving them out of the madrassas and empowering them into the mainstream. Ain't that a kick? What should we do - tar and feather him and run him out on the first Airbus, lashing him to the landing gear or maybe, just maybe OPEN OUR EARS and take stock of what winds ply the open seas? You DO want the good ship US not to founder on the rocks, don't you? Then think like a captain, not a deckswab.

Yours Truly,

The Good Ship Lollypop.

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>
I think we would have built more Shuttles.

But how many people have you lost in the Shuttle program?

Don't you consider it unsafe by now?

The Soviets had the same technology on the drawing board and also toyed with the idea of a re-usable space craft (Buran) and abandoned the project as unsafe. I remember a Russian scientist explaining why a space vehicle shouldn't be re-used; in short it was about the thermic cycle and the structural stress endured by such vessel at the time of re-entry in the atmosphere.

Idiot!

You handle the thermal stresses by designing pop off ceramic tiles. Problem solved!

uther pendragon wrote:

<quoted text>
Shuttles forced the USA to concentrate on low earth orbit where the ISS is located. Without it what is their point? To update the Apollo/Saturn systems instead would have allowed a more flexible space program.
During the Apollo era you really think the Soviet platform superior? It was not. There is a reason the flags and the footprints on the moon are American.

The ISS is relatively high compared to most orbiting satellites. Yes, for its intended use I think the Soyuz was/is superior to the Apollo capsule. But I wouldn't fight over that. You're right, the Apollo did the job (with some astronaut deaths).

The USA has many satellites exploring other planets and moons, satellites launched by rockets other than the shuttle. And they are producing new knowledge.

Here, have fun with this: I do not think men should be in space, at least not for many decades from now. Humans are fragile, require vast amounts of consumables, and are subject to all kinds of danders. It would be cheaper and more productive to concentrate on humanoid robots like Asimo, with fully functional Artificial Intelligence. And those robots would also have earth-bound applications in dangerous work, helping the elderly, working in education etc.

Mr Wizard wrote:

Idiot!
You handle the thermal stresses by designing pop off ceramic tiles. Problem solved!

Didn't seem to work all the time, if I remember clearly!

Didn't one of the Shuttle go ablaze and finally explode just because of loose ceramic tiles during re-entry? The problem didn't seem solved to me!!

You can handle the stress once, but to submit a vessel to several cycles of stress, is what is unsafe. And of course, because of cost consideration, they must be re-used for the program to make sense.

Robespierre wrote:

<quoted text>
But how many people have you lost in the Shuttle program?
Don't you consider it unsafe by now?
The Soviets had the same technology on the drawing board and also toyed with the idea of a re-usable space craft (Buran) and abandoned the project as unsafe. I remember a Russian scientist explaining why a space vehicle shouldn't be re-used; in short it was about the thermic cycle and the structural stress endured by such vessel at the time of re-entry in the atmosphere.

The shuttles have flown about 133 times, Two were lost, making the current odds of a failure about 1 in 67. Apollo flew I think 15 times and had one near catastrophe in space and one crew lost on the pad during a test. I'll go with the demonstrated odds of the Shuttle. It remains classified as an experimental craft. It has demonstrated that thermal and structural stress can be mitigated, as both failures were induced by other proximate causes. But like some of us, the shuttles are getting old.

Well, all I know is that the shuttle's tiles popped off in piles on the first flight and the Buran's didn't.

Now, which one is still flying? It's incontrovertible evidence of the superiority of popoffery. ;-)

Robespierre wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't seem to work all the time, if I remember clearly!
Didn't one of the Shuttle go ablaze and finally explode just because of loose ceramic tiles during re-entry? The problem didn't seem solved to me!!
You can handle the stress once, but to submit a vessel to several cycles of stress, is what is unsafe. And of course, because of cost consideration, they must be re-used for the program to make sense.

It was lost due to damage to the leading edge of a wing, allowing plasma to enter the shuttle on re-entry. The leading edges are not ceramic; they are RCC. Now the shuttles undergo detailed inspections in orbit to preclude reentry with similar damage. The shuttle is the most complex machine ever built and it will always carry a risk. I don't know how they fit astronauts and cosmonauts' balls through their entry hatches!

They should have used the Dow low expansion window and door foam on the tanks and not the regular stuff in the red can.

It stays flexible too. It just would have bounced off te leading edge without leaving a scratch.

Home Depot sells it for $6/18oz. Just think, we could have saved the Shuttle for $3,254 spent at Home Depot!

And while we were at it, we could have bought a toilet seat for $9.99, not those ten grand jobs the Pentagon likes.