Russia launches European satellites into space

big deal,russians didn't do it for free.

Ken, did you know that the Pentagon's best kept secret is that it was designed around the old Soviet Gosplan?

Unlimited secret budgets, bursting with bumbling bureaucrats and 0 cost control?

It's a Gosplanner's dream.

Mr Wizard wrote:

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 is nice seeing someone from your neck of the woods with a sense of humor! Thank you, this forum needed that.

And both versions of that stuff sticks to skin something awful er, so I heard.

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Why do you think more Shuttles should have been built? If you do not like the ISS they serve no other real purpose. Satellites could be launched by an unmanned reuseable system if you prefer but a manned vehicle for that purpose is simply a waste of resources.

I certainly agree robotic probes are the only safe way to explore the planets. Why they should be humanoid is beyond me though. Perhaps you watch too much science fiction there? I doubt the Mars Rovers would have worked as well on two legs.

ana 8 wrote:

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

Do you have your brains with you... The EU is buying a service from Russia,....that's very different from western robber barons going inside russia and trying to take over resources which are not theirs.... But then you are rather dense, aren't you????? LOL!!!!!

Mr Wizard wrote:

Ken, did you know that the Pentagon's best kept secret is that it was designed around the old Soviet Gosplan?
Unlimited secret budgets, bursting with bumbling bureaucrats and 0 cost control?
It's a Gosplanner's dream.

I wouldn't doubt it... One of the best kept secrets is how much of what Russia invented the west wanted... including a certain type of rocket the USA wanted and had to settle for buying it from the Russians after the fall of the Soviet Union...

superdelegate wrote:

big deal,russians didn't do it for free.

Who says they should have... They did enough free stuff while still the Soviet Union, being the first to train and take other countries cosmonauts into space with them... Why should they do it for free. They have the technology and the Eu has the money to pay for it... done .... a great business deal...

Stefanya wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have your brains with you... The EU is buying a service from Russia,....that's very different from western robber barons going inside russia and trying to take over resources which are not theirs.... But then you are rather dense, aren't you????? LOL!!!!!

Oh? Did you finally found yours? Last time you accused me of stealing your brains, dura! LOL!

STEPHYS PANTS ARE VERY TIGHT
TWO DEGREED AND "CERTIFIED"
"CERTIFIED" AND RUNNING LOOSE
FULL OF CRAP AND SHORT ONE FUSE

ana 8 wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh? Did you finally found yours? Last time you accused me of stealing your brains, dura! LOL!
STEPHYS PANTS ARE VERY TIGHT
TWO DEGREED AND "CERTIFIED"
"CERTIFIED" AND RUNNING LOOSE
FULL OF CRAP AND SHORT ONE FUSE

The kominiska pidoraska married to the tvyar churka continues to lose her mind!

uther pendragon wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you think more Shuttles should have been built? If you do not like the ISS they serve no other real purpose. Satellites could be launched by an unmanned reuseable system if you prefer but a manned vehicle for that purpose is simply a waste of resources.
I certainly agree robotic probes are the only safe way to explore the planets. Why they should be humanoid is beyond me though. Perhaps you watch too much science fiction there? I doubt the Mars Rovers would have worked as well on two legs.

Good question. The rovers could have carried humanoid passengers. They have done a wonderful job! We are not ready for humanoid AI autonomous robots, but in 10 years or so, we will be.

More shuttles should have been built to reduce the number of launches each accrues. They can place into orbit very high mass objects (satellites can be as big as a bus) or numerous satellites at one time, and can carry large crews.

I support humanoid for three reasons. The taxpayer will identify more easily with a humanoid with names like Robbie, Huey, Dewy and Louis, than with a pile of instruments on a wagon. Since the main function of a humanoid robot will be to prepare bases for humans, construction of bases for humans would be more easily converted from humanoid to human. And third, a humanoid robot with massive AI has many applications on earth and would have to operate in buildings constructed for humans.

I do enjoy good science fiction, such as that by Asimov and Clarke. There is not much good scifi nowadays. Those works of fiction were free-thinking and imaginative views of what the future might be. Star Trek is an interesting example. Hence the Shuttle named "Enterprise."

Stefanya wrote:

<quoted text>
Who says they should have... They did enough free stuff while still the Soviet Union, being the first to train and take other countries cosmonauts into space with them... Why should they do it for free. They have the technology and the Eu has the money to pay for it... done .... a great business deal...

during the soviet union russians stole from other coutries,like;ukraine,bulgaria ,romania,czech republic,there are many more.

Mr Wizard wrote:

Ken, did you know that the Pentagon's best kept secret is that it was designed around the old Soviet Gosplan?
Unlimited secret budgets, bursting with bumbling bureaucrats and 0 cost control?
It's a Gosplanner's dream.

The Pentagon is a building. No, I did not know it was designed around the Gosplan. I read about Gosplan after you posted this and I do not agree with you.

Secret budgets do exist but are subject to congressional committees who review and approve or deny. " Bumbling bureaucrats" there are, everywhere, but most of our bureaucrats work their asses off. No cost control? If you looked into how projects are monitored and controlled, you might not say that. It is horribly complex and encumbered with politics. But just as an example, you might want to wade through the mess of our attempt to compete bids for the next USAF refueling tanker. It failed and in large measure because bureaucrats nailed corrupt practices. Now, we're rebidding. I had the challenge of being in a product procurement office that competed, bought, configured, and fielded 57,000 tactical trucks, and at no time did I feel we were not audited, held to task at any level, and subject to the strictest ethics rules one could imagine.

I personally would like to see our defense budget cut in half. We'll have to soon enough because fiat money only goes so far.

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>

More shuttles should have been built to reduce the number of launches each accrues. They can place into orbit very high mass objects (satellites can be as big as a bus) or numerous satellites at one time, and can carry large crews.

I would agree the Shuttles were a more advanced system however if launching satellites is their main job an unmanned system, one not putting astronauts at risk and being more cost effective not carrying life support, would make more economic sense.

For satellites they should have had an unmanned version with something robotic in place of the Shuttle Orbiter.

Kenhunt wrote:

<quoted text>

I support humanoid for three reasons. The taxpayer will identify more easily with a humanoid with names like Robbie, Huey, Dewy and Louis, than with a pile of instruments on a wagon. Since the main function of a humanoid robot will be to prepare bases for humans, construction of bases for humans would be more easily converted from humanoid to human. And third, a humanoid robot with massive AI has many applications on earth and would have to operate in buildings constructed for humans.

We have much more experience building wheeled or tracked vehicles. I think walking would be a much more complicated mode of transport. On someplace like Mars making repairs is difficult and new technology costly. But two flexible arms and a top-mounted head configuration make sense so maybe the question to me is "how humanoid?".