backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 36 comment(s) - last by HeavyB.. on Aug 19 at 5:41 PM

The U.S. government must now decide whether it will overlook Russia's skirmishes with Georgia

Even though Russia and Georgia have officially signed a cease-fire agreement, the volatile situation between the two nations could jeopardize whether or not NASA astronauts fly to the International Space Station aboard Russian spacecraft in the future, U.S. officials warn.

NASA will be forced to rely on Russian spacecraft to ferry astronauts to and from the ISS on the Soyuz spacecraft and transport supplies from Earth to the space station once the shuttle is retired in 2010.  The next-generation Orion spacecraft is not expected to be done until 2015, at the earliest, NASA previously said.

"The new challenge we have is that for approximately five years, the plan — which is a very bad plan but is the only plan that NASA and the administration and Congress have approved — is to be dependent on the Russian Soyuz vehicle to get people to and from the international space station," said Tom Feeney, (R-FL).  "And so now, with the political realities with Russia invading Georgia, we have a new wrinkle thrown in."

Furthermore, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D, FL) also said the situation between Russia and Georgia could greatly impact the space cooperation between the United States and Russia.  Without the use of Russian spacecraft after the shuttle is retired, NASA astronauts will be unable to get to the ISS to help finish its construction.

Nelson also pointed out that a U.S. law signed in 2000 directly prohibits the government from entering contracts with any nation that gave assistance to North Korea and/or Iran with any nuclear programs -- Russia has helped the nations with their nuclear programs.  Congress must now either reauthorize the waiver so a transportation agreement can be made, or will uphold the 2000 law and not work with Russia.

So far, the House Foreign Affairs Committee has supported the waiver, though it must now pass the House, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senate.  

The French-brokered cease-fire that has been signed by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili forces both sides to return their troops to their original locations prior to the skirmishes.  But even with an agreement in place, tensions between the United States and Russia, the two largest contributors to the ISS, remain high.

The U.S. government must now try and determine whether or not it will move forward and pay millions to the Russian government for ferrying astronauts into space, or delay the looming retirement of the space shuttle fleet a few more years.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By Jedi2155 on 8/18/2008 5:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
Keeping the shuttle fleet in service for another 5 years is an expensive prospect at a average cost of around $500 million per mission in addition to aging space frames.

Anyone know how many launches the shuttles were designed for or if the 2010 retirement is due to age issue or political/cost reasons?




RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By nah on 8/18/2008 8:22:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone know how many launches the shuttles were designed for or if the 2010 retirement is due to age issue or political/cost reasons?


The technical documents that NASA brought out gave the shuttle a MTBF of 1 in 100,000 launches--although of course this was fiction--a better estimate would be 1 in 100. Age and cost issues are always there--why use a machine which relies on processors which are not even at 3 Mhz.


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By Spivonious on 8/18/2008 9:46:42 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
why use a machine which relies on processors which are not even at 3 Mhz.


Because if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By nah on 8/18/2008 10:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Where did you get that from ? Read the Feynman Appendix to the Challenger disaster--there are many problems which are listed as 'may have been solved' 'probably solved' 'partially solved' and 'not solved'--13 of these problems occurred within the first 125,000 seconds of running the engine, and 3 within the next 125,000. Independent contractors for NASA give a probability ratio of 1 or 2 per 100 for chances of an engine failure--considering the Shuttle has had around 130 ? launches and two disasters--the probability ratio of around 2 per 100 seems quite accurate--you are literally playing with lives here


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By goz314 on 8/18/2008 2:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
...and of those 2 disasters, how many were directly attributable to the failure of the SSME system?
Neither of them.

Challenger was lost because of a booster o-ring failure during launch, and Columbia was lost during re-entry due to critical damage inflicted to the thermal protection system by ET foam striking the leading edge of the left wing during launch as well.

The main engine system on the orbiters is actually very reliable and robust when compared to other launch vehicles. The shuttle could actually have one of the three engines shut down during launch and either perform a programmed abort or continue on to orbit depending on the timing of the shut down.

Now, I'm not saying that Feynman was wrong. Just that the breakdown of problems or issues he listed pertained to the probability of failure in the main engine system - of which, knock on wood, there has never been a catastrophic failure.


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By croc on 8/18/2008 6:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
The Challenger was lost primarily due to the fact that the o-rings had never been tested (Indeed, the whole shuttle had not been tested) in temperatures as low as were experienced when it launched.

In my humble opinion, the launch should have been called off for better weather conditions, cost be damned. But there was great pressure from on top to get the thing launched, primarily for the PR value.

Gee, it sure got NASA some good PR, didn't it?


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By FITCamaro on 8/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By nah on 8/18/2008 10:34:23 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why use a human that can make mistakes?


Why travel at all ? Why not just sit at home and have a nice cup of cappucino ?


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By FITCamaro on 8/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By IvanAndreevich on 8/18/2008 1:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
You know the Russian Soyuz crafts are way, way older than the shuttle, right? They will be used more if the shuttle is retired now. I don't mind, I think the Russian space program could use some foreign cash.


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By FITCamaro on 8/18/2008 2:21:57 PM , Rating: 1
Our own space program could use the cash far more. And as this article shows, why give money to a country as hostile as Russia?


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By Segerstein on 8/18/2008 5:36:31 PM , Rating: 1
Why give money to a country as hostile as Russia?

Do you think Russia is hostile? Hostile to whom? NATO???

Just imagine Alaska breaking away from the US in 1991 and now wanting to join a military alliance with China. With Mexico wanting to join the alliance as well...

Russia is going to be encircled with NATO countries that were once part of Russia.

As with South Ossetia and Abkhazia - these guys are not Georgian and have been put under Georgian SSR by Stalin (Georgian himself). They have been running their own affairs without any Georgian interference since early 1990s - there was no presence of Georgian institutions in those territories. Now Georgia attacked... Russian peacekeepers responded.

Who is being hostile here? But Russia is not going to be waiting to get the breadcrumbs, at the mercy of the West.


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By Ringold on 8/18/2008 8:33:11 PM , Rating: 3
So how's the FSB pay? Pretty good?


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By Maximalist on 8/19/2008 4:11:45 AM , Rating: 3
moron. another happy receiver of distorted media coverage.


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By Aloonatic on 8/19/2008 6:11:05 AM , Rating: 2
The only moron would be someone who didn't realise that all media is distorted, as are education systems etc etc...

[joking]

Apart from the BBC of course *waves union flag*

[/joking]


RE: Hopefully It Will Clear Up
By FITCamaro on 8/19/2008 6:11:39 AM , Rating: 2
From my understanding of the situation, yes Georgia went into South Ossetia first. But you can be pretty sure Russia picked a fight. And I hardly think responding as they did was necessary. Russia just wanted a reason to try and take back over Georgia. They thought they could do it quickly like we could. But their troops are poorly trained. The latest equipment means nothing when people don't know how to use it.


USA attacked RUSSIA through Client State GEORGIA!
By MrJustin5 on 8/18/2008 4:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
It really, really bothers me that I see a "high brow" website like this, repeating the line "Russia attacked Georgia" just because repeaters like CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the like all the say the same thing, too.

If you watch REAL international news (not multinational news from the united states/britain/EU, etc) you will see whats been happening.

GEORGIA sneak attacked Russia and South Ossetia in the middle of the night. Bombing cities of 70,000 people.. families, women and children. Its GEORGIA thats been guilty of genocide.

American troops, etc have all been found there. HUGE caches of american weapons has been found there. Russian troops have arrested US military over there the day it started.

Look, you guys, especially here at anandtech should not be parrots. Stop repeating what you see off of mainstream news, which is all proven lies (they even contradict themselves!).

THE PENTAGON FUNDED, TRAINED AND SUPPLIES THE ARMS for Georgia to attack! How do you think a small, poor country can afford to expand their military 30x larger in the past year or so?

Pentagon money!

JUST GOOGLE:

U.S. Attacks Russia Through Client State Georgia

http://dprogram.net/2008/08/09/us-attacks-russia-t...

http://nationalexpositor.com/News/1328.html

Good day, Gentlemen. I hope some of you woke up to the fact that we are lied to constantly on the news.

x Justin




By Zoomer on 8/18/2008 8:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Now that was some very well known and reliable sources.


By MrJustin5 on 8/19/2008 4:55:40 AM , Rating: 3
Here is the SOURCE of the Article by Alex Jones, Paul & Steven Watson.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=3848

http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-attacks-russia-thro...

Its too bad and quite shameful that just because Coke, Pfizer, Microsoft and Nike don't advertise with these websites (directly) that you say "oh, well, they're not well known". Implying that it is garbage. INFOWARS.com is a hugely popular site. Check it out on Alexa!

I suppose unless you want to read it from a repeating puppet clown like Bill O'Riely you wont accept it. Which is shameful as most americans are brainwashed to such a degree that they dont accept anything outside of flashy graphics and multi-billion dollar corporations backing them up.

Now with G.E. owned by the government and GE owning NBC & MSNBC and all these multi-billion corporations dumping in money to finance (aka: "Sponsor") these networks and with the united states government itself dumping in so much money, you don't think they expect "favorable" news broadcasts?



Embedded with Bush: fake news reports and phony journalism

Whittier Daily News | March 20, 2005

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,20...

CALLING all conservatives. Yo, libertarians. Also, wing-nuts, believers in black-helicopter conspiracies and mouth-foaming denouncers of government and all its works - yoo-hoo. Where are these people when you need them?

THEY are making us pay to have ourselves brainwashed. All good conspiracy theories begin with "they' - and in this case, it's the usual suspect of the right wing: the ever-evil federal government. Rush Limbaugh, get on this case. Stealth propaganda now goes by the beguiling moniker "pre-packaged news.' And our government, the one supposedly run by us, is using our money to secretly brainwash us. Is this gross, or what?

No joke, this is seriously creepy: The U.S. government is in the covert propaganda business, and it's not aiming this stuff at potential terrorists, it's aiming it right square at your forehead.

The New York Times did a huge Sunday take-out on the practice of "pre-packaged news' by government agencies. "The government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.'

The Bush administration did not invent this practice - it's an adaptation of a corporate public relations ploy. P.R. firms make what look like normal news segments designed to fit into regular news broadcasts, but they are actually sales pitches.

You have probably wondered, "This is news?' when you see a "report' along the lines of: "This is Joe Doaks reporting from the World Headache Remedy Expo on a terrific new advance in headache cures that has everyone here really excited. The product that has the whole Expo buzzing is Megaconglomerate's new remedy No Brain, No Pain. It completely wipes out your headache by wiping out your entire brain, so that you become so stupid you believe this segment is actual news.' Or words to that effect.

We're not talking about the old public service announcements that used to hand out useful info clearly attributed to the government: "Uncle Sam wants you to stop smoking,' or, "It's a good idea to get your child a polio vaccination: This message brought to you by the Health Department.'

It's bad enough that corporate shills burn up journalistic credibility with this cheap trick, but the government has produced hundreds of these fake news segments. The Clinton administration started this vile practice, and the Bush administration has doubled it, spending $254 million on public relations contracts in its first term, twice what the last Clinton administration spent. I suspect it is part and parcel of Karl Rove's mania for "message control.'

So how did something this sleazy become so common? Money. The Times reports: "It is ... a world where all participants benefit. Local affiliates are spared the expense of digging up original material. Public relations firms secure government contracts worth millions of dollars. The major networks, which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the government agencies that produce segments and the affiliates that show them. The administration, meanwhile, gets out an unfiltered message, delivered in the guise of traditional reporting.'

The only patsy in the set-up is you, sitting there thinking you're seeing something real AND paying for the fake news with your taxes.

Of course, the television stations that play along with this deserve all the opprobrium that can be heaped on them. Thanks for corrupting journalism, guys - thanks for burning everyone's credibility.

The Radio-Television News Directors Association code of ethics says: "Clearly disclose the origin of information, and label all material provided by outsiders.' But many stations don't, even those in large city markets with strong professional reputations. More stations are going to more news shows because they're cheaper to produce - but they are not adding reporters or editors, they're just stretching their staffs thinner and thinner. This is happening across the board in the news business. It's about money.

Meanwhile, back at government propaganda central, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, has held that the government- produced "news' segments may constitute "covert propaganda.' Glad somebody noticed.

But, the Times reports, just last Friday the Justice Department and