|
Title: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: commandrix on June 07, 2014, 04:37:58 PM They basically want to deny us access to the International Space Station by refusing to give our astronauts rides. We retired the Space Shuttle way too soon.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/07/russia-bans-us-from-international-space-station-ho.aspx Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: ShibaWow on June 07, 2014, 05:03:57 PM simple
blow it up Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: bryant.coleman on June 07, 2014, 05:22:59 PM The Russians have already suggested a replacement to Obama.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/11816.2.0.0/science/space/international-space-station-russia-tells-president-obama-to-go-rent-a-trampoline Why waste $60 million per passenger on Russian space flights, when the alternative costs much less? Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: niothor on June 07, 2014, 06:00:29 PM Quote Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin Stopped reading after this.. Don't bother with it , it's a clown speaking. Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: bitsmichel on June 07, 2014, 06:06:14 PM Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: niothor on June 07, 2014, 06:10:24 PM because it has 10 years left of operation and it's costly to maintain... The ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.[263] As of 2010 the cost is estimated to be $150 billion. It includes NASA's budget of $58.7 billion for the station from 1985 to 2015 ($72.4 billion dollars in 2010), Russia's $12 billion ISS budget, Europe's $5 billion, Japan's $5 billion, Canada's $2 billion, and the cost of 36 shuttle flights to build the station; estimated at $1.4 billion each, or $50.4 billion total. Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: ShibaWow on June 07, 2014, 06:17:59 PM because it has 10 years left of operation and it's costly to maintain... The ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.[263] As of 2010 the cost is estimated to be $150 billion. It includes NASA's budget of $58.7 billion for the station from 1985 to 2015 ($72.4 billion dollars in 2010), Russia's $12 billion ISS budget, Europe's $5 billion, Japan's $5 billion, Canada's $2 billion, and the cost of 36 shuttle flights to build the station; estimated at $1.4 billion each, or $50.4 billion total. + it will send them a good message that you're don't care if it's profitable or not, you'll get revenge that's a good message for your enemy Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: bitsmichel on June 07, 2014, 06:21:04 PM because it has 10 years left of operation and it's costly to maintain... The ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.[263] As of 2010 the cost is estimated to be $150 billion. It includes NASA's budget of $58.7 billion for the station from 1985 to 2015 ($72.4 billion dollars in 2010), Russia's $12 billion ISS budget, Europe's $5 billion, Japan's $5 billion, Canada's $2 billion, and the cost of 36 shuttle flights to build the station; estimated at $1.4 billion each, or $50.4 billion total. + it will send them a good message that you're don't care if it's profitable or not, you'll get revenge that's a good message for your enemy It is cheaper to ignore it, than to blow it up. Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: ShibaWow on June 07, 2014, 06:21:44 PM because it has 10 years left of operation and it's costly to maintain... The ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.[263] As of 2010 the cost is estimated to be $150 billion. It includes NASA's budget of $58.7 billion for the station from 1985 to 2015 ($72.4 billion dollars in 2010), Russia's $12 billion ISS budget, Europe's $5 billion, Japan's $5 billion, Canada's $2 billion, and the cost of 36 shuttle flights to build the station; estimated at $1.4 billion each, or $50.4 billion total. + it will send them a good message that you're don't care if it's profitable or not, you'll get revenge that's a good message for your enemy It is cheaper to ignore it, than to blow it up. not as cool but isn't it cheaper to blow it up? :D Quote because it has 10 years left of operation and it's costly to maintain... The ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.[263] As of 2010 the cost is estimated to be $150 billion. It includes NASA's budget of $58.7 billion for the station from 1985 to 2015 ($72.4 billion dollars in 2010), Russia's $12 billion ISS budget, Europe's $5 billion, Japan's $5 billion, Canada's $2 billion, and the cost of 36 shuttle flights to build the station; estimated at $1.4 billion each, or $50.4 billion total. Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: bitsmichel on June 07, 2014, 06:25:22 PM because it has 10 years left of operation and it's costly to maintain... The ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.[263] As of 2010 the cost is estimated to be $150 billion. It includes NASA's budget of $58.7 billion for the station from 1985 to 2015 ($72.4 billion dollars in 2010), Russia's $12 billion ISS budget, Europe's $5 billion, Japan's $5 billion, Canada's $2 billion, and the cost of 36 shuttle flights to build the station; estimated at $1.4 billion each, or $50.4 billion total. + it will send them a good message that you're don't care if it's profitable or not, you'll get revenge that's a good message for your enemy It is cheaper to ignore it, than to blow it up. not as cool but isn't it cheaper to blow it up? :D Quote because it has 10 years left of operation and it's costly to maintain... The ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.[263] As of 2010 the cost is estimated to be $150 billion. It includes NASA's budget of $58.7 billion for the station from 1985 to 2015 ($72.4 billion dollars in 2010), Russia's $12 billion ISS budget, Europe's $5 billion, Japan's $5 billion, Canada's $2 billion, and the cost of 36 shuttle flights to build the station; estimated at $1.4 billion each, or $50.4 billion total. If you act like you are not involved, all the costs would be for the other nations to maintain. This would cost them more than sending a bomb I think Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: tinof on June 07, 2014, 06:34:14 PM US not only losing the space race but also technology race.
If the government and mega corporations think they can continue to outsource and moving factory abroad, they will be in for rude awakening very soon. Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: ShibaWow on June 07, 2014, 06:37:15 PM because it has 10 years left of operation and it's costly to maintain... The ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.[263] As of 2010 the cost is estimated to be $150 billion. It includes NASA's budget of $58.7 billion for the station from 1985 to 2015 ($72.4 billion dollars in 2010), Russia's $12 billion ISS budget, Europe's $5 billion, Japan's $5 billion, Canada's $2 billion, and the cost of 36 shuttle flights to build the station; estimated at $1.4 billion each, or $50.4 billion total. + it will send them a good message that you're don't care if it's profitable or not, you'll get revenge that's a good message for your enemy It is cheaper to ignore it, than to blow it up. not as cool but isn't it cheaper to blow it up? :D Quote because it has 10 years left of operation and it's costly to maintain... The ISS is arguably the most expensive single item ever constructed.[263] As of 2010 the cost is estimated to be $150 billion. It includes NASA's budget of $58.7 billion for the station from 1985 to 2015 ($72.4 billion dollars in 2010), Russia's $12 billion ISS budget, Europe's $5 billion, Japan's $5 billion, Canada's $2 billion, and the cost of 36 shuttle flights to build the station; estimated at $1.4 billion each, or $50.4 billion total. If you act like you are not involved, all the costs would be for the other nations to maintain. This would cost them more than sending a bomb I think but it doesn't send the right message :D altough you would have to deal with japan,canada etc. later :D so this is just theoretical.. Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: niothor on June 07, 2014, 06:44:45 PM US not only losing the space race but also technology race. If the government and mega corporations think they can continue to outsource and moving factory abroad, they will be in for rude awakening very soon. Are you serious? with the Chinese taking 4 years to build a bathub resembling an air carrier , the us is in grave danger :) Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: ShibaWow on June 07, 2014, 06:57:23 PM US not only losing the space race but also technology race. If the government and mega corporations think they can continue to outsource and moving factory abroad, they will be in for rude awakening very soon. Are you serious? with the Chinese taking 4 years to build a bathub resembling an air carrier , the us is in grave danger :) hey! maybe there's a giant in space that needs a bath :D ~yeah I know I started trolling too much, I'm going to take it down a notch Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: bryant.coleman on June 08, 2014, 02:42:23 AM simple blow it up In space, you can't just blow up structures like the ISS. It will produce a massive amount of debris and will destroy all the communication satellites. We will be left without Cable TV, Internet.etc for a few years. ;D Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: Ron~Popeil on June 08, 2014, 06:49:41 PM US not only losing the space race but also technology race. If the government and mega corporations think they can continue to outsource and moving factory abroad, they will be in for rude awakening very soon. We still have a massive edge. Private people in the US are innovating constantly. We don't want or need government driving innovation. Space X will have manned missions back in space long before NASA could and as a private business they will do at at far less expense. Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: commandrix on June 08, 2014, 07:14:52 PM US not only losing the space race but also technology race. If the government and mega corporations think they can continue to outsource and moving factory abroad, they will be in for rude awakening very soon. We still have a massive edge. Private people in the US are innovating constantly. We don't want or need government driving innovation. Space X will have manned missions back in space long before NASA could and as a private business they will do at at far less expense. Point. If there's a market for it, American capitalism will find a way to do it. And there is a market for space travel. Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: Benjig on June 08, 2014, 10:19:46 PM Contracting any military, communications, surveillance and the such to foreign countries is not a government being run by minds concerned about their country. These types of decisions can only be made purely on economic terms (greed and ambition) and not on national military and economic concerns.
Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: validium on June 11, 2014, 07:50:09 AM Only hope left for nasa is spacex or any other private company. And at the end of the day its going to be cheaper.
Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: Swordsoffreedom on June 11, 2014, 07:59:57 AM Well the US was expecting the private ventures to make them space capable by now
The problem with killing the shuttle program is that they didn't adopt the capsule program Proving that the Russians were right that a capsule is better than the reusable shuttle in terms of cost at least but not size. Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: Paya on June 11, 2014, 09:05:49 AM Proving that the Russians were right that a capsule is better than the reusable shuttle in terms of cost at least but not size. And, apparently, they're planning to stick to that concept in future. After the cancellation of expensive Kliper project (sort of mini-shuttle comparable to also cancelled NASA's X-38 and European Hermes), Roscosmos is now working on PPTS (Prospective Piloted Transport System), basically a larger Soyuz with orbital and descent modules combined into one. Crew up to 6. On the picture below are Earth-orbit and lunar versions, as well as old Soyuz: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/PPTS-03.jpg Title: Re: See, THIS is why we shouldn't have included Russia. Post by: Balthazar on December 21, 2015, 12:02:25 PM Quote Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin Stopped reading after this.. Don't bother with it , it's a clown speaking. Yeah, he's a clown for sure. :D |
