The Ruins of the Soviet Space Shuttles

originally posted by: RubberSky
a reply to: JadeStar

Russian space program in decline ?

Yes, definitely. It has no goals and no political patrons. It has survived erratic and inadequate funding only through the truly heroic and self-sacrificing efforts of the old-line engineers and manufacturing technician who remembered the glory days of Salyut & Mir. Now they are retiring and/or dying-off. This loss of expertise is manifesting in the loss of manufacturing quality, and the increasing number of mishaps. This has led to a downward spiral where the loss of reliability is leading to a loss of comercial customers & investors, which means less money, which means reduced quality & reliability...

I knew someone would try this cheap shot before the end of page 1:

You do know United States relies solely on Russian space program for its needs.

Yes, for manned launches. Attempt at deflection noted and rejected. NASA's manned program has been (with a few exceptions) a wobbly train-wreck for decades. On the other hand, its unmanned science satellites and interplanetary probes are the vangard of a new age of discovery. The commercial launch industry is healthy and innovative.

I guess people don't read news.

The news is that the Russian manned space program for the last 20 years has been kept alive thanks to American funding to ensure regular support for the International Space Station.

a reply to: RubberSky

Russian space program in decline ?

Yes; they are still relying on boosters designed in 1957!

You do know United States relies solely on Russian space program for its needs.

You do know that is not at all true; America has a very active unmanned launch schedule lofting a wide variety of unmanned spacecraft. It is only in manned spacecraft that the US is temporarily relying on Russia. Meanwhile, the US has a probe arriving at Pluto next month, China is planning another lunar rover and the ESA has missions to Mars and a comet currently online. Russia hasn't even gotten as far as Venus or Mars in decades!

I guess people don't read news.

You don't need to keep proving your point yourself.

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

originally posted by: RubberSky
a reply to: JadeStar

Russian space program in decline ?

Yes, definitely. It has no goals and no political patrons. It has survived erratic and inadequate funding only through the truly heroic and self-sacrificing efforts of the old-line engineers and manufacturing technician who remembered the glory days of Salyut & Mir. Now they are retiring and/or dying-off. This loss of expertise is manifesting in the loss of manufacturing quality, and the increasing number of mishaps. This has led to a downward spiral where the loss of reliability is leading to a loss of comercial customers & investors, which means less money, which means reduced quality & reliability...

I knew someone would try this cheap shot before the end of page 1:

You do know United States relies solely on Russian space program for its needs.

Yes, for manned launches. Attempt at deflection noted and rejected. NASA's manned program has been (with a few exceptions) a wobbly train-wreck for decades. On the other hand, its unmanned science satellites and interplanetary probes are the vangard of a new age of discovery. The commercial launch industry is healthy and innovative.

I guess people don't read news.

The news is that the Russian manned space program for the last 20 years has been kept alive thanks to American funding to ensure regular support for the International Space Station.

How's NASA doing with the "Obama Arab outreach program?" Is it on track to launch Arabs into space?

a reply to: buddah6

I'd settle for us being able to launch ANYBODY into space.

a reply to: Saint Exupery

The x planes of the 50s and 60s were flying into space without the massive rockets. They couldnt have a large payload but the pilots were astronauts.

a reply to: Kapusta

Look up Slayer69's threads on the Buran. My ATS search engine is not loading. It is a shame that the Russian Space Shuttle program did not continue. It was bigger and it was better.
It would have doubled humanity;s carrying capacity into space. If we would have been getting along, the International Space Station could have been twice or even three times bigger.....I imagine.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

The X-15 was the only one considered to have crossed the line into space, and it barely crossed that line. It wasn't capable of carrying any payload besides the fuel and pilot.

X-15 flight 91 reached an unofficial altitude of just over 351,000 feet. The limit for the edge of space is considered to be 328,000 feet. Total flight time from dropping off the B-52 to touchdown was 12 minutes.

a reply to: JMech

Seems like the perfect metaphor for our entire species to me.

While not an expert, by any means, I am enthusiastic about space exploration and would offer the counter argument that space exploration is currently more engaged and stronger than ever - it just happens that the manned space exploration side of things has mostly stalled.

There are some very good reasons for this. Manned space flight is expensive, dangerous, very limited in scope ( how far we can go, how long we can stay while maintaining supply lines, etc ). To put it in perspective, we know more about space, currently, than we do about the bottom of the Pacific ocean. There are humans currently in orbit but very few people end up going into the deep seas. The reason? The same. Dangerous and difficult.

However where space is concerned we have so many machines out there toiling away and sending back data that we have actually discovered more planets in the last few years than in all of our previous history - combined. We know more about space than we do about portions of our own planet. That speaks volumes about the fact that space exploration is not at all dead - it's just adapted.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Shadow Herder

The X-15 was the only one considered to have crossed the line into space, and it barely crossed that line. It wasn't capable of carrying any payload besides the fuel and pilot.

X-15 flight 91 reached an unofficial altitude of just over 351,000 feet. The limit for the edge of space is considered to be 328,000 feet. Total flight time from dropping off the B-52 to touchdown was 12 minutes.

That X-15 never flew again didn't it? Wasn't it badly damaged by the heat that it experienced in that flight? IIRC, wasn't that the fastest flight as well? I think, it was in the neighborhood of Mach 6.

originally posted by: Saint Exupery
a reply to: buddah6

I'd settle for us being able to launch ANYBODY into space.

Back in my teenage years, when the space program was new, I would sit glued to the TV during every launch. I even made models of all the spacecraft and boosters as they were introduced. Believe it or not I still have them somewhere around here and that was 54 years ago.

a reply to: buddah6

One crashed on landing, but they flew quite a few flights and eventually ended the program after they met their goals.

Like even the American Space Shuttle program, it met the same end that all such programs do. Budget cuts.

a reply to: Kapusta

Sad, just sad.

I tend to wax philosophical on threads like this... Why should now be any different??

The Universe is waiting for us. Wonders, terrors, and everything in between. If we can ever outgrow our fear.

Because ultimately, that's what it is. Fear. Fear of stepping out of our comfort zones into the unknown.

"If it's good enough for our parents, it's good enough for me." So much lost because we're so, well, childish. Our nest is getting too small, and it's time to leave.

Those pictures are so poignant. With the loss of opportunity, the chance to stretch our boundaries.

Such a shame.

While we may have landed on the moon and sent many men in to space, the immediate future of space exploration is with unmanned systems. It may require time and money, but it does not cost lives.

We are going to take bigger steps in to space, but we must "test the waters" a bit more before we send men in to the pool.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: RubberSky

The US relies on Russia for delivering people to orbit, not for their space needs. They have the Atlas, and other programs that are launching satellites and supplies to the ISS, as well as the COTS program that's coming along nicely.

True. Plus with NASA's Atlas Rocket of the Delta IV Heavy-lift vehicle, along with a Centaur rocket stage, NASA can get heavier payloads farther into space than the Russians.

The Russians would have a difficult time getting something as heavy as the Curiosity Rover to Mars.

a reply to: Hefficide

"Wings of Icarus"?

I love watching the pictures come back from places we'd only ever seen in our imaginations when I was a kid, or as fuzzy images in a telescope.

Now? Pluto? OMG! Who ever dreamed we'd ever see it, outside of movies, or books back in the 60's? Yet, in a few weeks? We get to see it.

What could be better? How about us? Mars is, figuratively speaking, right there for the visiting. The Moon? Ah, c'mon, that's an afternoon drive essentially.

Or they would be if we just realized how easy, relatively, it would be to just go. Just go!! My goodness, there'd be lines around several blocks if they asked for volunteers.

...everyone of them would be aware of the danger inherent in the endevour. Who cares? Our ancestors travelled across oceans to new lands. How is it any different?

Yeah, many may die. Wouldn't stop 'em from going.

a reply to: Kapusta

Yeah... two words come to mind seeing those pictures.... sad and stupid. Sad to see this "humain" endevour go nowhere and stupid because other things must be more important and the russian government is not capable to make proper realistic budget estimations and was forced to throw away billions down the drain because of it.

Great post,very interesting topic.

F&S

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Kapusta

Money has been the bane of all space programs. Need more somewhere else? Cut the space program, no one will care. And the sad part is that no one even notices except the ones with an avid interest. Hell, by the end of the shuttle program, you couldn't even find the launches and landings on television, except the last couple seconds of them, and then only if other news didn't preempt them.

Such is the case with anything that has subtle returns. The various space programs have contributed immense amounts of useful technology and practical knowledge to our society but people only look at the results, they don't trace them back to the cause which is space missions flown 15 years earlier. From that point they simply cut space programs because their results aren't tangible enough.

As much as marketers are the bane of existence, NASA and the other agencies could really use a few good ones.

The Clipper project another Russian space shuttle look alike that didn't make it to the finals.

I don't know why , But I think their old and reliable spacecraft works best . And looking at tragic incidents I would rather fly with the Soyuz then with the spaceshuttle if I had to make that choice.

But I do find the space shuttle a very impressive and beautiful project ever done in space history. But I can imagine with take off I would have my fingers crossed...