It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Russians Stage Training Strike to Send NASA a Message

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Last week, Russia briefly stopped American astronaut training at their facilities. The strike was quickly halted by Russian leaders, but its cause was apparently over financial issues. After September of this year, Russians will charge for all seats on the Soyuzes. Since 2003, all station crews have been transported on Soyuzes.
 



msnbc.msn.com
But now NASA has told Moscow that since this is a “Russian” seat, the Russians must pay for it. “The Russians predictably have a problem with this,” the source wrote, “and stopped training in retaliation.”

Alternately, goes the U.S. bargaining strategy, the Russians can swap seats on Soyuz flights for seats on shuttle flights on a one-for-one basis, with no cash changing hands.

But even that deal would not solve the looming issue of the funding for the second Soyuz bail-out capsule and other issues associated with the expansion of the space station. And on the more distant horizon is the period after 2010 when shuttle flights cease, years before astronauts can ride NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle into orbit.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


With the shuttle resuming flights this year, it can begin to help in the international effort to supply and man the station. After two and a half years of having the only transport vehicle and the US’s apparent lack of financial backing, I can see why the Russians are upset with NASA.

The fact that NASA will be charging for seats aboard the shuttle only adds fuel to the fire.




posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I just have to tell you, there is no one that has cornered capitalism better than the Russian space agency. Ever since the ISS effort started, they have been masters of blackmail. They either stop production of a needed (and already committed) component of the station, claim to not be able to produce anymore Protons, or go on strike when they decided they need to milk us for more money.

lol..I actually don't have that big a problem with it other than the fact they ought to just say - hey! we're broke, we need more money!



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
It does seem like NASA is playing some money games, though. The Russians have been taxiing everybody since the shuttle disaster. They were contracted to help, but not necessarily to provide the whole enchilada.

[edit on 4/4/05 by NoPhobos]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Exactly, the Russian Space Agency is broke, NASA should fund some of it's trips since NASA has stopped all shuttle flights.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Better yet, the NASA should just be greedy and build a new all-American space station. Why not? We have the technology and we "have" the money.

What about going back to the moon? Bush said we were going to do that. Did they forget?

Good article.

-S



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Russia has a long history in space. why they didn't go to the moon I will never understand.

That Mir (space station) of theirs showed what could be accomplished with less. their shuttle fleet (Buran and who knows what else) have no known disasters.

While Russia may be down they aren't out. The American (jokingly called International) space station has been a money pit and joke from the beginning.

Where's FredT sticking up for his favorite corporate raider- Boeing?

People wonder why Russia and China are becoming pals- one more reason is space.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Dear all,

Are there any theories as to why the Soviets did not go to the Moon?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Lol, hicks, since this is a conspiracy site,

Do you want the obvious reason?




posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Rapier,

Sure, tell me.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
In the '80's I heard:

    the Soviets did go and crashed or lost their craft on the return voyage,

    the 'blips' in the background of some 'on the moon' shots are not UFOs as many think but Soviet craft on the far side of the moon.


Sacred Cows abound in the 'who went to the moon' realm



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Joe,

Any links or threads for me?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Nothing on the Soviets-

I'll look for some. This was just 'rumor' stuff prior to any Internet.

Here's an interesting link, something familiar about it. Can't place it at the moment



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Joe,

Have you been exposed to any of his work?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Washington Monthly article on how the U.S. beat the Russians to the moon

BBC 1959 Russians launch moon rocket

Russian web decent track of moon launchings by Russians from 1958

Russian web moon program

Pravda site


In 1957, America was astonished, as was the rest of the world, when it was discovered that a Russian satellite, Sputnik, had gone into outer space. People were absolutely amazed that such a device made it into outer space. Not only was the scientific community of America in awe, but so too was the American military, who were greatly concerned about Russia having the ability to put such a device in outer space.

Batesmotel moon walk was fake site

NASA propaganda site

Google page over a MILLION relating to Russia and the moon

These are just a starter.

.



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Joe,

I am very grateful to you for those links.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Ok bill,

The obviouse response to your question, since this is a conspiracy site, would be;

The Soviets never went because it was impossible and the lunar landings were staged in Hollywood.




posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
JoeDoaks,
What about the "NASA Propaganda" website makes it propaganda as opposed to an objective chronology of space exploration?


[edit on 5-4-2005 by bios]



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Rapier,

That is what I was hoping for a link too.


Cheers

BHR



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
bios NASA can't be objective- well maybe they could but why would they?

Objectivity is not in their best interests. NASA contracts much of their PR writing to others and contracts with Psychologists/Psychiatrists for all kinds of studies.

But to your point-
looking at this NASA web site:

    starting with Bumper2 (1950) – where is Vandenberg?


    Vandenberg history
    By 1955 the US Air Force identified an urgent need for a secure launch site for long-range ballistic missile tests to targets in the Pacific Ocean and space launches into polar orbit. Camp Cooke's remote location, with a southern-facing shore, offered a unique location for such activities. In November 1956 the Secretary of Defense transferred North Camp Cooke to the Air Force. Two months later the first Air Force unit, the 6591st Support Squadron, was established at Cooke. Ground breaking for the missile base came in May 1957. The United States Air Force responded to Russian Sputnik launch in October 1957 by accelerating the development of its missile program. It transferred management responsibilities for Cooke AFB from Air Research and Development Command (ARDC) to the Strategic Air Command (SAC) on January 1, 1958. Site activation, and research and development testing of ballistic missiles remained with ARDC. Space launches were to be conducted jointly by both commands. Although the mission at Cooke was now divided between ARDC and SAC, the two commands cultivated a close relationship that was to flourish for the next 35 years.


    publicly known world wide launch site (notice 4 U.S. Sites)

    By 1959 (first page) where are the failures? Where is White Sands?

    By 1969- where are the references to the boosters? The REAL story. How Chrysler (yep, automaker) and others made the Saturn


    Apollo/Saturn
    SATURN IB First Stage Chrysler Corp. Space Division New Orleans H-1 Engines Rocketdyne Division North American Aviation, Inc. Canoga Park, Cal. Second Stage Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc. Missile & Space Systems Div. Huntington Beach, Cal. J-2 Engine Rocketdyne Division North American Aviation, Inc. Canoga Park. Instrument Unit International Business Machines Corp. Federal Systems Division Huntsville, Ala. ST-124M Inertial Platform in the Instrument Unit Bendix Corp. Eclipse Pioneer Div. Teteboro, N.J

Government sites are not much different from commercial sites. The information they post is designed to portray a defined goal. Propaganda!


Another NASA site leads to someone with the same name as a poster in this thread:


NASA announcement
William R. Hicks has been named chief operating officer of the National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) in Huntsville, Ala.

Small world, huh?


bill, the links I provide (up page) have what you are seeking. Russia- why failed and NASA- did they really reach the moon.
.

.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Joe,

Thanks for them.

Cheers

BHR



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join