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.

 

ISS is now a common farce due to NASA/USA failure to live up to their end of the bargain!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Remember that Russia have already proved them self to be more reliable and technologically advance than NASA when it comes to space stations and space shuttles. Any remember MIR? That was way back in the days and their shuttle program and technology has always been very robust and hassle free while at the same time cost effective. EU/ESA have chosen the right partner for their future space programs, that's for sure!

Now the competitions will be among the second tier, like NASA/USA, China and Japan. NASA/USA is slipping... They have an expensive war at their hand for at least 5 more years and NASA budget will be minimal and down prioritized. Let's see what China and EU/Russia got! I think that is where the future is at. USA/NASA is getting to strung out, day by day...

ISS is now a common farce due to NASA/USA failure to live up to their end of the bargain!


[edit on 22-8-2005 by Raabjorn]




posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 01:53 AM
link   
1. Even before the Columbia disaster, the ISS was behind schedule because the Russians couldn't come up with enough money to build their parts and deliver them on time.

2. The U.S/NASA has realized the ISS is a pipe dream, there is no real good use for it anymore. It's ok for countries with no real vision for space (Russia, EU) but the U.S has plans to go back to the Moon and then to Mars. Why continue betting money on a lame horse...



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Going back to the moon is not enough of a challenge for nasa, as the old cliche goes "been there, done that". I want to see a self-sustaining outpost on the moon to serve as a stepping stone for missions deeper in the solar system
. A manned Mission to mars under the best of funding is at least 20-30 years away(given optimal funding). The moon is perfect to start colonizing now. Our technology has grown sufficiently to really start making colonization possible(moon). of course we as people of the earth are going to change our thinking from International to Interplanetary.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Let's talk about where a lot of the money has gone for ISS that originally wasn't budgeted to go there:

1. Both modules built by Russia eventually were "held hostage" by Russia with claims they had no more money to finish the module. Both times NASA "ransomed" the modules with large sums of money not originally budgeted. Americans only think they know capitalism - the Russians have it down.

2. The ISS's reboost burns were scheduled around a series of Proton rockets that were committed by Russia. Well, that went away in three easy steps:

a. They kept lobbing radioactive Protons over Kazakhstan with failed launches and finally the Kaz's said - you know, stop it right now before we glow in the dark. So everybody had to go on hold so that they could get their acts together.

b. Then we went through at least one, and if I remember right two rounds of the Russians deciding they should, in fact, leave the bleeding mass of space junk MIR up in orbit so they could make money off it as a tourist attraction. Each time they waffled on the MUCH NEEDED deorbit of MIR they would again break their promise on the Protons and re-route Protons already in line for the ISS program over to that nonsense.

c. Then they just decided "we have no more Protons and we can't afford to make anymore"...basically going back to the extortion mode of the first two modules. And apparently there's a bit of a stalemate there now...so no Protons for ISS that I know of.

In 2000 the Russians had no satellite for communications with ISS. They were reduced to line-of-sight communications for less than 15 minutes each orbit. Their side of the ISS is the one with the propulsion system! So, unless they have either found some one to strong arm into buying them some more satellites or they gave in and started piping telemetry over to NASA/Houston so that it could go up to our satellites, they're probably still operating on this 15 minutes of line-of-sight. That means from their standpoint they're uploading "cyclograms" - canned chunks of program - that will schedule burns while in complete blindness. The only reason they know everything is going okay for the majority of an orbit is because they can talk to NASA/Houston and find out they didn't kill anybody.

Yeah - what a way to a run a rodeo - but only if it's amateur night!

If China and/or the ESA is willing to lay the cash in the ever-present open hand of Russia, you are right, Russia will be there to assist any one with money, and they'll get it done, too. But don't act like their tremendous ability to whore themselves out in the space program is some kind of higher calling. NASA is paid for 100% by the U.S. taxpayers, so yes, they are restricted by the budgetary concerns of any given budget cycle. It's always been that way. At least they don't go begging and blackmailing for money - they just wait till the worm turns and they're back in the black.


[edit on 8-22-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raabjorn
Remember that Russia have already proved them self to be more reliable and technologically advance than NASA when it comes to space stations and space shuttles. Any remember MIR? That was way back in the days and their shuttle program and technology has always been very robust and hassle free while at the same time cost effective. EU/ESA have chosen the right partner for their future space programs, that's for sure!

Now the competitions will be among the second tier, like NASA/USA, China and Japan. NASA/USA is slipping... They have an expensive war at their hand for at least 5 more years and NASA budget will be minimal and down prioritized. Let's see what China and EU/Russia got! I think that is where the future is at. USA/NASA is getting to strung out, day by day...

ISS is now a common farce due to NASA/USA failure to live up to their end of the bargain!


[edit on 22-8-2005 by Raabjorn]


i couldn't agree more.


The ISS is born after the US failed to finance their own space station. The US wanted the ISS to be built and now it has to respect its deals. you begin something and not finish it



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Raabjorn do you mean thier space shuttle that never launched cargo or people because they were scared it was too unreliable?

Also, thier technology is more advanced and reliable? Mir was PLAUGED with problems. If it wasn't one thing, it was another. It was in far worse shape than the ISS is or ever will be.

Plus, keep in mind how many people Russia has lost in thier manned exploration of space. Now how many has America lost? Under 20, I believe.

I could repeat what Valhall has already said too, but why bother when she said it so well?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
You could scream it, Kid, and they still wouldn't hear. Their minds are made up and no fact in the world is going to sway their opinion.

By the way, Valhall, thanks for the point by point layout of historical recollection. You've reminded those of us who followed the ISSSCAM with interest what happened. If more people would post in this manner, rather than offer opinions as fact, we would get clearer pictures of what is the whole truth.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
grant the US has had to delay some launches. But why don't we look at the russians to and say they probly failed to live up to thier side more.

it was a great idea for the Post-cold war world. Too bad we live in the Terroists world now



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
First of all, Valhall hit the nail on the head...But I have to add my 2 cents.



Raabjorn
NASA/USA is slipping... They have an expensive war at their hand for at least 5 more years and NASA budget will be minimal and down prioritized. Let's see what China and EU/Russia got! I think that is where the future is at.

- Nasa's budget doesn't come from the military...so not sure why the Iraq war was brought into a space discussion.

second of all: Nasa's budget has grown from last year...and will continue to do so for over a decade, because of Nasa's new (Bush set) exploration vision. and so Nasa will have an all new spacecraft in a little over half a decade.

and I think China is just plain & simply put on to high of a pedistal. The have launched 1 guy into space.....and everyone thinks there a major player in space.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Mir was PLAUGED with problems. If it wasn't one thing, it was another. It was in far worse shape than the ISS is or ever will be.


You're right, MIR was the largest piece of space debris before they finally brought her down. By they way, the Russians needed NASA's help tracking it coming down. Because they Russians don't have that capability. If NASA didn't help, MIR might have landed in the center of Moscow...



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
one of the original ideas of the ISS was to build it off of MIR space station.. of course they found out what bad shape it was. I stil lremember reading the news stories of the cosmonauts donning air masks cause the station sprung a leak



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielagoand I think China is just plain & simply put on to high of a pedistal. The have launched 1 guy into space.....and everyone thinks there a major player in space.


Give the Chinese credit, they are behind America and Russia in manned exploration and ahead of everyone else.

Wasn't Spacelab a success for the most part using old modules and converting new ones to make the first spacestation? The problem with NASA, the only one, is funding. They recieve as much in funds as the DEA. This is not good. That $18 billion has to be spent between Cape, Huntsville, Clear Lake, Berkley, Ames, Dryden and Langley. Too little to go around.

With Bush in the white house, or any republican for that matter, NASA looks as if she will live well into the future and not be broken up and have the money spent on 'better' needs, like welfare.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
ALot of the problem with NASA is public support. I would proably guess that a good 75% of americans can't even name all the shuttles in the origonal shuttle fleet. I could bet that they cant even name 3 major projects of NASA (ie Gemini, Apollo, Skylab)

Oh that reminds me does anyone remember how Awesome Sky lab was? Seems like no one remembers it. Any way....

NASA has alot of problems mostly due to budget and lack of public support. For God's sake russia is almost a loose confederacy and the goverment has alot of control if they want to pump the space program they can do it as much as they want. But here in the US we have to worry about Liberal pussies talk about "WHY DO WE SUPPORT NASA?!?!" nasa gets like .7% of the same budget the military gets and do you know how much life has improved due to teh space age? heller ammounts. Now certainly the ISS should have been finnished by now and yes its funding is bad. But I don't think we should get rid of it. It serves a great pourpose for studying the effects of long term life in space. And sure the shuttle program kinda needs a new go. But still man needs to reach for the stars and if you think that the money and the risk is too much, I say you are not human. Why? because its mans natural state to explore and to go where he natually cant.

(If you were offended by my liberal comment I am regretably sorrry and it was not meant in an offensive manner. If you are a liberal please do not turn this into a political mud slinging contest. THe comment was only there for dramatic effect. )

Also if my post has NOTHING to do with the thread I'm sorry I misinterperted everything and i'm doing homework so I'm kinda aggitated....



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
great post Mizar.

and your dead on correct. When I was at Ford some years back, It was like the weekend after Columbia burned up on re-entry, and one of them brought it up, I heard them talking about it, and one of them said "I think they have like 12 of them left"...I didn't know them, so I didn't correct them, But it proves your point, they actually thought that Nasa Has 12 Shuttles!


But I think a lot of it has to do with the unmanned factor, Face it, the ISS isn't exactly front page news, It only hits the headlines when something breaks, and so the average person doesn't check into things in detail, like the successes that they have had there and all the research into dozens of subjects. All the routinely here about is "this broke, that broke", and so they start to think that Nasa is spending all of there 15 billion on just polishing the rust off of the Space Station.

What Nasa needs...Is exactly what there doing. The Bush Vision. The Moon, Mars, & Beyond Initiative is what this country needs, it will get the average joe even excited about the missions, and more people will pay attention when a human lands on mars, and not just another rover. (although I'm not your average Joe...I like the rovers to)



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FrostyWith Bush in the white house, or any republican for that matter, NASA looks as if she will live well into the future and not be broken up and have the money spent on 'better' needs, like welfare.


So you mean spening at least 9 billion dollars a month on a invasion and occupation under false pretenses is better?

Who was able to make sure there was enough funds to send people to the moon and back while there was the veitnam war? Kennedy was certainly not a republican. I think a Democrat/Republican comparison on budget spending is a rather poor comparison to make. For example both the Challanger and Columbia were both lost while a Republican president was in office, but it would be rather arrogent of me to blame them for it



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat

Originally posted by FrostyWith Bush in the white house, or any republican for that matter, NASA looks as if she will live well into the future and not be broken up and have the money spent on 'better' needs, like welfare.


So you mean spening at least 9 billion dollars a month on a invasion and occupation under false pretenses is better?

Who was able to make sure there was enough funds to send people to the moon and back while there was the veitnam war? Kennedy was certainly not a republican. I think a Democrat/Republican comparison on budget spending is a rather poor comparison to make. For example both the Challanger and Columbia were both lost while a Republican president was in office, but it would be rather arrogent of me to blame them for it


Thats true Jehosephat, I dont think it means much for Nasa, but you cant deny it means a lot to the military.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   
My bigest gripw with the whole thing is how the Gov will lobby to have all these amazing new plans instated across the country that really don't benifit anyone too dramataclly that it is life changing for millions but they will cut NASA funding.

Like a few weeks ago Bush signed that new INterstate/Highway bill. What was its budget liek 30billion? I mean a bill to have new highways placed for peopel in rual communties. Why don't we build a "Highway to Space"

Thats not the only thing, think about all teh useless projecst that we fund for socail welfare. Like abunch of the programs that Roosevelt instated in the 30's after the depression. Are now quite pointless but still get loads of funding each year. Why can't we cut back on the uniportat wastes and give to where its needed?



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat

Originally posted by FrostyWith Bush in the white house, or any republican for that matter, NASA looks as if she will live well into the future and not be broken up and have the money spent on 'better' needs, like welfare.


So you mean spening at least 9 billion dollars a month on a invasion and occupation under false pretenses is better?

Who was able to make sure there was enough funds to send people to the moon and back while there was the veitnam war? Kennedy was certainly not a republican. I think a Democrat/Republican comparison on budget spending is a rather poor comparison to make. For example both the Challanger and Columbia were both lost while a Republican president was in office, but it would be rather arrogent of me to blame them for it


Please please. Let's not get into debate over funding a war and funding NASA.

Democrats have changed much since Kennedy. If you really want to get into the Kennedy debate it was Ike who was president when NASA was first formed from NACA in 1958. Guess what, he was neither Democrat or Republican. Fact is simple, Republicans and Democrats want to spend tax dollar and deficit funds differently. Some want higher taxes, some want less. Some call for more welfare spending, some call for a reform.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

it was Ike who was president when NASA was first formed from NACA in 1958. Guess what, he was neither Democrat or Republican. Fact is simple, Republicans and Democrats want to spend tax dollar and deficit funds differently. Some want higher taxes, some want less. Some call for more welfare spending, some call for a reform.


Ike was a Republican. And you are right Dems have changed, they used to be pro NASA and they used to be pro military.


apc

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
This brought a smile to my face...

Remember that Russia have already proved them self to be more reliable and technologically advance than NASA when it comes to space stations and space shuttles.

Yeah... the Soyuz capsules are soooooo advanced. Excuse me while I crawl into my Apollo Command Module and run a marathon.

You know I heard once the Russians were planning on going to the Moon...
They were going to wait for MIR to crash into it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join