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.

 

Existing law may limit U.S participation in the ISS: Griffin

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

NASA's top official said Friday that the future of U.S. participation in Russian space flights was in doubt.

Michael Griffin told reporters near the Baikonur Cosmodrome that “an acceptable financial agreement'' could be reached to resolve Russian demands that the U.S. pay for its participation in future Russian flights.

But Griffin said a U.S. law – the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 penalizing countries that sell unconventional weapons and missile technology to Iran, including Russia – could mean an end to “a continuous American presence on the ISS (International Space Station).''


Entire article


I knew they would find some way to get out of that boondoggle. I am just surprised they didn't use it any earlier.




posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Brilliant!
Let's hand over an asset we've pumped billions into over to the Russians because we want to play games with the Iranians.

That's an interesting way to "punish" the Russians, by giving them a free space station. I'm sure they'll think twice about cozying up to Iran after after that


Hey, while we're at it, lets give them a couple aircraft carriers too.
That'll show em a thing or two!

Imagine a whole page full of
, that's my take on this plan.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Brilliant!
Let's hand over an asset we've pumped billions into over to the Russians because we want to play games with the Iranians.

That's an interesting way to "punish" the Russians, by giving them a free space station. I'm sure they'll think twice about cozying up to Iran after after that


Hey, while we're at it, lets give them a couple aircraft carriers too.
That'll show em a thing or two!

Imagine a whole page full of
, that's my take on this plan.


We can bring down our sections and burn them up in the atmosphere, or use them to make our very own space station. Maybe arm it with high energy lasers...



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
This issue has been on the back burner for a long time and became an issue after the shuttle was destroyed during re-entry.

Maybe all nations should stop selling arms to the Middle East and Africa. It would curtail a lot of bloodshed.

The United States and Russia should be working with Europe, China, Japan, Brazil and India to increase the human presence in space. A strong aliance between a multitude of countries will draw other nations into the space race and put the entire world that much further ahead.

I like the ISS, even if it's taking forever to build the damn thing. I'll be glad to see it finished so NASA can focus on going further than a couple hundred miles up, going nowhere very fast.



posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   
funny that it follows after the launch of Expdition 15 to teh ISS that launched 2 astronauts up to the ISS yesterday...

I'm sure that this is will not allow the ISS to become Biger and stronger. IF it was the Soviet Union I would say other wise but Russia can care less about its space program as much as the USA.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The ISS is already $4 billion over budget, this is not some vital military project... Cancel it!



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
One of the major problems with the US space program is our inability to finish anything. We develop a project, spend billions on it, then abondon it before we finish, because some dope thinks the solution is to drop everything and start over from scratch. Abandoning a project into which we've already invested ~$15 billion would be incredibly foolish. We've already built this thing, it's almost finished, abandoning it now and starting over would be an absurd waste of money.

Why not just skip the middleman, and flush the $15 billion of taxpayers money directly down the toilet?

As far as it not being a "vital military project"... I'd argue it's far more vital to get a permanent human foothold in space than any military project could ever hope to be. I like the F-22 (a project also way over it's original budget), but if it came down to scrapping the F-22 or the ISS, I'd ditch the F-22 in a heartbeat.

[edit on 10/2/05 by xmotex]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
This is amazing, politics in NASA. Who would have thunk it with the whole 'mission back to the moon'? Basically, they don't like the idea of American tourist in space by Russian means, but yet NASA refuses to allow space tourism on their shuttles because everything about shuttle missions are 'scientific'.

If NASA would just wise up to allowing tourist then we would be getting the $20 million and not the Russians, but yet NASA doesn't do anything about it but bring up some NPF bullcrap. Look at India, we sell weapons to them but yet they have also violated the NPF and continue to be left in the dark on all things nuclear for the most part.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I'd argue it's far more vital to get a permanent human foothold in space


Uh thats what NASA's plans of building a base on the Moon is all about...



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   


Uh thats what NASA's plans of building a base on the Moon is all about...


And I'm all for it.
But halfassing a space station then ditching it (then probably halfassing a moon base then ditching it) is not the way to go.

The space station is there, the moon base is not (yet).

The ISS may be a compromise, even a bad one, but it's what we've got right now. Throwing it out like a used kleenex after we've already put around $15 billion dollars into it simply makes no sense.

Space colonization is by it's very nature a long term effort.
We'll never get anywhere if we abandon every project every time the political winds change.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotexWe'll never get anywhere if we abandon every project every time the political winds change.


The political winds haven't changed, the times have changed. We (the U.S) no longer need the ISS that much. We can disconnect our sections and make our own space station if you are really that hung up on having one. Let the Russians, Europeans, and whoever else finish the ISS.

Having us (the U.S) finish the ISS is like starting a house in the 1990's getting half way done and realizing you didn't really need a house in the first place. You're saying we should finish it even if we don't plan to live in it...

[edit on 3-10-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   


Having us (the U.S) finish the ISS is like starting a house in the 1990's getting half way done and realizing you didn't really need a house in the first place. You're saying we should finish it even if we don't plan to live in it...


If you'd already spent $15 billion dollars on the house, then yeah, I think it'd be pretty dumb to abandon it halfway through. Let me get this straight, is your primary problem with the ISS that it was a cooperative venture with the Russians, Europeans & Japanese?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex



Having us (the U.S) finish the ISS is like starting a house in the 1990's getting half way done and realizing you didn't really need a house in the first place. You're saying we should finish it even if we don't plan to live in it...


If you'd already spent $15 billion dollars on the house, then yeah, I think it'd be pretty dumb to abandon it halfway through. Let me get this straight, is your primary problem with the ISS that it was a cooperative venture with the Russians, Europeans & Japanese?


If they had cut the progrom at the $15 bill mark that would be about $90+ bill in savings. What exactly do they due in the space station that is so fantastic and worthwhile?


apc

posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Make amazingly symmetrical ball bearings.

I see the only reason to abandon a station already in existance is to get out of the joint responsibilities and build our own going solo. The Moon Base will be nice, but having a 'permanent' human presence in Earth orbit is vital. When the time comes, large ships can be built in orbit that are impossible to construct under the pressure of gravity. Communcations between such ships, the Moon, and beyond, are more reliable and manageable with transmissions being relayed from orbit.

Clearly, we need a space station.

The only issue is... who's name is on the deed?



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

If they had cut the progrom at the $15 bill mark that would be about $90+ bill in savings. What exactly do they due in the space station that is so fantastic and worthwhile?


Mostly they maintain the experiments that require micro-gravity which cover the entire range of science.

For every experiment that gets a ride to the station there are a thousand others that sit on the ground waiting with little hope.

If anything we need much more of a space station just to carry out the most important experiments.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

If they had cut the progrom at the $15 bill mark that would be about $90+ bill in savings. What exactly do they due in the space station that is so fantastic and worthwhile?


Mostly they maintain the experiments that require micro-gravity which cover the entire range of science.

For every experiment that gets a ride to the station there are a thousand others that sit on the ground waiting with little hope.

If anything we need much more of a space station just to carry out the most important experiments.


The most important experiments? These experiments never amount to anything because they can never be carried out fully due to the enormous cost. I can't really remember the last article I read on biology claiming results from space. More important would be creating microscopes to zoom in at .01 angstroms. Imagine what that could do for the fields of science. And you don't even need men in space to do this...



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

If they had cut the progrom at the $15 bill mark that would be about $90+ bill in savings. What exactly do they due in the space station that is so fantastic and worthwhile?


Mostly they maintain the experiments that require micro-gravity which cover the entire range of science.

For every experiment that gets a ride to the station there are a thousand others that sit on the ground waiting with little hope.

If anything we need much more of a space station just to carry out the most important experiments.


The most important experiments? These experiments never amount to anything because they can never be carried out fully due to the enormous cost. I can't really remember the last article I read on biology claiming results from space. More important would be creating microscopes to zoom in at .01 angstroms. Imagine what that could do for the fields of science. And you don't even need men in space to do this...



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
If you'd already spent $15 billion dollars on the house, then yeah, I think it'd be pretty dumb to abandon it halfway through. Let me get this straight, is your primary problem with the ISS that it was a cooperative venture with the Russians, Europeans & Japanese?


We won't stop sending astronauts. We just won't complete it 100%, more like 80%. But we would spend less time there.

No primary problem with the ISS is that we don't really need it anymore. Sure the EU needs it, but not us.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Well, I still think that'd be a waste.
We have it, we might as well finish it and use it.
As I undestand it, the remaining modules are ready, just waiting to be orbited and installed.

Still it's more realistic than entirely abandoning such a huge investment.




top topics



 
0

log in

join