NASA cuts off contact with Russian officials

[norseamd]

They do both exist in the US, just not manned for launching Government wise.

that will change

for things with profit and lots of missions private spaceflight can do that. right now there is a lot of possibilities for private industry in orbital. they can supply the iss flights since they have a lot of other things using the same hardware like private science flights and space tourism and satillites

however nasa needs to work on a lunar outpost and how to work human missions outside of the magnetic protection

few companies are going to do that when there is little money to be made within a short time period or even a moderate amount of time

 

[Fern]

"NASA's goals aren't political," said a NASA scientist who to spoke The Verge on condition of anonymity.

^ Somebody didn't get the memo.

Fern

 

[norseamd]

^ Somebody didn't get the memo. Fern

fail to see anywhere that nasa has been doing too much outreach shit

corruption and crony capitalism are however plainly visable

you guys seem to be yelling partisan shit

 

[Brovane]

that will change

for things with profit and lots of missions private spaceflight can do that. right now there is a lot of possibilities for private industry in orbital. they can supply the iss flights since they have a lot of other things using the same hardware like private science flights and space tourism and satillites

however nasa needs to work on a lunar outpost and how to work human missions outside of the magnetic protection

few companies are going to do that when there is little money to be made within a short time period or even a moderate amount of time

I don't currently see a lot of profit for private manned orbital spaceflights at the current costs for payload to Earth Orbit unless you are providing transportation to the ISS which is paid for by NASA.

 

[theeedude]

http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/726529

France’s Arianespace and Russia’s Federal Space Agency Roscosmos have signed an agreement on the supply of seven Russian Soyuz carrier rockets for the launches from the Kourou spaceport in 2016-2019, Arianespace chief Stephane Israel reported on Thursday. He spoke at a ceremony at the French Guiana spaceport devoted to the seventh launch of a Soyuz carrier rocket with the Sentinel-1A satellite.
The satellite designed for Earth surface monitoring was successfully placed into a near-earth orbit 20 minutes after the blastoff.

Looks like France is going the other way and ordering up some Soyuz Rockets.
Great testament to Korolev that his R7 rocket design is still commercially competitive six decades into its lifespan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_family

 

[norseamd]

Looks like France is going the other way and ordering up some Soyuz Rockets. Great testament to Korolev that his R7 rocket design is still commercially competitive six decades into its lifespan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_family

esa is buying the mpcv so europe is not suddenly going with the russians. in fact they were designing a joint space program until that fell apart a while ago

 

[norseamd]

agree korolyov was great although he had to deal with russian corruption and politics

 

[Brovane]

http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/726529

Looks like France is going the other way and ordering up some Soyuz Rockets.
Great testament to Korolev that his R7 rocket design is still commercially competitive six decades into its lifespan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-7_family

The Atlas rocket series is still regularly used and was designed in the late 50's.

 

[norseamd]

keep in mind the russians actually won the space race

they were the first into space as well as the first to land anything on mars

there country however went broke

 

[Brovane]

keep in mind the russians actually won the space race

they were the first into space as well as the first to land anything on mars

there country however went broke

How are you defining the space race?

 

[norseamd]

How are you defining the space race?

race to space

race to moon

race to land a man on the moon

race to mars

they won the race to space, the moon, and mars. we won the race for human landings

 

[Brovane]

race to space

race to moon

race to land a man on the moon

race to mars

they won the race to space, the moon, and mars. we won the race for human landings

Nazi Germany was the first country to get a man made object into space. The V-2 rockets, part of their trajectory was sub-orbital. So I guess Nazi Germany won the space race right? Just pointing out to you how framing things as a race and then choosing arbitrary points is just idiotic.

 

[shady28]

Nazi Germany was the first country to get a man made object into space. The V-2 rockets, part of their trajectory was sub-orbital. So I guess Nazi Germany won the space race right? Just pointing out to you how framing things as a race and then choosing arbitrary points is just idiotic.

He makes a really good point, though it is more of a lesson in perception manipulation.

Sputnik is considered the first spacecraft. Russia also put the first space station up. In virtually every objective measure, Russia/USSR beat us in the "space race" yet the perception is entirely the opposite.

We also lost both Korea and Vietnam wars. Don't think so? They were both 100% in western hands before the wars.

Did you know we are #6 in per capita income adjusted for purchasing power? Qatar is #1.

We're #9 or #14 when not adjusted for purchasing power (Depending on who you believe).

Here's a tidbit on how people are so dumb, their perceptions are easily manipulated :

29 percent of Americans believe that “cloud computing” involves an actual cloud

Close to 25 percent of all Americans do not know that the United States declared independence from Great Britain

29 percent of all Americans cannot recall the name of the vice-president of the country

27% Think A Gigabyte Is a Type Of South American Insect

1 in every 4 Americans -- 78 million people -- don't understand the Earth orbits the Sun

 

[Brovane]

He makes a really good point, though it is more of a lesson in perception manipulation.

Sputnik is considered the first spacecraft. Russia also put the first space station up. In virtually every objective measure, Russia/USSR beat us in the "space race" yet the perception is entirely the opposite.

If you look at this timeline of the space race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Space_Race)I am having a hard time with the statement In virtually every objective measure, Russia/USSR beat us in the "space race" what facts are you looking at to draw this conclusion?

 

[werepossum]

If you look at this timeline of the space race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Space_Race)I am having a hard time with the statement In virtually every objective measure, Russia/USSR beat us in the "space race" what facts are you looking at to draw this conclusion?

I worked with a man who had been a design draftsman (drawing full size templates on glass cloth to 1/10,000") on the Army Redstone program who swore the Army had a satellite delivery system ready almost a year before Sputnik, but Eisenhower had decided for political reasons to allow the Navy's Vanguard program the honor. At the time, everyone assumed we were years ahead of the Soviets, forgetting that their German rocket scientists were just as smart as our German rocket scientists. Vanguard's first attempt to catch up failed spectacularly, and in fact the Explorer attempt used not the Vanguard rocket design, but an Army Jupiter rocket modified to accept the Navy satellite as the Army satellite program (which if memory serves was actually a different Navy-built satellite) had been cancelled early in '57. The Army rocket and re-entry system had been successfully tested in '56, so as long as the satellite worked we could have been first. As always, pride goeth before a fall. (And after the fall, a long hard winter.)

This is an anecdote, so YMMV.

 

[norseamd]

I worked with a man who had been a design draftsman (drawing full size templates on glass cloth to 1/10,000") on the Army Redstone program who swore the Army had a satellite delivery system ready almost a year before Sputnik, but Eisenhower had decided for political reasons to allow the Navy's Vanguard program the honor. At the time, everyone assumed we were years ahead of the Soviets, forgetting that their German rocket scientists were just as smart as our German rocket scientists. Vanguard's first attempt to catch up failed spectacularly, and in fact the Explorer attempt used not the Vanguard rocket design, but an Army Jupiter rocket modified to accept the Navy satellite as the Army satellite program (which if memory serves was actually a different Navy-built satellite) had been cancelled early in '57. The Army rocket and re-entry system had been successfully tested in '56, so as long as the satellite worked we could have been first. As always, pride goeth before a fall. (And after the fall, a long hard winter.) This is an anecdote, so YMMV.

another reason i favor a unified military

 

[norseamd]

still not only did they put the first object into orbit (suborbital is hardly space to me) but they also put the first animal into space, the first man into space, the first lunar flyby, first landing on the moon, first soft landing on the moon, first planetary flyby, first landing on another planet, first soft landing on another planet, first multi person crew, first spacewalk, and first space station.

we have first mars flyby and first landing of humans on the moon.

they also have the first impact into mars and the first soft landing on mars.

we also have the first pilot controlled human spaceflight, first vehicle driven on the moon, first to leave the inner solar system, first flybys of jupiter and mercury, and lots of satellite achievements from the 1950s and later

 

[werepossum]

He makes a really good point, though it is more of a lesson in perception manipulation.

Sputnik is considered the first spacecraft. Russia also put the first space station up. In virtually every objective measure, Russia/USSR beat us in the "space race" yet the perception is entirely the opposite.

We also lost both Korea and Vietnam wars. Don't think so? They were both 100% in western hands before the wars.

Did you know we are #6 in per capita income adjusted for purchasing power? Qatar is #1.

We're #9 or #14 when not adjusted for purchasing power (Depending on who you believe).

Here's a tidbit on how people are so dumb, their perceptions are easily manipulated :

29 percent of Americans believe that “cloud computing” involves an actual cloud

Close to 25 percent of all Americans do not know that the United States declared independence from Great Britain

29 percent of all Americans cannot recall the name of the vice-president of the country

27% Think A Gigabyte Is a Type Of South American Insect

1 in every 4 Americans -- 78 million people -- don't understand the Earth orbits the Sun

Neither Korea nor Vietnam was 100% in Western hands before their wars. Both had been conquered by Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union insisted on taking half of each to administer which they converted into communist puppet states. Granted, we lost Vietnam, but Korea was a draw, with the southern half remaining free and becoming relatively prosperous. Prior to the Imperial Japanese, Korea was a free empire. Vietnam lost its freedom to France in the very late nineteenth century, but had thrown out the French (who were only able to restore control due to the USA and UK throwing out the communists) and re-established the communist government over the North in '54 when France formally renounced its claim to its Indochinese territories. (Hard to explain why other nations should fight for your freedom but against your colonies' freedom, but France gave it the old college try.)

 

[werepossum]

another reason i favor a unified military

We attempted to do just that with the Joint Chiefs, but especially in times of budget cuts each service jealously guards its territory and prerogatives.

 

[norseamd]

Neither Korea nor Vietnam was 100% in Western hands before their wars. Both had been conquered by Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union insisted on taking half of each to administer which they converted into communist puppet states. Granted, we lost Vietnam, but Korea was a draw, with the southern half remaining free and becoming relatively prosperous. Prior to the Imperial Japanese, Korea was a free empire. Vietnam lost its freedom to France in the very late nineteenth century, but had thrown out the French (who were only able to restore control due to the USA and UK throwing out the communists) and re-established the communist government over the North in '54 when France formally renounced its claim to its Indochinese territories. (Hard to explain why other nations should fight for your freedom but against your colonies' freedom, but France gave it the old college try.)

so what is interesting is that ho chi minh had actually sent a telegram to truman requesting assistance and diplomatic relations. if truman had gone that route instead of ignoring and disrespecting them the whole situation in vietnam might have turned out different. ho chi minh was a independence fighter and nationalist first and a communist second. we have much to blame in the conflict. diem was a very cruel and destructive bastard as was his wife. what is also interesting is that ho chi minh had a chance to get rid of diem before he was ever president but he let him go for some reason or another

 

[werepossum]

so what is interesting is that ho chi minh had actually sent a telegram to truman requesting assistance and diplomatic relations. if truman had gone that route instead of ignoring and disrespecting them the whole situation in vietnam might have turned out different. ho chi minh was a independence fighter and nationalist first and a communist second. we have much to blame in the conflict. diem was a very cruel and destructive bastard as was his wife. what is also interesting is that ho chi minh had a chance to get rid of diem before he was ever president but he let him go for some reason or another

Maybe, but I can't see Ho Chi Minh ever being satisfied with less than all of Vietnam or us ever maintaining relations with, much less providing support for, a communist country of the day. Maybe had we bribed him into being a Western-aligned dictator we could have made a go of it.

Looking at South Korea and Vietnam, one cannot help but be sad we lost that war.

 

[norseamd]

Maybe, but I can't see Ho Chi Minh ever being satisfied with less than all of Vietnam or us ever maintaining relations with, much less providing support for, a communist country of the day. Maybe had we bribed him into being a Western-aligned dictator we could have made a go of it.

a neutrally aligned or even somewhat us aligned socially democratic full vietnam had truman given support to ho chi minh

 

[shady28]

Maybe, but I can't see Ho Chi Minh ever being satisfied with less than all of Vietnam or us ever maintaining relations with, much less providing support for, a communist country of the day. Maybe had we bribed him into being a Western-aligned dictator we could have made a go of it.

Looking at South Korea and Vietnam, one cannot help but be sad we lost that war.

You drank the cool-aid.

Imperialistic fuck up #1 :
"In 1918 Ho lived in Paris. During the talks that led to the Treaty of Versailles, Ho tried to convince the American delegation to speak out for the cause of the Indo-Chinese people but he was not successful. "

Imperialistic fuck up #2 :
"In September 1945, Ho Chi Minh announced the creation of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. However, France wanted to re-establish control over Vietnam. France refused to recognise Ho’s republic and both sides quickly engaged in fighting in 1946. "


Imperialistic fuck up #3 :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh

"Although he convinced Emperor Bảo Đại to abdicate, his government was not recognized by any country. He repeatedly petitioned American President Harry S. Truman for support for Vietnamese independence,[31] citing the Atlantic Charter, but Truman never responded.[32]"


Ho Chi Minh is a hero in Vietnam. That's why they renamed Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City when it fell in 1975, 6 years after he died.

The story is really one of overcoming incredible odds to gain independence. It just isn't a perspective Americans are likely to entertain, after all the cool-aid says we don't subjugate we liberate...

 

[Brovane]

I worked with a man who had been a design draftsman (drawing full size templates on glass cloth to 1/10,000") on the Army Redstone program who swore the Army had a satellite delivery system ready almost a year before Sputnik, but Eisenhower had decided for political reasons to allow the Navy's Vanguard program the honor. At the time, everyone assumed we were years ahead of the Soviets, forgetting that their German rocket scientists were just as smart as our German rocket scientists. Vanguard's first attempt to catch up failed spectacularly, and in fact the Explorer attempt used not the Vanguard rocket design, but an Army Jupiter rocket modified to accept the Navy satellite as the Army satellite program (which if memory serves was actually a different Navy-built satellite) had been cancelled early in '57. The Army rocket and re-entry system had been successfully tested in '56, so as long as the satellite worked we could have been first. As always, pride goeth before a fall. (And after the fall, a long hard winter.)

This is an anecdote, so YMMV.

That is true about Redstone. When Von Braun had designed the Redstone rocket he had left the option of a 4th stage being added which would propel a small payload into orbit. However Eisenhower wanted the space program to be more non military and he didn't like the Redstone rocket since it was basically a military rocket putting the first satellite up. The Redstone rocket family where ballistic missiles and where military in origin. The Vanguard rocket was designed and built for non military purposes so it was more acceptable. However the Eisenhower administration rushed it forward when it really wasn't ready for launch.
The issue that I have always seen with US missile development in the 1950's is from what I can see a difference in focus between the Soviets and the USA in delivery of nuclear warheads. The US primary nuclear platform in the late 40's and 50's was the Strategic bomber, with the B-36 and B-52 to deliver nuclear weapons. Compared to missiles the bombers where more accurate and able to deliver more nuclear bombs and larger bombs. The first H-bombs where huge and weighed over 40,000 lb. The Soviets tried to catch up to the Americans on strategic bombers but released they couldn't so they switched to missiles to deliver nuclear warheads. This also had the intended the effect of giving them easy platforms for the space race. That issue I think was critical for the successes of the Soviets because by the time the US released their was a space race the Soviets already had a lot of missile development completed and had launch vehicles with greater payload. It wasn't until the launch of the First Saturn I that the US started to pull ahead on the ability to launch large payloads into space.

 

[Brovane]

still not only did they put the first object into orbit (suborbital is hardly space to me)

The accepted definition of space is the Karman line which lies at an altitude of 100km. Several V-2 test flights when well above that altitude.