As if I needed another reason to dislike the NASA CEV system
August 14th, 2008
|
| Share |
The Space Shuttle is to retire in 2010. The Ares-1/CEV system will not fly until at least 2015. That is, of course, if the project goes entirely according to plan and does not end up behind schedule, which I predict it will. In the interm between 2010 and 2015, the United States will not have any kind of manned space system whatsoever. This was a bad place to be in in the late 1970’s and looking back one would think NASA would be wise enough not to let such a national disgrace happen again.
Last time the US ended up without any way of getting into space, our big roomy, highly capable space station we had ended up being reduced to a few chared scraps of metal in the Australian outback, because we had no way of getting to it and giving it a boost. This time, however, we have an even bigger, more expensive space station that we’ve invested billions in and have a commitment with other nations to maintain, staff and supply.
The good news is that at least this time there’s an alternate way of getting there. The bad news is that it’s Russia. Ever since Putin seized power over Russia (aka, the Soviet Union 2.0) it’s been becoming more and more apparent that relying on the country for something as strategically important as getting to the space station and general space flight is not a very good place to be. Already the US was forced to amend the Iran-Syria Non-Proliferation Act in order to allow NASA to purchase Soyuz capsuls and rockets from Russia.
Given the recent turns of events in Russia it’s becoming even less desirable to be in a position where Putin has us by the spaceballs. The Russian intervention in Georgia hearkens back to the bad old days and its far from being the only thing. While Russia is working to sell nuclear technology to the fanatical Islamic states of the world, they’ve also beefed up their strategic nuclear presence. They’ve been steadily acquiring additional Tu-160’s, an aircraft which haunts my nightmares. While they’ve been opposing US anti-ballistic missile systems they’ve been working on their own. Putin has managed to leverage treaties to get the US to castrate our missile force down to de-MIRV’ed missiles in only basic silos. The MX/Peacemaker is gone and so are most of the powerful warheads. Meanwhile, Russia still maintains an enormous arsenal of 20-megaton tipped ballistic missiles pointed directly at the US and other NATO countries. They’re continuing to beef up their ballistic missile submarines and in a move which recalls the most tense days of Cold War I, they’re planning on stationing nuclear bombers in Cuba.
It’s about time NASA wised up and realized that there’s more at stake here than getting to the space station on their own terms. They really need to consider that the Delta and Atlas systems are mature and can take them where they want to go and that it puts our nation in even greater peril to have such reliance on the Russians. Aside from that, as Russia makes its intentions more and more clear, NASA needs to consider whether or not it even wants to share responsibility for the Space Station with such a country. The possibility of buying out the Russian components of the Space Station or even considering cutting loose the major American modules to form a smaller space station should be at least considered.
The last time we tried to co-administer a location with the big bear and its iron fisted rules, things did not go so well!
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 14th, 2008 at 1:27 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Politics, Space. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
August 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
With the whole war on terrorism and Islamic extremism I think the public and politicians have forgotten about Russia which has just about reverted back to the days of the Soviet Union. Putin is slick though and he managed to use the capitalistic forces now allowed combined with his iron fisted state control to rebuild a powerful and dangerous military and economic presence that is arguably more dangerous to the safety of Europe and the US than the USSR at its height.
It is disheartening for sure considering that in 1991 we all believed that there would no longer be the danger we had before but now its likely greater than ever. One good thing is that at least Poland, East Germany and other countries managed to escape. I agree that Putin’s regime has used SALT II and START and the other treaties to make it possible to disarm the detarent force of the US while continuing to build his might by skirting it. He wants to see us chop up our bombers and de-mirv while he is only up-arming.
It was a mistake to go into the space station with Russia and now we should try to figure a way out of this hole if it means walking away from the space station and cutting our losses, fine.
The old bear is back and its hungrier than ever!
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Yeah Putin was able to secure his power because the fall of the USSR left Russia in something of a depression and he managed to stabalize it and allow for some recovery. The cost of this being the fledgling freedom and democracy of the country, but he’s smart and he’s managed to do what they thought was impossible and get back to the Soviet ways. It is still a democracy and a free market, but in name only but by not officially reembracing the soviet ways he has pulled the wool over the world’s eyes.
Quote Comment
August 14th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
The situation with Russia is not good. Unlike the Cold War the cooperation of Europe with its growing dependency on Siberian gas is not assured. Gazprom is the Kremlin’s new tool for diplomacy and Putin is not afraid to use it. Essentially they have Europe by the nuts and have demonstrated that they are not above squeezing by shutting off the flow in mid-Winter to places that don’t grovel enthusiastically enough to Moscow’s whims.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Why all the Russia hate?
Yes they did move troops into Georgia, AFTER the Georgians launched a surprised attack on Ossetia during the opening of the Olympic games(a supposed day of peace). The US invaded Iraq based on total lies, but the entire western media between them still thinks that the Iraq occupation is somehow justified.
Yes they bombed some runways and barracks in Georgia. The US always bombs the **** out of everything and everyone and never apologizes.
Yes they blew up some Georgian military bases. The s blew up almost all of Falujah and I don’t remember anyone giving a ****.
There is only one big country that’s a threat to world peace and it’s not Russia.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 1:28 am
metatron said:
I assume you mean that as the United States? That is the one country that is the threat to world peace? Why may I ask is that? They bomb the **** out of everything and everyone? I see.
So in a world where we have Iran crying “Death to Israel” and working on a nuclear arms program – the same country that violated every international law on the books by taking diplomatic personnel hostidge and we have Seria and Libia who have blown up civilian airliners (and not by mistake, that was the whole point) as well as Al Queda which condones attacks on any infidel whereever and whenever they want and North Korea where the country starves as Kim Jong Il sits in the lap of luxury.
Meanwhile in Russia Putin sits at the big gas valve and tries to crush neighboring regimes with polonium or dioxin poisoning, where the plans to turn over control of the media to the free private sector have been haulted and where the election was blatently fixed. Up-arming the nuclear weapons program and threatening neighbors. We have China which blocks access to websites and television channels that it deems offensive because of the government sanctions. Unlike the US where some complain that some prisoners don’t get a fair trial, in China NOBODY gets a fair trial.
Yet the us is the only country to worry about? Why may I ask is that? is it because of the Iraq invasion? Oh yes, surely only a horrible and warmongering nation would go for an invasion of a country when they are terrified over a major terrorist attack. And not to mention that more than half the US doesn’t support it and Bush has the lowest ratings of any modern president or that he has lost control of the congress for his policies.
Oh surely it was the United States fault that the marine baracks in Lebonon was blown up! Right? I mean we were only there as part of an international peace keeping force. Or the USS Cole. How dare the US go around and refuel their ships in foreign ports.
You know the United States could actually hold the world hostidge like OPEC has and Russia has with gas. We’re the number 1 staple crop exporter. We could easily starve anyone, yet it is a matter of policy NOT to withhold foodstuffs. Hell, we donate more than any one single country.
You know what, Metatron, if you honestly feel that way then fine. However, don’t consider yourself welcome here. You’re right under George Cross and whatever the hell that Indian “doctor” was. Don’t let the door hit you too hard in the ass on your way out
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 1:33 am
metatron said:
I always find it funny that people seem to think that the US is the worst guy on the block because it has unfairly treated some group or another. “Yes, you’re just as bad as Iran.’ The fact that the American people can stand up and demand change from their government should not be ignored. In Saudi Arabia a woman would be stoned to death for being raped and in many countries just questioning the government is illegal.
Being almost half Russian I hate Putin almost as much as I hate Stalin. He has turned the revolution toward peace and freedom 180 degrees around.
Yes, we’re damn better than him.
Oh yeah, and invading Iraq may have been a bad decision and for the wrong reasons or even unjustified but still the US on its worst day is better than Iran on its best.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 1:49 am
metatron said:
The pretense for the Invasion of Iraq may have been flawed but once invaded the “occupation” is hardly something you can really argue with. Once the regime fell, the worst thing the US could have done is walk out and right now the idea that the US should pull out is probably the single most irresponsible plan. Even the peacenicks who have a brain agree that the US can’t leave without getting some kind of half-capable Iraq defense force going. I’m sure most in the US want out but I believe right now the Iraqi government wants US troops to stay for a reasonable period of time to transition.
One must remember that regardless of whether the invasion was called for, once it commences the US was committed to remain there until order of some kind is established. I don’t know that there is a very good exit strategy but the reason for being there now is commitment to cleaning up the mess that was made. It is really an occupation by necessity. Afghanistan has gone better, but not perfect. The Afghan leadership stepped up and not the US and multinational forces are working there to flush out Taliban fighters but the situation is far far different and Afghanistan does not function as a unified country in the same way. It is more of a no-mans-land with scattered tribes.
Falujah was hardly just a blow-it-up fest. The city became a stronghold of opposition which was quite violent. All reasonable measures were taken to get innocent civilians out but it was just not possible to let that continue. After the invasion of Iraq a lot of Islamic extremists saw the nation as a place to come make their stand and Falujah was their strongest base.
It is a complex issue though. Once involved it is necessary to see it to the end, but in a way presence causes unrest. There’s a catch-22 there that makes the exit stratigy difficult. Falujah actually went pretty well as an example of rooting out the extremists (who by the way had no problem driving a car bomb into a group of little kids – NO they are not “freedom fighters” or “brave” but sick sick sadistic warped people who do not want peace) But Iraq was always a violent place in modern history and these groups were kept in check by Saddam Hussein who saw no problem mowing down crowdes with machine guns or chemical weapons.
At the moment the troop surge seems to be working in getting some semblence of normalcy back but it is limited. The Kurdish areas have always been what was supposed to happen but the Sunni area where the groups mix is the problem area. There’s some good evidence that Iran has been stoking the fires and trying to increase the violence, but Iran is in a bad situation right now. A few years ago Iran seemed to be coming around but that tyranical little scumbag of a president they have now is really making sure they don’t do anything useful.
It’s a complex world. I don’t worry too much about the US because even when a US leader gets the ability to be heavy handed a bit the public seems to keep it in check well. Bush was elected to a second term but he lost the legislature and lets not forgot the weinie he was running against.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 2:04 am
metatron said:
I don’t know about all that. Russia has had an especially heavy hand in the world recently and Putin is not someone who you really think of as working for peace. I don’t see Russia as being as friendly as once and it’s hard to tell what is going on there. They are more allied with China than before and both of those countries are worth being weary of because they have powerful governments with large self-interest in gaining more of an economic foothold. Putin’s government is a bit shady at best.
The US I don’t worry so much about. It seems their government is one step this way and one this way because so many opposing forces and all. It is not monolithic so it does not go down one road with a strong handed policy. It has been noted that it is still very much legal there to voice opinions against the government and generally condemn them. I can see issues with the POW thing though, but honestly I have little sympathy for them I just understand the legal precident and the black eye it gives to the image.
The UK went in with the US to Iraq so I must share in some of the blame. I don’t think it rises to the level of downright unjustified imperialism. You could make a good case for taking out Saddam Husein based solely on his history and what he has done in the region. I see issues with that because if that were really justification alone then it would mean we should have invaded Iran and Syria long ago. Still, I don’t think that the Invasion can rise to the level of Sadam’s many crimes. Falujah became a necessity as Gordon says but I think that Bush and Blair both expected it not to degrade to that level. It is a symptom of invading a country like that with such deep Islamic fascist history. I can hardly blame the allied forces for the majority of the bloodshed there. They were guilty of lack of foresight though.
Now if you want to know who really scares me, it’s Iran. I’d have no problem with the US, the UK, NATO or the UN assassinating that crazy little bastard they have in charge now or dropping a bomb on him next time he goes outside. That little **** is a loose cannon with his eye on the bomb. Hell, when he comes to a Western country for some kind of summit or something I don’t know why they don’t shoot the bastard in the head. The only thing is it would make things no better because the Islamic clerics control that country and would apoint another little ****, but that son of a bitch has all the makings of a modern day Hitler. Good thing he’s in charge of a backward roost like Iran and not someplace like Germany! If it were up to him though he’d be lopping nukes at Israel and most of Europe
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 2:14 am
drbuzz0, come on. Don’t start repeating after the media. You are the clever one. Apply the same critical thinking that you use on various greenpeace and electrosmog crap.
Every single person in Russia (yes that evil one) knows one simple fact: Do not trust the media. That said, all internetz is at your service. I will not give you any more hints because I know what you can do. Please.
P.S. And I don’t think US is bad either. I just want to bring some sense in the coverage of this particular conflict that we have now in that very small part of the ex-USSR.
P.P.S. Yes I am Russian, resident of Ireland, now in the US.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Ok, the last one before I’ll go to sleep. Just found this one browsing the digg (and digg has many links that might be useful to you): http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13285.
I do not agree with this article entirely. Some points are questionable and especially the point that Saakashvili’s attack was coordinated with the US is strictly against my experience. However, the second from the bottom paragraph contains a question I am asking my american friends who proclaim that they “hate Putin”:
Imagine if, say, Colombia invaded Panama, and rained bombs down on the many U.S. citizens currently living there. Would the U.S. act to ensure their safety? You betcha! So somebody please tell me why Russia hasn’t the right to defend its own citizens, and even to deter and punish Georgian aggression.
Good night.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 3:47 am
@Stingray
To answer your question: Panama and Columbia are sovereign nations. South Ossetia is a breakaway Georgian province where Russia has literally bought local support (amongst other things by giving the inhabitants Russian passports). These “Russian Citizens” Russia claims to be protecting are only Russians because it’s convenient to Putin, because it gives him a handy excuse to keep the pressure on Georgia.
Just imagine that the US would grant some ethnic minority in some country US citizenship, and then use that as an excuse for endless meddling in the internal affairs of that country, up to even bombing that country on with the excuse it is protecting its citizens.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Stingray said:
Maybe but this article started off with a valid point which is that the United States is not in a very good position when they are relying on another country for their basic needs of their space program and to continue to access the ISS that they have a commitment to and to and invested so much in.
Russia has had a touch-and-go relationship with the USA and that does not help the whole space thing. You do not want to be reliant on another country for something so critical and so basic to the program. It means that the US has no control over their own space transport and they have a commitment to go with Russia. Russia could raise the price etc. It’s a diplomatic limitation too.
I don’t see the problem with this view. Even if it were a country like France or Italy which there has not been any kind of substantial conflict with, it is still really not where you want to be with something like the ISS.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 5:10 am
K said:
You might not be aware that Panama is a sovereign nation just because the US helped it break away from Columbia. And maybe you’d like to take a look at Kosovo, which has now a large US army base on its territory, something that wouldn’t have been possible if the Servians had still been governing Kosovo. If you accept the secession of Kosovo, why not the secession of South-Ossetia or Abchazia? The South-Ossetians would much prefer to be Russians, partially because a large part of Ossetia is Russian. A little gift of Stalin.
And why does this thread degenerate into politics? I thought this was a place that concentrated upon science. (I’ll concede that I’m also a little bit guilty of furthering this degeneration.)
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 6:49 am
I love this blog, but to be fair the souring of relations between the us and Russia is not russians fault alone. Both sides are playing it equally dirty, did anyone really expect russia would not respond when NATO attempts to recruit Russias neighboring countries into NATO? Did anyone think they would sit back while NATO tries to build a missile shield close to its borders? Right or wrong, if the table where turned the US and NATO would do exactly the same. This war with Georgia is probably as much of a signal to other countries wanting to join NATO as it is about “protecting russian citizens”.
The cold war is over, but alot of people on both sides seems eager to start it again. Its just incredibly stupid because russia needs the west more than ever before and vice versa.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 7:32 am
The war in Georgia is about making it clear that Moscow is not going to let a pipeline pass through that area anytime soon undercutting Moscow’s grip on the European gas market. After trying to talk investors out of the project and into investing in another Russian line, they decided to create ‘unfavorable market conditions’ in Georgia. That’s what this war is about.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Johan said:
If the countries neighbouring Russia want to join NATO, that’s their decision. Russia has no say in the matter, and to treat it as provocation is warmongering, pure and simple. You make this plain by your comments about “sending signals to other countries wanting to join NATO”. Who the hell does Russia think it is, the local mobster, trying to intimidate other countries into doing what it wants?
I don’t agree that the West needs Russia at all.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Russia is one of the largest gas and oil exporters. The west, especially the EU needs them and russia needs the west as a market. Aslong as the west needs oil and gas russia is important.
I agree that in principle the countries should be able to decide for themself, but in reality taking that position is naive. In principle cuba should have been able to decide for themself if they want to have russian nukes on their land aswell right? So I guess america was the local mobster trying to intimidate other countries?
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I’m starting to regret this thread. Johan, you are right that Russia is far from being 100% responsible for all the worlds problems. I suppose from a sovernty standpoint it would be alright for Cuba to decide they want t harbor Russian nukes, but it would be a diplomatic disiaster and would cause a major increase in fear and hostilities since the only reason for them being there is to attack the US or other North/South American countries. It is a complex issue and no one party is responsible for all the issues.
Still, I maintain that a country like the US loosing it’s space flight capability and having to rely souly on one country that it only has so/so relations with for that capability is not good. It’s a big card in their hands, a big loss of capability, a major reliance and a huge limitation.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
drbuzz0 said:
It’s a huge issue, but there may be a upside in that it will move development of a good system along faster than if lift could be had from others without any strings attached. American aerospace is second to no one when its back is against the wall. It needs a crises like this to remember just who they are.
Keep in mind that the Russians have always got the wet end whenever they have challenged the U.S. in a technical contest.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
NASA is insisting on not fielding any manned spacecraft until the fullscale lunar-capable Orion capsule is ready. Considering the issues getting to the space station this makes little sense to me. They could produce a small basic space capsule in a couple years or maybe less for just space station use. Something equivalent to the Soyuz or even a Gemini-like kind of capsule. A simple cabin with an ablative head shield and maneuvering thrusters off of existing satellite systems would be all off the shelf. Somehow they manage to put together probes and unmanned craft in good time but not with this. A simple three-man or maybe slightly larger capsul with modest cargo capacity and stick it on an Atlas rocket – Problem solved.
I don’t know if they lost something but in the past they were able to do some really good hands-on engineering stuff where they managed to put out things like the mercury and gemini systems very quickly and very well using components they had avaliable which mostly were not ideal for the task. I mean they built the Saturn-1 and Saturn-1B out of old Redstone and Jupiter rocket parts and components from the Saturn-5. They built Skylab in no time flat out of a Saturn-5 upper stage and some left over components from Apollo. What happened?
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
One quick question. Would the Missile Defense System that the US is looking to install in Poland be needed if the Russians would cooperate in UN sanctions with enough teeth to actually deter Iran’s Nuclear Program?
Aside from that, I am looking forward to the day that the US starts standing on it’s own feet again. We do not need the Russians to get to the ISS. Hopefully, these latest developments between Georgia and Russia will spark our memories of our true capabilities. Extend the life of the current Space Shuttle program until the next is ready to fly. Why would we leave a gap in between?
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Jason said:
I’m not sure how much it is “needed” at the moment because it is a situation where it is unknown what Iran may develop in the future or what other countries like Syria or even a splinter group in Chenya or something might get their hands on.
Also, remember that without a nuclear warhead a ballistic missile can still deploy a bio or chemical weapons package that could kill hundreds of thousands. Those are comparative easy to make.
Besides that, if Russia stops supplying Iran with nuclear technology that is no garentee they won’t be able to get it elsewhere or even come up with much of it on their own. A simple plutonium producing reactor requires nothing but graphite and uranium but plutonium bombs are harder to make although the technology is out there too.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Wow what a strong response.
Let me clarify myself a little bit.
I don’t hate America. I think that the first Amendment is a great boon to free speech the world over due to the internet. I donated $200 to Ron Paul’s campaign, even though I live in Canada at the moment.
However, I still maintain that America ruled by Bush IS a threat to world peace and will be an even bigger one if McBush gets in.
I’m also sick and tired to the hypocrisy of Cnn et al painting Russia as the third Reich for what I feel is a too reasonable response to a Georgian attack, while gladly whitewashing all of Bush’s crimes and also publishing propaganda about Iran(i.e. Ahmadinejad DIDN’t call for Israel to be wiped off the map, he said that the Zionist REGIME will vanish from the pages of history. So he called for REGIME CHANGE Bush’s favorite pastime)
Now Bush will attack Iran soon because McBush’s rating seems to drop every time he opens his mouth.
Do you believe the utter dog turds coming out about Iranian WMDs!? Do you have amnesia from 5 years ago!? NO ONE apart from America and Israel have even SUGGESTED that Iran’s enrichment program is for anything but power. Enrichment is what you need to have if you want your own, independent nuclear power cycle. drbuzz0, you’ve always promoted nuclear power. If Iran switches power production to Nuclear, they will have millions of barrels more oil to sell because they wont be burning them for electricity. That will lower prices and be good for our pockets.
Iran SHOULD switch to nuclear power, just like everyone else. Just because they don’t like us, doesn’t mean we have the right to deny them the worlds most sensible energy source.
Oh and about the CEV, I personally think that Falcon9 with the Dragon capsule will be flying before the end of 2010.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Even if Iran got nuclear weapons, what would be the problem? That they could deter Israel, the US or anyone from attacking them? After all, even Iranian clerics aren’t so stupid that they would start nuclear war; governing ruins – especially country-wide ruins – is something no one likes, and generally possessors of nuclear weapons don’t like being reduced to ashes and dust themselves, so they tend to get very rational, to avoid pushing themselves and other possessors of nuclear weapons too far.
The most important problem would be that nuclear weapons go on the loose, or that rabid fanatics who don’t have responsabilities to a country acquire them.
drbuzz0 said:
The Russians feel about the same about NATO expanding to (or in, as they probably see it) their front garden. They also fear a surprise attack, as in 1941, and they feel themselves to be encircled. After all NATO was founded as a military power block against the Eastern bloc. It is also a diplomatic disaster, causing a major increase in fear and hostilities, as we see.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Okay, maybe my response was too strong, but it don’t really care if Iran has WMD’s or not. They sure as hell want them if they don’t and I can’t imagine that there is even a slim sliver of a chance that Iran would actually build something as expensive and ambitious as a uranium enrichment plant for peaceful reasons. Actually, I can’t even believe Iran would build ANYTHING for peaceful reasons. Iran switch to nuclear power for enviornmental factors or to improve the standard of living of their people? Give me a break!
I wouldn’t trust Iran with a pointy stick. I certainly wouldn’t trust them with a fertilizer factory or a bomb of any kind. Unless, of course, it were being air-delivered to them… air-burst delivered
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
drbuzz0 said:
I don’t know if Iran wants WMD’s (but I wouldn’t be surprised if they had chemical weapons in stock, or at least could produce them easily), but I’ll give you an interesting reason why they would build such an expensive structure: paranoia. They fear that they would get the same thing as the OPEC (of which they are a member, if I remember well) did to the west, but then with nuclear fuel.
Their switch to nuclear is indeed probably not for the good of the people, but to sell more fossil fuels – for the good of the regime, however despicable it may be as a theocracy. They have a lack of refining capabilities, so producing electricity from nuclear power would be more interesting, and they know their reserves are going south, so nuclear power is a better investment than refineries. The fact that it could produce higly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons is possible a nice deal, but if they have a military nuclear program, it is well segregated from their civilian/known program, since the IAEA hasn’t found evidence of it. It may be that they have such a program, but the evidence is circumstantial at best, even though their recent history isn’t really inspiring for trust, considering their support for Hezbollah and the hostage crisis in your embassy.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Of course they don’t want nuclear power to improve the environment. They want it to make lots of money!
They are currently burning millions of barrels of oil per day to produce electricity. If they sold that oil, they could make OBSCENE amounts of cash. That’s a good motivation for anyone.
As to the enrichment, well I think you know more about it than me, so tell me, can you have an independent fuel cycle(i.e. mining and processing Iran’s own Uranium and not buying the fuel from somewhere else) without enrichment?
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
International geopolitics has never been a gentleman’s game, folks. All States are forced look to their own interests first, and this should not be a surprise to anyone here. Clausewitz’s famous dictum that war is “merely the continuation of politics by other means,” remains as true now as it did in the author’s own time, however he also pointed out that force without war is a powerful political instrument.
The larger problem seems to be that here in the West there are a significant number of people that continue to believe that somehow these historical imperatives can be put to rest, and are so eager for that day that they force their governments into disarming and prevent the use of gunboat diplomacy, robing their nation of credibility in the international arena. Ultimately when military action does become necessary, the problem has grown to the point were bringing it under control requires great effort and cost.
Unfortunately we are at one of those junctures, where others have come to the conclusion that the West cannot stop them, and the actions in Georgia, are just the latest manifestations of that realization.
Enjoy it folks: this is your ‘peace dividend’ being cashed in.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
metatron said:
Um, Iran is one of those countries that simply has no right to exist by virtue of the nature of the leadership and really it should have never been allowed to continue. The countries of the world failed to beat the damn country of Iran down to nothing and it goes to show they never learn their lesson. Iran’s leadership is the tyrannical kind that is just not legitimate and only can be compared to Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia and maybe some of the more aggressive African regimes. I would say it is even worse than Tojo’s Japan during the times of the Pacific wars. It was not right to allow Hitler to become what he did while being so complacent he should have been crushed from the beginning. The Taliban should have been crushed from the beginning.
Iran’s nuclear hopes are no secret. They could have aid and be allowed to import nuclear technology if they allowed for documentation and inspection of nuclear facilities. They will not. They could also if they agreed to buy low-enriched uranium from abroad and they won’t even consider it. They are building a heavy water reactor which is too large for research purposes and too small for power yet just the right size to be the start of a breeding program. They are already building an enrichment program and they don’t have any power plants. It doesn’t make any sense. Why not build the reactors first and run them on imported uranium? Then if you want to have the domestic secure source you can start on the enrichment plant because that ends up saving money and getting it going sooner.
I mean you look at the history of Iran – we once supported the leader who was not democratically elected and not the most fair toward sharing wealth with his people but he was friendly to the West. The response was the uprising which put into power a group of extremist and very violent Islamic clerics. (This is where the hands started getting chopped off for being raped etc.) The first thing they do is hold diplomats hostage and then they start threatening neighbors and calling for terror tactis. They funnel money to groups to blow up airliners and shoot missiles at Israel, and yes this is proven but they say they gave that stuff up in the late 1980’s.
Maybe it was wrong to support the previous leadership or maybe not, but I don’t care because in my own self interest I do not want to die and they would love to see me dead and probably you too. For this reason I simply can’t tolerate the idea that they have a nuke. They will never forgive the US and its allies and so its a survival thing.
Quote Comment
August 15th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Jesus Christ! Have you seen some of the recent news! Russia threatened Poland with nuclear war!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4543744.ece
It’s worse than that! The Georgia deal turns the country over to Russia! This is crazy! Man, this makes Iraq look like nothing. Russia has demanded that a country they have nothing to do with allow unlimited patrols or be wiped off the map!
Have the Yanks finished with that airplane with the big laser in it for shooting down missiles? I think we could use five or six of them over here!
Quote Comment
August 17th, 2008 at 2:17 am
There are many NASA engineers who share your frustration. The Ares-5 and Ares-1 are not entirely designed due to engineering but more for political and business reasons as well as a commitment to what may have seemed like a good idea and was set in stone before all the necessary evaluation was done. The Ares-1 is turning out to be mostly redundant with existing rockets and using the SRB stack as the entire first stage has turned out to be extremely problematic.
The fact that the Shuttle will be retired before the Orion/CEV system is ready is a very bad place to be and somewhere NASA swore they would not be in again but it is based on the fact that the expense of the new program and the safety and reliability aspects necessitate the shuttle’s retirement sooner and not later. The current Orion/CEV system is not going to be developed in that kind of time schedule. It would likely be possible if an existing rocket was used and the idea has been bounced around but it is not even entirely NASA’s decision as that would be a different program and they would have to pitch it to congress.
Remember also, this is not all an in-house job. NASA engineers and designers are involved but so are contractors who will build the final system. It is a complex process that makes it difficult to break with plans set early on. There are contractual obligations and many logistical issues. This setup is not new and dates to the 1960’s but it has mushroomed in the past 20 years. It is not really as much in the hands of the designers to the extent it once was.
I do believe that if it were considered an urgent matter and there was a mandate, a small simple capsule for ISS resupply and crew missions could be put together and flying on an Atlas or Delta in the near term before the Shuttle is retired, but I do not think that is a realistic thing I can imagine happening through NASA. I think the best hope would be a company like SpaceX getting sometime ready in time.
Quote Comment