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.

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!

        metatron 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?

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.

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.

        drbuzz0 said:

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

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?

        drbuzz0 said:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

        drbuzz0 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

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.

        Jason said:

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?

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.