Russia Mulls Withdrawing From the ISS After 2024 (sciencemag.org) 119
As the 20-year-old International Space Station (ISS) starts showing its age, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov suggested Russia would back away from the ISS as early as 2025 to pursue a national space station. Science Magazine reports: Although he and other officials have since backpedaled from such a concrete date for withdrawal, Russian skepticism over the future of the ISS could complicate U.S. efforts to keep it operating until the end of the decade. "ISS partners would have a really hard time keeping the station functional without Russia," says Vitaly Egorov, an industry observer, writer, and former spokesperson for Dauria Aerospace, a Russian company.
On 18 April, Russia 1, a state TV channel, reported that Borisov told a meeting chaired by President Vladimir Putin, "We need to honestly inform our partners about leaving the ISS in 2025." In a statement to newswires released later that day, Borisov's office clarified his remarks and backtracked from the date. "A technical inspection is needed, and then we can make a decision and inform our partners," the statement said. But it reiterated that the ISS has run well past its original life span, and its condition "leaves much to be desired."
Seemingly downplaying Borisov's remarks this week, Dmitry Rogozin, who leads Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, said on Monday that Russia would not pull out of the ISS until the proposed new station becomes functional. "Pauses are deadly for human spaceflight," he wrote in a Facebook post. Rogozin later added that the new station, which does not have a name yet, could be based on one of the modules initially planned for the ISS.
On 18 April, Russia 1, a state TV channel, reported that Borisov told a meeting chaired by President Vladimir Putin, "We need to honestly inform our partners about leaving the ISS in 2025." In a statement to newswires released later that day, Borisov's office clarified his remarks and backtracked from the date. "A technical inspection is needed, and then we can make a decision and inform our partners," the statement said. But it reiterated that the ISS has run well past its original life span, and its condition "leaves much to be desired."
Seemingly downplaying Borisov's remarks this week, Dmitry Rogozin, who leads Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, said on Monday that Russia would not pull out of the ISS until the proposed new station becomes functional. "Pauses are deadly for human spaceflight," he wrote in a Facebook post. Rogozin later added that the new station, which does not have a name yet, could be based on one of the modules initially planned for the ISS.
Moon or Mars base (Score:2)
They ought to have a moon or Mars base. Though the Russians seem to always have better luck with Venus.
Re:Moon or Mars base (Score:4)
1. We use the ISS to conduct microgravity experiments for materials science; we won't get those conditions on the surface of the Moon or Mars.
2. We could use an orbiting station to simulate the effects of very long-term zero-G conditions, for example similar to those that would be experienced on a long-duration manned mission, for example to the outer planets.
3. As we develop more complex and ambitious space projects, we are inevitably going to need to develop the ability to refuel vehicles, and/or modular assembly capabilities [for example, to assemble a deep-space vehicle from a collection of individually-launched parts]. Why would we lift such parts from the Earth's gravity well, only to drop then down into the gravity well of the Moon or Mars? It would make more sense to manage assembly/maintenance in orbit, where the energy/effort costs are lowest.
Re: (Score:3)
"We" won't dispense with an orbiting station, but what use does Russia have for any of that?
They can't afford every luxury they might want. And they won't be providing anybody else with launches, so of course they're going to withdraw.
Re: (Score:2)
But I was responding to "backslashdot" whose post argues in favour of a Moon or Mars base. I was trying to show that, for a bunch of reasons, that should not be an "either/or" decision.
Re: (Score:3)
Roscosmos has one tenth the budget of NASA. Maybe they could maintain a minimal manned program with Mir 2, and impress the world with some deep space exploration like they used to.
Of course the real money funding space in both countries goes to the military, who are not interested in anything beyond GEO.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they could maintain a minimal manned program with Mir 2
And by "Mir 2", you mean Zvezda, which is a component of the Russian Orbital Segment of the ISS? I'm pretty sure they already have this "minimal manned program", then.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia's costs are vastly lower. If you measure GDP based on purchasing power parity, then it's much higher than Italy's. We have an office in Russia and the salaries are often 80% lower or more than equivalent software engineers in California (this is east of the Urals, so no Moscow prices). This people are smart and hard working. Energy costs are miniscule too, and do you think they care about the environment in the same way? They can achieve a lot more for a lot less, although maybe a home grown pro
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, and Italy's space program is hailed around the world for its accomplishments!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I had chuckle when I read the Italy comment from the person I was replying too. A bit of a random statement; I guess they don't think much of Italy!
Re: (Score:2)
The Italy comment is applicable--if you look up national GDPs, Russia is next on the list following Italy.
Re:Moon or Mars base (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah yes, and Italy's space program is hailed around the world for its accomplishments!
That's not really fair. Italy is a founding member of the ESA. You can't really fault it for not having individual space accomplishments when it's part of a group effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the American chuckling while large portions of the ISS "NASA" modules were built in Italy.
Like the Harmony (Node 2) and Tranquility (Node 3) ISS modules.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to wonder what their real costs are... https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: Moon or Mars base (Score:2)
Couldnâ(TM)t all that be equally served by Lunar Gateway? Does it really make sense for the US to maintain two large space stations simultaneously? The first module of the new station is scheduled to launch on Falcon Heavy in around three years...
Re: (Score:2)
Lunar gateway isn't very big, and it's a long way away. ISS benefits from regular traffic that can bring up new experiments and return old ones to the ground.
However, NASA agrees that they shouldn't be the ones maintaining a LEO station. AFAIK the plan is to decommission ISS at some point in the next decade(ish) and let commercial stations take over. NASA would then lease space from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully they'll boost it to a higher parking orbit and let it become a museum and maybe future source of spare parts. I was sad when Mir was deorbited, but apparently the Kremlin thought some sort of classified info could be extracted from it. Other speculation that I've heard is that some people were afraid they'd be embarrassed if people were to visit it and show how much of the station was analog rather than digital. Either way, it was a waste.
Re: (Score:2)
1. We use the ISS to conduct microgravity experiments for materials science; we won't get those conditions on the surface of the Moon or Mars.
Launch a Starship the way that Spacelab was launched in the Shuttle. You get ~800 cubic meters of pressurized volume, which is only somewhat smaller than ISS' 1000 cubic meters, and in a better geometric shape to boot (for larger pieces of lab equipment, for example). You can then land again and recover all your equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the main constraint with Bigelow-style expansion is that beyond a certain point, the ISS (in its present form) would become too "jiggly". The modules THEMSELVES might be lightweight, but the mass of whatever is INSIDE of them could become problematic during ISS boosting maneuvers. Basically, the crew would have to "clean house", tie everything down, and partially deflate them prior to every reboost. For now, the module gives them welcome short-term additional storage space to temporarily stash thing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We could change its orbit to repurpose it as an Earth-Moon cycler. Lunar missions could then park there for the trips out and back while the station continues to be useful for microgravity experimentation.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you have to worry about shielding it from radiation. In it's current orbit, it's still protected by earth's magnetic field. Out by the moon, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he means change the inclination to match the Moon's and not the altitude.
How long would it last? (Score:2)
The ISS is quite sheltered in earths magnetic field. I have doubts about how long it would last if it was orbiting around earth and moon.
(if that is even possible and effective from the point of orbital mechanics and from the structural composition and mass of the ISS.)
Re: (Score:2)
1. We use the ISS to conduct microgravity experiments for materials science; we won't get those conditions on the surface of the Moon or Mars.
Microgravity experiments are well and good, but a single experiment doesn't help much. Science moves forward by volume, not by that one brilliant scientist that magically went leaps and bounds beyond anyone else's understanding. For microgravity experiments to matter, the volume of experiments needs to be scaled up drastically. I'm not sure if an orbital station such as the ISS can manage such a feat. A moonbase would probably be easier to expand, though I realize that the gravity situation would be differe
Re: Moon or Mars base (Score:2)
The long term effects of zero gravity on humans has been studied extensively on the ISS and Mir, so now it is time to start studying the long term effects of low planetary gravity on the body. All the things we studied in zero gravity such as blood clotting, fire propagation, wound healing, surgery, etc. we need to study in low gravity.
Enough with the sci-fi (Score:5, Informative)
People throw around moon and mars bases as if its so damn easy with current tech and all thats needed is a bit of willpower. It isn't. Like it or not space - particularly when outside the protection of the van allen belts - is extremely hostile to biological systems and that includes us. Sending people to live on the moon with all the necessary protections, food, water, medicine, machinery, enviromental and chemical processing and building materials is fucking hard and mars would be 10x harder mainly because 2 years in zero gravity being bombarded by hard radiation that can't all be stopped by water or even lead would currently be a death sentence.
Until a MUCH better drive system than chemical rockets is devised that can get us to mars and back again in a few days or weeks to minimise rick and get stuff there faster then you can pretty much forget any base there.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a year and a half total in zero G at most. That "death sentence" you're talking about would, in reality, be an increased lifetime risk of cancer. A significant one, but really only enough to clip a few years off the astronaut's lives on average. Not really a bad tradeoff. There are other dangers of course, but this whole notion that space is this completely deadly radiation soup that you can't protect against is just weird. I had not actually realized until recently that it's actually a creationist thi
Re: (Score:2)
Creationist? Are you on drugs? Good solar flares you plank then go get yourself a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
Creationist? Are you on drugs?
No, it actually turns out it is a creationist trope. So when someone goes on about it, I always have to wonder. The way it goes in creationist "science" is that supposedly there was no radiation in space at the time of Adam and Eve, and that's why they were immortal. Then someone eats some fruit they weren't supposed to, so radiation from space is introduced, and that's why aging started to happen. The radiation levels increase over time, and each generation of their offspring has shorter average lifespans.
Re: (Score:2)
Your arguments seem to be based more on faith than science. You sure you're not bible bashing in your spare time?
Re: (Score:2)
I think there may be a bit of a disconnect here. I'm not sure how you're not getting this. I was saying that some creationists - which is a group I do not belong to - argue that space radiation passing through the Van Allen belts and the atmosphere to the surface is the reason for mortality (at least from old age) and that it did not exist until humans left the garden of Eden. A corollary of this position is that the radiations levels in outer space are intolerably high and would inevitably lead to death. T
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever pal. If you don't believe me perhaps NASA is good enough:
https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/bodyi... [nasa.gov]
"A big challenge in reducing the risks of radiation exposure is that some space radiation particles (especially galactic cosmic rays) are difficult to shield against."
Has the clue train arrived yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever pal. If you don't believe me perhaps NASA is good enough:
Uh, yeah, read the article. You had said:
...mars would be 10x harder mainly because 2 years in zero gravity being bombarded by hard radiation that can't all be stopped by water or even lead would currently be a death sentence.
and that article does not say anything about a death sentence. Basically that article agrees with me that:
Health risks for astronauts from radiation exposure in space are mainly driven by long-term impacts.
in other words, likelihood of acute exposure leading to death is unlikely. Rather, there's an increased risk of long term health problems like cancer that might lead to decreased average lifespan.
It does say:
"A big challenge in reducing the risks of radiation exposure is that some space radiation particles (especially galactic cosmic rays) are difficult to shield against."
which is not something I was previously or currently arguing against. I know cosmic rays and other energetic radiation in space is hard to shield against (w
Re: (Score:2)
"and that article does not say anything about a death sentence"
Its not an article meant for the hard of thinking. Its pretty much implied that for any lengthy period of space flight - 2 years to get to mars, 2 years back and a year on the surface, most people wouldn't come back alive. But thanks for playing, people like you are amusing - start with the ad hominem then furiously back pedal until you fall off a cliff. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Its not an article meant for the hard of thinking. Its pretty much implied that for any lengthy period of space flight - 2 years to get to mars, 2 years back and a year on the surface, most people wouldn't come back alive.
Where is it implied in that article? It talks about the potential health risks, but never implies that it would not be survivable. You're going to need to make a stronger argument from the source material, because it sounds like you're just projecting your own ideas onto it. Also, it's really more like a year and a half round trip to get to Mars and back. Time on the surface may vary, but two years may be a practical time on the surface. There are proposals for missions of 440 days total and 1200 days total
Re: (Score:2)
There are lava tubes on the moon that are kilometers wide, and five meters of regolith provide better protection from radiation than living at sea level on Earth. An elevator or mass driver from the moon to orbit is possible with current technology and would give experience building them before we try it here. I think a Mars base is out of the question as well, we need to crawl before we run (except my niece, who learned to run first, then walk, then finally crawl.)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats fine, but you still need a fuckton of construction equipment. You wouldn't just walk into a cave on earth , shift a bit of soil around and hey presto, you've got a ready made base. It would take weeks or months to build. Now try it when you've got to launch, travel 250K miles through space and land you and all your equipment and do it all in a hard vacuum.
ISS too old, 56-year old rockets to get there fine (Score:5, Interesting)
"it reiterated that the ISS has run well past its original life span"
What about Soyuz's 56-year life span ?
It won't matter anyway, once Starship is launching to orbit almost the same usable volume as the ISS, on EVERY FLIGHT.
https://www.theguardian.com/sc... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Damn those Soyuz are tough ships, all built in 1965 and still flying just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's not like the actual rockets are 56-years old.
Re: ISS too old, 56-year old rockets to get there (Score:2)
It seems that you didn't get neither the article you linked, nor my sarcastic comment. First, Soyuz in the article is not a rocket, it's the ship launched on top of a rocket. Second, despite being 50+ year old _design_ (which does get improved every few years) the Soyuz capsules launched into space are not 50 years old. They're brand new built, and launched only once. After returning to earth, they're not reused.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Soyuz's 56-year life span ?
Uhh...what "56 year lifespan"? Soyuz has a 200-day lifespan.
Re:ISS too old, 56-year old rockets to get there f (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see where they're going to get the cash for a nice space program. The current tensions will have Europe looking to stop importing their oil, faster than ever.
Space Drills! (Score:2)
I guess they won't drill holes in their own space station.
https://www.labroots.com/trend... [labroots.com]
Modular Re-Use (Score:5, Insightful)
Guessing, there may be two or three reasons that we might consider a space station to be obsolete:-
1. Accumulated radiation - although it is, I believe, relatively light, objects left in orbit do acquire low levels of radioactivity over time. The more than 20 years that the ISS has been in orbit might elevate "slow soak" solar or space-based radiation to something significant.
2. Material fatigue - I'm making an ignorant guess here, but I suspect that a structure as expansive as the ISS may experience a certain amount of metal fatigue over time... We know that supply vessels are routinely used to boost the station to higher orbits [placing a stress on the entire frame]. We know that as the station moves through the Earth's shadow it heats and cools, placing a stress on the entire frame. There may come a point where a major structural component reaches "timed life" and the entire structure becomes unsafe.
3. Technological progress - in terms of our capabilities to design and build a space station, we've likely learned an awful lot in the lifespan of the ISS. We might be able to "do better" if we start with move of a revolution than an evolution in design...
Something else has significantly changed - the cost of "getting to space". A shuttle launch used to cost (conservatively) 1 Billion dollars [back in non-inflation-adjusted dollars] when the vehicle was active. Falcon Heavy can deliver more than twice the payload to LEO, for roughly one tenth the cost. Thinking about that purely on the "cost of getting there", it means that for the cost of a *single* shuttle launch, FH could put 20x more payload in orbit. Trying to imagine an ISS 20x the size of the one we have is pretty mind-boggling, even now.
But beyond these relatively simplistic considerations, I think we're reaching the point where our need for a permanent, permanently-manned orbital platform is coinciding with our ability to achieve it. However, to address some of my earlier points, I'd suggest that a change in strategy/concept might be an important consideration. Specifically, we might want a design that allows us to "swap out" modules as they age in to obsolescence, replacing them with new ones.
If you look at the layout of the ISS [nasa.gov], then you can see that there is the beginning of a "spine" to the station formed by Node 1, the US Lab and Node 2. You can also see how the Columbus module and the three JEM modules link to Node 2.
So would it be possible to design a station where, when Node 2, Columbus and JEM reached the end of their service life, they could be sealed off, detached and dropped back in to the atmosphere to burn up? Meanwhile, newer, replacement modules could be extended at the other end of such a "main spine"?
The single most obvious challenge to this approach might be the relationship between the pressurized modules and the Integrated Truss [which carries both solar panels and cooling fins] and which would somehow need to be moved along the structure as it evolved, or replaced every few years as the installed version reached the "end" that was being discarded.
Yes, OK, these are completely whacky ideas using the ISS structure as a basis - in all probability, if we wanted to design a station where each module would have a maximum lifespan of say 10-15 years before being replaced, we'd come up with a better architecture to achieve that.
But I don't think my obviously flawed design voids the basic premise of the ideas: that we need to move to a permanent orbital station; and that to avoid obsolescence, we need to design with "replacement" in mind.
Oh, one other "obvious" thing... The staggering reduction in real-terms cost for lifting payloads to orbit also mean that we are less pressured to
Re: (Score:2)
Space stations are useful for making access to other worlds easier, e.g. having one in orbit of the Moon or Mars. A station can act as a hub for supplies and for switching between surface-orbit and orbit-orbit vehicles, so that all of the mass of the lander doesn't have to be transported from Earth every time.
Re: (Score:2)
Might not be that big of an issue but a large station in orbit around the Moon would have less problems with orbital debris. Seems there have been lots of stories about the large amount of trash in low earth orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Might not be that big of an issue but a large station in orbit around the Moon would have less problems with orbital debris. Seems there have been lots of stories about the large amount of trash in low earth orbit.
Yah, but I could see in 100 years where, if we can't cooperate globally on anything, we'll end up with each country's communication and surveillance satellites orbiting their moon bases, with a much smaller orbit. We'll manage to clutter up the moon too (assuming the species survives long enough to meaningfully colonize the moon, which isn't necessarily a given).
Re: (Score:3)
That was von Braun's original mission plan, assemble the lunar exploration craft in LEO at a space station. It would have created a mission profile lasting weeks rather than days, something adequate to prepare for building a colony. Then Kennedy died and "before the decade is out" was carved into stone so the time to develop the necessary technologies evaporated and we built the Saturn V instead.
Re: (Score:2)
The plan for how to make a moon landing was established before Kennedy was assassinated.
Re: (Score:2)
There were several, direct trip with disposable vehicles was one, von Braun favored orbital assembly of a larger (possibly reusable) vehicle. Then there was General Atomics' proposal for an Orion vehicle, a 4000 ton GVW nuclear powered space ship with over 1000 tons of payload. The latter would have been enough to start a colony rather than simply wandering around for a few days.
Does it matter if they leave? (Score:2)
Why all the hand wringing? Launching large payloads and people into orbit has ceased to be limited to the "superpowers". If Russia drops out, are there not others who are willing to fill the void?
Best,
Re: (Score:3)
I believe that some of the Russian modules provide critical support and infrastructure to the functioning of the station. So, if they were to leave, the ISS consortium would either need to purchase the Russian modules and then maintain them OR they would need to replace them.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the consortium already have to pick up the check for building at least one of those modules?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Launching large payloads and people into orbit has ceased to be limited to the "superpowers".
Really?
What does the list of organizations that have launched an object into orbit and recovered it look like?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, SpaceX for one. They're not a superpower, no matter how much you like Elon Musk. There's a plucky little New Zealand company too. Some crazy Scots are looking to do the same thing, and there's no reason why they won't succeed.
And there are all of their customers. If you've got $7 million you could join the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Rocket Labs hasn't done it yet nor have the Scots nor any other private firm. RL successfully recovered a booster they intend to reuse, but it never made it to LEO.
Someone unrelated to a superpower will e
Re: (Score:3)
See: "moving the goalposts."
Re: (Score:2)
launched an object into orbit and recovered it
having assumed you didn't mean that anyone would leave the people up there.
Russia (and China) are concerned (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of the likely development of SpaceX's Starship, there will be a fundamental shift in capabilities. More specifically a superheavy fully reusable lift vehicle will be able to lower the cost to LEO from $10,000/kg to $50/kg. That's based on Elon Musk's estimate of $5M per launch but even if he's off by a factor of ten it's still more than an order of magnitude better than any other launch system in the world.
Of course this hasn't happened yet but NASA thinks it's probable enough that it awarded $2.9B for the lunar lander contract.
What that will mean is that while Russian (and Chinese) space capabilities will still be very mass constrained, American systems can be built (and launched) much more cheaply. Not having to worry about every gram would entail cheaper designs using less exotic materials* and far more robust systems (like giant solar panels, reinforced structures, maybe even armor). Large constellations could be launched at a single go (SpaceX intends to launch huge numbers of Starlink satellites in the Starship) with corresponding improvements due to redundancy.
This vast quantitative gap between the U.S. and its adversaries will make a qualitative difference in capabilities. If, like one commentator said, using Artemis to get astronauts to the moon and then landing them with the Starship is like using a yacht to cross the ocean then taking a cruise ship to get into port; imagine the upgrade in military capabilities. It'll be like Russa and China using jeeps while the U.S. has tanks.
Is it any wonder why China and Russia are clamoring for a arms control treaty? They know that even though they're behind now, they'll fall even further and further behind. Of course China has promised to develop its own partly reusable rocket (similar to the Falcon 9) but they're not even there yet whereas the Starship has been undergoing (not completely successful) flight tests. I'd guess there's at least a decade lead.
So should the U.S. take the bait? Ordinarily, as a pacifist I'd say all arms races tend to end in wars. Still if the U.S. can transform its dominance in space into outright supremacy then there is a chance our adversaries will realize the futility of competition. Supremacy would also extend the U.S.'s military dominance on earth; with the ability to completely shut down our adversaries satellites (like GPS and communications) while maintaining extremely robust capabilities, it would mean any conflict would be very lopsided. For example, even though the Iraq army was the 4th largest in the world fighting in their own backyard, an expeditionary force quickly destroyed it using GPS enabled weapons and systems. In any future conflict, satellite enabled global hi-bandwidth communications (Starlink) could prove equally decisive (think drone strikes and other remotely controlled robotic systems). And that's just assuming the U.S. only develops intra-orbital weapons and defense capabilities, there may be some new exotic weaponry available like "rods from god" that would directly impact the battlefields on earth.
Anyway, returning to the original post(!), I don't think it really matters if the Russians stay in or out of the ISS. Pretty soon, the U.S. may realize it'll be pretty cheap and easy to build a GIANT space station of their own (at 100 tons a throw, they could rebuild the ISS in four launches) and just forget about this whole international cooperation thing (okay, maybe the five eyes). Also since the Starship requires refueling in orbit to go anywhere interesting, there will be a use for this station, as a "truck stop" for any crews and cargo that need to be shuffled around and as a "hanger" for providing micrometeorite protection (the Starships' main tanks are vulnerable to this and sitting around in LEO for long periods of time where there's a lot of small space junk is not good). So a big hanger made up of Whipple shields (really just a sheet of thin aluminum) to break up and vaporize the incoming debris is all that's needed. (It's not like in that S.Korean film "Space Sweepers")
So what the Russians do in space will become increasingly irrelevant
*for example the stainless steel used in Starship costs roughly $1/kg. "Advanced" carbon composites cost much more (up to $100/kg?)
Re: (Score:1)
Elon Musk Witnesses adherent detected.
Re: (Score:1)
Right on! :). Actually, if his politics were more to my liking I'd be worshiping at his temple every day!
Re:Russia (and China) are concerned (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, to be a bit more serious, NASA's decision to support him with 2.9B doesn't just (kinda) validate his outrageously ambitious plan. It also gives him the funds to complete it, he won't have to dig (much) into his own (extremely deep) pockets or hope that Starlink is profitable enough to fund it. Anyway, I'm assuming that the (normally) risk-averse NASA has done the relevant technical analysis and determined that there is a pretty good chance that it'll work in roughly the way he plans.
And then going into space will be completely changed
Re: (Score:3)
From NASA's perspective Starship is already very close to operational. NASA is already spending billions on a non-reusable rocket which is technically much more complex than Starship, even if it is "shuttle-proven" technology. To achieve their goals they only need to have something that can put mass in orbit, and the test launches so far show that Raptor is capable of long sustained burns, if with questionable reliability right now. If the hardware all falls in the ocean or burns up on re-entry, then it
Re: (Score:2)
So there's a law in the United States forbidding SpaceX from providing Russia and China with the same access to space at the same price? I was unaware of this. Would you be kind enough to direct me to this legislation?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh if you mean why can't they develop a similar capability, as I mentioned of course the Chinese are trying (the Russians are having so much trouble keeping their corrupt space infrastructure going that I haven't heard of any serious effort to even match the Falcon 9). I figure the Chinese may duplicate the Falcon 9 in a few years, by then hopefully Starship will be up and running delivering huge payloads into space at unbelievably low prices.
Then the Chinese will have to try to duplicate Starship. Of cou
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the lengths that the U.S. has gone to block Huawei (blocking the suppliers of the suppliers!) even though Huawei only supplied 5G equipment, how far do you think the U.S. would go to block say, a global satellite network that, unlike 5G, doesn't even have it's equipment located in places they can be monitored (or turned off). At this level of technology almost everything is dual use, Starlink supposedly has a deal with the DoD to provide global hi-bandwidth support to U.S. armed forces around t
Re:Russia (and China) are concerned (Score:4, Interesting)
The law allows SpaceX to launch foreign payloads from most countries on US soil. It doesn't allow launching from foreign soil -- that would be exporting rocket tech, which is a serious crime. Think Russia and China want every payload inspected by the USA? Spy satellites would not be approved.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're wrong about this. If SpaceX chose to build a launch facility in another country, they could do whatever the F they wanted with it. The technology is theirs, not Uncle Sam's.
Re:Russia (and China) are concerned (Score:4, Informative)
SpaceX is a U.S. company; it is subject to ITAR [wikipedia.org]. You'd better believe the hammer would fall hard if they tried to set up rocket capabilities in China or Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about Russia or China? They'd be perfectly happy to launch their payloads from any number of free countries the US has strong trade relationships with. Are you trying to claim if SpaceX set up somewhere in the EU, the US would risk a trade war with an economic trading bloc larger than them (China) plus one that's not far behind (EU)? ROFL! Not gonna happen.
As for being "an American company"...not for long, if the US government tried to bully Musk. You realize, I trust, that America's
Re: (Score:2)
What you talkin bout Willis? (Score:2)
its condition "leaves much to be desired."
Compared to what? A French chateau? Certainly. Compared to a large portion of living conditions of the Russian people? It's practically a French chateau.
Good luck! (Score:1)
Need to call This Old House (Score:2)
...to pursue a national space station... (Score:2)
Maybe if US propaganda... (Score:1)
Re:Maybe if US propaganda... (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll stop painting Putin as the devil incarnate when every presidential candidate running against him stops ending up in jail on bogus charges, poisoned, and/or dead.
Is that kind of thing happening in the U.S. ? No.
So shut the fuck up, Putin shill.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. Only candidates running against the US in foreign elections end up in jail or dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter if you're in prison, or what country that prison is in, if you're starving yourself to death, death is a highly probable outcome.
Regardless of that recent development, it has nothing to do with decades worth of anti russian anti communist propaganda.
Re: (Score:3)
Say what you will about America, but our Presidential elections are real. Obama was not supposed to come out of nowhere and beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination in 08, but he did. The Democrat establishment reasserted itself in 16 and sent up Hillary, and Trump won despite being detested by anybody with two brain cells to rub together. Which I still think was insane - but it does prove that the electorate ho
Re: (Score:2)
You have to admit, 2016 was a contest between two totally detestable individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not **all** the shots, but the divergence between exit polls and official vote counts in many areas and blatant voter purges affect the Democratic primaries every bit as much as the Republican ones. Only the overwhelming popular vote gave Obama and Trump their candidacies over the party favorites. There gotten pretty obvious why neither party has done anything to address the grotesque clusterfuck of the US voting system, they like it just the way it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise we'd probably have seen Bernie as president.
"national space station" Not with oil price trend (Score:2)
It's time has come (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't blame the Russians for wanting to pull out. The ISS is 20 years old and is starting to show it. It leaks and is hard, impossible, to maintain to any real degree. Anything more than a minor issue can't be fixed.
It was the equivalent to a tent in space. Now we need to learn hour to build buildings in space. Structures with indefinite lifespans. Structures that can be maintained and with a lifespan in centuries instead of decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Both times leaks have been discovered on ISS they came from the Russian parts. The only parts of ISS that are really showing their age are the US financed Russian built ones. Losing the Russian modules would somewhat impact redundancy but no critical functions would be lost and ISS reliability would actually improve.
Re: (Score:2)
Politics: Can't Be Agro When You're Cooperating (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still unclear why people think that the Russian government is run by utter drooling morons. Care to enlighten me?
Russia's Brain-Drain (Score:2)
Russia has been experiencing a major brain-drain to western democracies for at least a decade, and during COVID it has increased to new levels. This has been most impactful in their aerospace and IT industries.
I suspect Russia has lost talent to the extent that full participation in ISS may no longer be possible, independent of variable government funding. An entire generation of engineers is retiring, and new grads apparently prefer to live elsewhere.
A quick scan of the literature shows the brain-drain als
This would suck. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea's entire Internet capacity runs through a couple of fiber lines from China, and thence through the Great Firewall. That's one of several reasons why the whole concept of the phantasmagorical "North Korean Superhackers" being a threat to modern society is so absurd.