The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

The ISS needs to be periodically refueled, since at its altitude, it experiences slight amounts of atmospheric drag and needs to compensate with periodic thrust.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

If for some reason this standoff is still going on 6 years from now, all Russia will be doing with a boycott is taking money out of Russian contractors' pockets and redirecting it to American contractors. They're doing us a favor by lighting a fire under the people responsible for funding the American manned program.

"We’re now looking at launching from U.S. soil in 2017," NASA spokesperson Allard Beutel told Mashable in April. "The choice here is between fully funding the plan to bring space launches back to America or continuing to send millions of dollars to the Russians. It’s that simple."

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by RedDwarfIV »

w00t! You might actually get SLS working even earlier. An Earth-Moon Lagrange Point station will be much more useful than ISS, and much less of a mash-up. Hopefully this time NASA will put it together with autodocking rather than doing it manually like they did with the ISS. Though I think it was because of the shuttles that they did it that way. The ISS would have been complete much faster if it was built automatically, if what I read somewhere was correct.

And a Lagrange Point station would give a great place to analyse that asteroid, plus provide a halfway house for anything sent to build a moonbase. Meanwhile, the ISS sits there testing the effects of zero-G on bacteria and maybe, possibly, testing the NAUTILUS X's centrifuge.
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by GeoModder »

RedDwarfIV wrote:The ISS' station keeping systems can be controlled from the ground, right? Cause The Life After People TV movie said the ISS would crash after about three years if uncontrolled.
Only as long as there's fuel for the thrusters. And no circuitry or propulsion systems break down.
Image

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by RedDwarfIV »

I suppose if neccesary, NASA might send some money in SpaceX's direction so they can get a man-rated Dragon capsule operational.
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

RedDwarfIV wrote:I suppose if neccesary, NASA might send some money in SpaceX's direction so they can get a man-rated Dragon capsule operational.
I'm pretty sure that is already part of the existing plan. As I understand it, the plan was that domestic civilian launches would take over a share of the manned launches from the Russians starting in 2017. This situation just makes it more urgent and harder for foot-dragging, and means that Russia may be cut out of the equation altogether.

I think it's true that the Russian section is at the core of the ISS infrastructure, and so they could make things difficult for us if they wanted to. It's hard to imagine things getting that bad, though, short of actual armed conflict.

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by RedDwarfIV »

Don't cosmonauts carry guns?

I know it's so they can survive in the hostile terrain of Russia after their capsules land, but it's not a comforting thought.
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Karst45 »

RedDwarfIV wrote:Don't cosmonauts carry guns?

I know it's so they can survive in the hostile terrain of Russia after their capsules land, but it's not a comforting thought.
even if it was not a propaganda thing, they dont send moron in space, that the space tourism department job

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Grayhome »


Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Karst45 »

was bound to happen

now it just a matter of what do we do

User avatar
Grayhome
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:11 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Grayhome »

was bound to happen

now it just a matter of what do we do
I vote we fund Nasa to produce rocket engines! More jobs for the United States!

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by GeoModder »

Grayhome wrote:
was bound to happen

now it just a matter of what do we do
I vote we fund Nasa to produce rocket engines! More jobs for the United States!
Vote for the private industry to produce said rockets! Double the jobs during competition&bidding time! :lol:
Image

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

This was part of the same action as the refusal to extend the ISS operating date past 2020, and it's just as meaningless. It just means more work for American aerospace companies (and, in the short term, perhaps a few French ones).

It doesn't bother or surprise me that Russia is trying to be a bully, it's just amazing how bad they are at it.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Nemo »

Symbolic and useless, much like the Wests response to the Ukraine affair over all. Aside from that, a great deal of their movement isn't meant for Western audiences but domestic ones. And Moscow sees its former satellites as domestic ones.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Arioch »

Nemo wrote:Symbolic and useless, much like the Wests response to the Ukraine affair over all.
Well... when your power base consists of corrupt plutocrats, this may be a case in which economics sanctions against them can have more than a symbolic effect. I agree that it won't change things on the ground in Ukraine in the short term, but in the long term it may be a different story.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Nemo »

Have to disagree if only because of the economic and social benefits to the corrupt plutocrats that securing Gazproms continued hegemony over Eastern Europe guarantees. Ukraine and Georgia both involved themselves in attempts to route in oil and gas from outside Russia, both get the hammer as they distance themselves from Moscow. Neither case gets any meaningful response. Compared to what Moscow stands to gain from taking these actions the sanctions, so far at least, are incomparable.

Really the weakness of sanctions is itself a hold over of the Cold War, there is no strong trade base. The economy of Russia can run without much interdependence on the US Germany UK etc. so those in power don't have much exposed that can be threatened. Most of their international trade is with those dependent on Russia's gas supply and allies (or, maybe frenemies?) like China.


Heh actually just checked OEC, was surprised to see Netherlands at their top export position with 9%. China and Germany took 2nd and 3rd. Fully 2/3rds of their export is oil/gas supply to the former Eastern Block though.

Zakharra
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:46 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Zakharra »

Nemo wrote:Have to disagree if only because of the economic and social benefits to the corrupt plutocrats that securing Gazproms continued hegemony over Eastern Europe guarantees. Ukraine and Georgia both involved themselves in attempts to route in oil and gas from outside Russia, both get the hammer as they distance themselves from Moscow. Neither case gets any meaningful response. Compared to what Moscow stands to gain from taking these actions the sanctions, so far at least, are incomparable.

Really the weakness of sanctions is itself a hold over of the Cold War, there is no strong trade base. The economy of Russia can run without much interdependence on the US Germany UK etc. so those in power don't have much exposed that can be threatened. Most of their international trade is with those dependent on Russia's gas supply and allies (or, maybe frenemies?) like China.


Heh actually just checked OEC, was surprised to see Netherlands at their top export position with 9%. China and Germany took 2nd and 3rd. Fully 2/3rds of their export is oil/gas supply to the former Eastern Block though.

It's highly likely those nations will be actively distancing themselves from Russia. As much as Russia wants its Empire back, it's not going to happen unless active force is used. The Eastern European nations do NOT like Russia and its heavy handed antics. The more it tries to use it's gas and oil reserves (which are finite..) to pull those nations into its grasp, the more it is pushing those nations to find ways to get out from under Russia's shadow. Russia promising/implying it's going to cut off flights to the ISS is going to push the EU and USA to pour money into their own programs. In a few years they won't need Russia and will have little incentive to work with it.

The Russian economy is vulnerable in many ways, mainly, if Europe finds alternative sources of gas and oil, there goes a huge chunk of Russia's exports. Much of Russia's money is made from the sale of gas and oil, if the market dries up somewhat, they will take a hit economically. Sanctions will hurt.

Either way the end result of what Russia is doing is going to alienate it's neighbors, most whom do not have any good reason to trust Russia in the first place.

It'll be nice to see what the space race turns into now. :)

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Nemo »

It's highly likely those nations will be actively distancing themselves from Russia.
We say the same things are going to happen but you think they wont use force where I say they will continue to use force. Call me a pessimist, I'd like to be wrong. But given Moscow's belligerence over the last 15 years I have a hard time believing they will turn over a new leaf without... a significant prod.

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

Russia and the USA are like two peas in a pod, both good at finding pretexts to meddle, invade, or install puppet leaders, both reasonably isolated from foreign pressure. Like with Cuba, when the situation was reversed, I suspect that the only people who will be losing over Ukraine are the people of the Ukraine. (Unless a major conflict actually does break out, god forbid.)

User avatar
Mjolnir
Posts: 452
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:24 pm

Re: The "Real Aerospace" Thread

Post by Mjolnir »

Arioch wrote:If for some reason this standoff is still going on 6 years from now, all Russia will be doing with a boycott is taking money out of Russian contractors' pockets and redirecting it to American contractors. They're doing us a favor by lighting a fire under the people responsible for funding the American manned program.

"We’re now looking at launching from U.S. soil in 2017," NASA spokesperson Allard Beutel told Mashable in April. "The choice here is between fully funding the plan to bring space launches back to America or continuing to send millions of dollars to the Russians. It’s that simple."
SpaceX says they're actually on track for starting manned launches in 2016. That's not too unrealistic, given that they're doing pad and in-flight abort tests sometime this year or next. Basically, another two years and half a billion dollars of combined SpaceX and CCDev funding, for about a billion dollars total.

Boeing's CST-100 has been aimed at 2017, but may be delayed by needing to be moved to the Delta IV or Falcon 9, and isn't really economical on the Delta IV.

Dream Chaser is overweight for the Falcon 9, isn't even going to do an orbital test flight until 2016 (scheduled for an Atlas V that may not be obtainable), is more complex to begin with, and SNC has less experience than Boeing and SpaceX. I'm not really hopeful.

Unfortunately, while Congress bumped up the Commercial Crew funding a bit this time around, they still under-funded it, and are again pressuring NASA to downselect to a single choice. That means no backup if one has delays in development or is grounded due to problems found later on. And of course, the Orion alone gets a bigger budget than the entire Commercial Crew program...$1.14 billion for this year alone.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/05/01/52272/

Post Reply