Russians to build bigger, better spaceship
Em Ter 17 Fev 2004 18:18, victoriatangoman escreveu:
> Russians to build bigger, better spaceship
>
> TangoMan
--- In ssi_list@... Lucio de Souza Coelho
> Em Ter 17 Fev 2004 18:18, victoriatangoman escreveu:
> > Russians to build bigger, better spaceship
> >
> > TangoMan
> (...)
>
> The Russian answer to the CEV?
TangoMan
Em Ter 17 Fev 2004 19:46, victoriatangoman escreveu:
> If the US can outsource programmers, why not the CEV?
that the main function of the American space program is to provide jobs for
Americans? (Clumsily translating some picturesque Brazilian expressions, they
see NASA as a "Job Hanger" and they are comfortable with the idea of
"Government Breast Feeding".) After all, taking your example, American
programmers (which are not necessarily government-bound) are *already*
protesting and lobbying against outsourcing...
BTW, someone at the Return to The Moon list (I think) was basically saying
that the government should motivate the to support the new space initiative
by openly seeling it as a "Job Hanger" (Pork Barrel?).
--- In ssi_list@... Lucio de Souza Coelho
> (...)
> > If the US can outsource programmers, why not the CEV?
> (...)
> Wouldn't this trigger passionate protests from the type of people
> who think that the main function of the American space program is
> to provide jobs for Americans?
There's another reason for the space program?
Seriously, I wonder what's afoot? Do the Russians want to
shortcircuit the CEV proposal and gain the business for themselves?
Consider that it is easier to refine and extend an existing concept
than to start anew. There was recent commentary on this topic, I
think it was Andrew who made it, but my memory on this is like swiss
cheese, so I apologize if I've misattributed.
Moreover, space programs seem to be extensions of foreign policy, so
in the end, it may be that a successful Soyuz-6 may indeed be
adopted as a means of foreign policy engagement.
Thinking in classic Ricardian terms, the Russians would have a
comparative advantage in launch vehicles and the Americans could
concentrate on orbital vehicles and other technologies.
Maybe the Russians are trying to secure future launch business and
the proximity of Kouru to Canaveral makes the choice logistically
easier for the Americans.
Maybe, it's just one-upsmanship against the Americans.
OK, speculative mode - off.
TangoMan
Personally, I see this as a great thing. Competition
is a wonderful motivator. While the Russians pursue
one type of design, we americans can pursue another.
Capitalism at its finiest!
multiple access to LEO. Frankly, I am surprised
Europe does not start their own program. The germans
have helped us enough with the crew return vehicle to
have a decent shot at making one of their own.
- Ryan Z
They did, the Ariane.
Sometimes it even works... :)
Claudio
> They did, the Ariane.
> Sometimes it even works... :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Claudio
>
Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to manned transportation.
Em Qua 18 Fev 2004 13:11, Ryan Z escreveu:
> Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to manned transportation.
See http://www.space.com/news/european_space_031113.html . Also, I would say
that their remarkably big re-supply ship for the ISS
(http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/SEM462VZJND_index_0.html) is halfway in the
direction of an European manned ship.
> The EU *is* thinking about manned spaceflight in the
> not-so-distant future.
> See
> http://www.space.com/news/european_space_031113.html
They've been *thinking* about manned flight for about
30 years now! (ELDO once had dreams of manned
missions).
able to push forward a manned space program if it were
ever to happen. The reasons for this is that I do not
think ESA operating policies can handle such a large
scale program. It was hard enough for them to
organize to do Galileo.
> . Also, I would say
> that their remarkably big re-supply ship for the ISS
>
(http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/SEM462VZJND_index_0.html)
> is halfway in the
> direction of an European manned ship.
>
The ATV will be a wonderful space tug, but it is far
from what is needed for manned space flight. The only
advantage it has is that it is able to be pressurized,
similar to that of the progress M resupply ships. It
is still a long way from having all the environmental
controls and safety features which are required from
manned flight.
Ryan Z
>
> > They did, the Ariane.
> > Sometimes it even works... :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Claudio
> >
> Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to manned transportation.
Ed