Russia Tells U.S. to Use A Trampoline to Send Its Astronauts to the ISS

[rutger5000]

Russia... there's a phrase we have.. cutting your nose to spite your face.

The spanish have a phrase that roughly translates to ' To shit in the milk'

You kinda did both of these at once since you've just given the US and/or china a perfect reason to develop their own shuttle tech.

And they'd only have to charge 59 mill per person to be an easy win.

Yeah like the Americans could actually develop such technology without Russian help or if they would ever trust the Chinese to do it for them. Face it if the USA want to put people at the ISS their best bet will always be the Russians. Simple truth is that Russians are much better at putting stuff in space and getting it back. The idea that the Americans won the space race is a myth. They landed a man on the moon before the Russians did because of two important reasons.
1. They had help from German (Nazi) scientist (No joke)
2. The Russians never really bothered with going to the moon. Unlike mastering the art of getting satellites in geostationary orbit, putting a man on the moon really doesn't serve any purpose safe for learning how to put a man on the moon. ( Which the nasa forgot lol, again no joke).
Americans built better computers than Russians do, and yes that gives them an advantage in many fields, aero-engineering included. But that advantage is not always decisive.

You underestimate the lure of profit. This isn't the US government we're talking about... it's the American Private Sector and basically the idea of charging 59 mil per person... yeah.. that's gonna spur some development right quick.. because people likes money... especially smart people. Also remember RUssia has only been ferrying americans up to the ISS since the American shuttles were decomissioned. SOrta proves that American can build a reuseable craft... because they already did... and those shuttles were old. With new tech, and new materials they could build a shuttle a dozen times better than the Challenger class.

Yeah the USA could, but it was crazy expensive and the term reusable is a bit of a stretch. It was more like; "We can sometimes bring this thing back from space and land it more or less in 1 piece". Large (expensive) parts of the American shuttles weren't reusable in the slightest, and the parts that were would always need a lot of work to be reused. I don't know how much it would cost NASA on average to put a man into space, but they wouldn't pay the Russians 60 millions if they could do it themselves for 100 million (there's some national pride playing a factor there).
And the private sector is sort of irrelevant here. Whatever craft you use to get to the ISS also needs to be able to dock there. If something goes wrong at the docking procedure, that could mean the end of the entire ISS. The USA doesn't own the ISS, and can't freely decide who gets to dock there. So whomever you "hire" to get people on board of the ISS would need to be approved by all nations partaking in the project. It's unrealistic to assume that 3rd party from the private sector would ever by unanimously approved.
Besides do you have any clue about the start-up-capital you'd need to get into the spacecraft business? There are very few cooperation that could make such an investment, and those that do could probably find a safer and more rewarding investment.

 

[rutger5000]

2. The Russians never really bothered with going to the moon. Unlike mastering the art of getting satellites in geostationary orbit, putting a man on the moon really doesn't serve any purpose safe for learning how to put a man on the moon.

Russia never put things into GEO. It's almost entirely worthless to them since these orbits can't cover much of Russian soil. They use Molniya orbits instead, a very eccentric orbit with high inclination that enables satellites to be over Russia 8 hours per day.

My bad. But that sounds even more impressive.

 

[Gorrath]

Yeah the USA could, but it was crazy expensive and the term reusable is a bit of a stretch. It was more like; "We can sometimes bring this thing back from space and land it more or less in 1 piece". Large (expensive) parts of the American shuttles weren't reusable in the slightest, and the parts that were would always need a lot of work to be reused. I don't know how much it would cost NASA on average to put a man into space, but they wouldn't pay the Russians 60 millions if they could do it themselves for 100 million (there's some national pride playing a factor there).
And the private sector is sort of irrelevant here. Whatever craft you use to get to the ISS also needs to be able to dock there. If something goes wrong at the docking procedure, that could mean the end of the entire ISS. The USA doesn't own the ISS, and can't freely decide who gets to dock there. So whomever you "hire" to get people on board of the ISS would need to be approved by all nations partaking in the project. It's unrealistic to assume that 3rd party from the private sector would ever by unanimously approved.
Besides do you have any clue about the start-up-capital you'd need to get into the spacecraft business? There are very few cooperation that could make such an investment, and those that do could probably find a safer and more rewarding investment.

Just to clarify a few points, it costs approx. 450 mil for NASA to do a shuttle launch. Hence why the 60 mil price-tag charged by the Russians is considered acceptable while NASA works on the new craft. Also, the major cost of unusable parts from shuttle launches is exactly why they are designing and building a new orbital craft. The idea that the U.S. totally can't do orbital space flight on their own and so should just stick to paying Russia is downright silly.

Also, the private sector is somewhat irrelevant for now but that is rapidly changing. None of that is relevant to the ISS though. There's this idea running around that because the U.S. has a temporary agreement with Russia in support of the ISS project that we've somehow given up on space flight. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

...

You sure you wanna post that?

its true i live in venezuela, my government identifies itself with communism, and the president is seriously fucking dumb

its not really my intention to start a discussion about communism vs capitalism, i just found it interesting that this kind of speech is very similar to the stuff i hear from my government

 

[michael87cn]

$60 million to send people up to sit around in cramped tubes in space. What a waste of money. Send a dozen people up there and you could feed the entire homeless population of this country on steak for life.

 

[Zontar]

I think that there is one thing people are forgetting with the whole Crimea situation. All of the former soviet blocks ended up joining NATO. Ukraine was the last and as such Russia was scared of losing the Black sea and as such invaded Crimea on the pretense of bringing the ethnic Russians back into Russia when the reality was to maintain some control over the Black sea.

Uh, what about Georgia (who wants to but isn't even on the list of assentation yet), or Moldova, which isn't a member either. Or Belarus, which is a Russian puppet state (in fact, it's the only one that isn't under Russian occupation)? Or the Central Asian Republics? Or the other Caucasian nations? Of the 15 countries that came from the soviet union, only 3 are part of NATO.

 

[Zontar]

Guys, I have one funny question. It's a politic one, I admit, but nevertheless. Just don't think about it necessarily as a Russia/Ukraine, to avoid flame.

Imagine, that Alaska suddenly wanted to become a part of Canada. Reason? Let's say, that Canada is closer + it's much better to live there than in USA as they are + Obama (redneck mode on) "s a nigga, man", you get the idea. They basically overthrow whatever USA-goverment and police there are and the new one openly saying "Canada - we are yours to command", and giving the Congress a middle finger.

Then, after that, Texas does the same, only they have declared themselves independent from everyone, created...hm...let's call it "The Independent Conclave of Texas", for argument sake and annexed Mew Mexico, who are more than happy to be a part of Conclave. They are independent, but for some reason, many soldiers of the new country are spanish-speaking and most of new government have connections with the Cartels, some secretly, some are rumored, some openly. And to make matters worse, this conclave also starts to shoot important people of nearby states.

What will you suggest Obama and the Congress to do?

That metaphor is a little off. A more accurate one would be: 2/3rd of New England is Canadian, and amongst Canadians there is some (peaked at 40% but dropping after the president-in-exile took office) but not majority support amongst then for joining Canada. Then, when the government collapses and is replaced by an interim one, Canada invades and holds an illegal referendum where the only options are "join Canada" or "join Canada", and then the results are that now every single Canadian there, plus almost every single American, suddenly support the action in what is a mathematically impossible outcome given the prior data.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Guys, I have one funny question. It's a politic one, I admit, but nevertheless. Just don't think about it necessarily as a Russia/Ukraine, to avoid flame.

Imagine, that Alaska suddenly wanted to become a part of Canada. Reason? Let's say, that Canada is closer + it's much better to live there than in USA as they are + Obama (redneck mode on) "s a nigga, man", you get the idea. They basically overthrow whatever USA-goverment and police there are and the new one openly saying "Canada - we are yours to command", and giving the Congress a middle finger.

Then, after that, Texas does the same, only they have declared themselves independent from everyone, created...hm...let's call it "The Independent Conclave of Texas", for argument sake and annexed Mew Mexico, who are more than happy to be a part of Conclave. They are independent, but for some reason, many soldiers of the new country are spanish-speaking and most of new government have connections with the Cartels, some secretly, some are rumored, some openly. And to make matters worse, this conclave also starts to shoot important people of nearby states.

What will you suggest Obama and the Congress to do?

That metaphor is a little off. A more accurate one would be: 2/3rd of New England is Canadian, and amongst Canadians there is some (peaked at 40% but dropping after the president-in-exile took office) but not majority support amongst then for joining Canada. Then, when the government collapses and is replaced by an interim one, Canada invades and holds an illegal referendum where the only options are "join Canada" or "join Canada", and then the results are that now every single Canadian there, plus almost every single American, suddenly support the action in what is a mathematically impossible outcome given the prior data.

Actually, the referendum ballots did give Crimean voters the choice to remain an autonomous region of Ukraine (the 1992 constitution option) not just "join Russia" as you imply.

EDIT: I am also genuinely interested in the prior data you cite in your post. Do you have a source?

 

[Zontar]

EDIT: I am also genuinely interested in the prior data you cite in your post. Do you have a source?

A series of polls which have been conducted over the past 8 years of so.

But then again the numbers don't add up given how the turnout is far greater then it should have been, and it has been reported (by a Russian reporter no less) that Russians who where not from Crimea where allowed to take part in the vote.

And the options actually where just one "join Russia" or another. The 1992 constitution option was for the unmodified one, which had Crimea completely secede from Ukraine. It would have been a de facto annexation of Russia just as the occupied territories of Georgia are part of Russia in all but name.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

A series of polls which have been conducted over the past 8 years of so.

But then again the numbers don't add up given how the turnout is far greater then it should have been, and it has been reported (by a Russian reporter no less) that Russians who where not from Crimea where allowed to take part in the vote.

And the options actually where just one "join Russia" or another. The 1992 constitution option was for the unmodified one, which had Crimea completely secede from Ukraine. It would have been a de facto annexation of Russia just as the occupied territories of Georgia are part of Russia in all but name.

The ballot does not state which version of the 1992 constitution would be enforced. The unmodified version, declared on the 5th of May 1992, was never passed by referendum (to be held on 2 August 1992), it could never be enforced. The following day parliament amended the constitution to affirm that Crimea "was a part of Ukraine". In June 1992, Crimea was given the status of "Autonomous Republic" clearly defined as part of Ukraine. This was the legal document officially approved and this was the only option that could be enforced given the wording on the referendum ballot.

I've not heard about Russians who where not from Crimea allowed to take part in the vote, nor have I found any sources for this claim. Not saying it didn't happen but...sources?

It is a bit of stretch to say that an autonomous Crimea means defacto annexation by Russia. What evidence suggests Russia would have maintained any military presence outside of their current naval bases? Russia would not benefit from agitating any supposed autonomous state as maintaining friendly relations (for the purpose of securing their naval bases) is far cheaper than continued military occupation. This is what the US does to maintain military bases all over the world and it is what Russia most likely would have done, it makes the most sense. Georgia, on the order of that nutcase Saakashvili, attacked Russian troops, it is a completely different situation which merits military occupation (just as the US continues to occupy Afghanistan and Israel continues to occupy many Palestinian regions), it is a matter of maintaining security.

EDIT: On second look, the wording on the ballot clearly states that Crimea would remain part of Ukraine. The later amended form of the 1992 constitution was what was on the table. The claim that Crimean voters could only choose "join Russia" is false.

Choice 1: Do you support the reunification of Crimea with Russia with all the rights of the federal subject of the Russian Federation?

Choice 2: Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and the status of the Crimea as part of Ukraine?

 

[Zontar]

Snip

Didn't see your comment until another in response to mine brought me here (odd).

Anyway, for the "Russians not from Crimea could vote" source: http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/voting-in-crimean-referendum-starts-even-as-ukraine-government-declares-it-illegitimate-339523.html

As for the options, lets not be naïve. South Ossetia and Abkhazia where officially independent republics from Russian legal perspective, yet both are de facto parts of Russia today. If they and Transistria prove anything, it's that once Russia occupies land, they don't leave.

Snip

If you're trying to make that comparison, why use Canada for it? Especially since the "overthrow the government and police" part never happened. Your comparison is one of false equivalency if you're trying to make a comparison (and hell, Hawaii in Crimea's place and Japan in Russia's would be a more fitting example).

For the response to your question, the answer would be negotiations on a legal means of determining if secession should be accepted (one done with international observers, and enough to actually make the determination, not 23), without military occupation holding a gun to the heads of the civilian population, a clear mandate in the referendum and enough time for both sides to make their case to the public.

Basically, everything Russia ISN'T doing.

 

[Zontar]

For the response to your question, the answer would be negotiations on a legal means of determining if secession should be accepted (one done with international observers, and enough to actually make the determination, not 23), without military occupation holding a gun to the heads of the civilian population, a clear mandate in the referendum and enough time for both sides to make their case to the public.

Basically, everything Russia ISN'T doing.

Ok seems legit. But what if they openly oppose this, and `ve taken the observers hostage?

Openly opposing it puts a strain on negotiations at best, but taking the observers hostage would make the only response a military one, with scale being the question (do you go with precision strikes or a full invasion).

 

[FalloutJack]

Good god, it's like some of you have never heard of the cold war before. None of what the US and Russia are doing should be surprising

Some probably haven't. So, would you agree that - besides Russia wanting to regain the resources that its 'not really in good shape at all' country had - they want to return to their 'glory days'?

 

[FalloutJack]

Good god, it's like some of you have never heard of the cold war before. None of what the US and Russia are doing should be surprising

Some probably haven't. So, would you agree that - besides Russia wanting to regain the resources that its 'not really in good shape at all' country had - they want to return to their 'glory days'?

Lol, wasn't that obvious?

Well...yes, on both counts. That's why I said it. I was just opening up a line of dialogue for discussion.