Russia gains edge in space race as US shuttle bows out

[anon45]

The account is not equal. If the Americans would not fund the International Space Station (United States would have to pay Russia for the dismantling of U.S. units). Otherwise, they might "accidentally" drop them to the American heads (like in Texas or Colorado). Russia is able to send an additional module space station modules and remove the U.S. (if the U.S. wished to withdraw from the project). The main thing that the U.S. had not forgotten its pilots in orbit. Not everything is decided by money. Sometimes you need an exclusive technology and application experience.

No they wouldn't, and you know it.

Would Russia pick up the couple billion slack in funding as well considering their space budget?

Money is what is used to make the parts and money is what keeps the parts maintained running.

 

[anon45]

Mir was in orbit longer and was manned longer (which included American astronauts)

Skylab
Days in orbit 2,249 days
Days occupied 171 days

Mir
Days in orbit 5,519 days
Days occupied 4,592 days

I stand corrected. Russia has more long term Space station experience than the US, but that doesn't change that the current occupation of the ISS goes a long way to making up that deficit.

 

[khurasaan1]

Its hard for the US to further extend its space programmes...due to economic crisis.....

 

[siegecrossbow]

forgot Skylab, and the ISS counts as a space station, so I'd presume Space Station experience is equal.

Not exactly. The U.S. dedicated most funds in the space shuttle program/unmanned interplanetary missions following the end of the Apollo programs while the Russians dedicated a lot of time and money developing space stations. After the Skylab the U.S. didn't attempt another space station until the ISS while the Russians kept busy with the Salyuts and Mir.

I think that overall American space capabilities were well ahead of that of the Russians in many areas. Space station is not one of them.

 

[ptldM3]

The international space station is a joint operation with Russian and the United States being the primary contributers. End of story.

 

[gambit]

Not exactly. The U.S. dedicated most funds in the space shuttle program/unmanned interplanetary missions following the end of the Apollo programs while the Russians dedicated a lot of time and money developing space stations. After the Skylab the U.S. didn't attempt another space station until the ISS while the Russians kept busy with the Salyuts and Mir.

I think that overall American space capabilities were well ahead of that of the Russians in many areas. Space station is not one of them.

Quite exactly, or at least very close in parity. While the US may not have the same amount of space stations as the Soviets, the fact that Skylab was in orbit for so long pretty much give US similar experience in engineering a space station and maintaining it, especially now that the ISS exist. What the Soviets/Russians have are superior knowledge in HUMAN ENDURANCE in zero-g environment.

 

[HROBOS]

No they wouldn't, and you know it.

Would Russia pick up the couple billion slack in funding as well considering their space budget?

Money is what is used to make the parts and money is what keeps the parts maintained running.

You're not familiar with Russian. For such a case the money will be found.
We have reserves. It is a matter of prestige.

 

[anon45]

You're not familiar with Russian. For such a case the money will be found.
We have reserves. It is a matter of prestige.

Then why hasn't Russia doubled their space budget already.

 

[HROBOS]

Then why hasn't Russia doubled their space budget already.

Why?
The difference between us is that we live in proportion to our possibilities (USA lives in a debt). Greece is a good example for the U.S. (the standard of living above the economic opportunities of the country). In Russia, a budget surplus. The U.S. budget deficit. Russia has gold reserves that may be urgently sent to the desired goal. Sometimes it comes, for example, plans to rearm the Russian army (additional funding).

 

[anon45]

Why?
The difference between us is that we live in proportion to our possibilities (USA lives in a debt). Greece is a good example for the U.S. (the standard of living above the economic opportunities of the country). In Russia, a budget surplus. The U.S. budget deficit. Russia has gold reserves that may be urgently sent to the desired goal. Sometimes it comes, for example, plans to rearm the Russian army (additional funding).

Are you saying Russia would go into debt to fund the ISS? Your last post implied there were resources to use in case the US stopped ISS funding, so I was wondering why such funding wasn't used to beef up ROSCOSMOS as it is, as we both know the actual possibility of the US actually stopping funding at this point is minimal.

Also how do you know the US doesn't have gold reserves? Gold doesn't back the dollar so dollar debt is not synonymous with empty gold reserves.

 

[HROBOS]

Are you saying Russia would go into debt to fund the ISS? Your last post implied there were resources to use in case the US stopped ISS funding, so I was wondering why such funding wasn't used to beef up ROSCOSMOS as it is, as we both know the actual possibility of the US actually stopping funding at this point is minimal.

Also how do you know the US doesn't have gold reserves? Gold doesn't back the dollar so dollar debt is not synonymous with empty gold reserves.

In Russia there are two state budgets.
1. This tax (industry, commerce, agriculture, income tax).
2. A special reserve of (most of the revenue from oil and gas exports). I had exactly this reserve. He is a reserve.

The first budget. Spent on current needs of the state (the contents of officials, maintenance of the army, finance free education, medical services, various benefits, partial funding of pensions, etc.).

The second budget. Is a "safety cushion". An example of the recent economic crisis. Certain temporary downturn in the economy may lead to certain difficulties. The Russian economy due to these reserves more independent. These funds may also be spent on various "ambitious" projects require substantial funding. Recently, a Chinese friend tried to convince me that Russia has no resources to finance the project quality PAK-FA. Probably in his opinion no Indian money, this project is doomed. It just proves his ignorance of the issue. Funding for these "key" projects for Russia is not a problem. Indian money will be spent on creating export model PAK-FA as for India and for other buyers. It is mutually beneficial.

1. Russia does not spend additional funds for the development of export goods.

2. India gets some access to new technologies.
All quite true.

Now why Russia does not, something (if you can). Let's take as an example of the fleet.
Russia in 1991 had 5 aircraft carriers, cruisers and two anti-submarine (ASW aircraft carriers). Now Russia has one aircraft carrier. Recall the division of the budget. Russia may allocate funds (from the second budget) for the construction of eight aircraft carriers. However, their subsequent maintenance (from the first budget) will not be possible. Construct no problem. The problem is quality content (what to build extra ships, which will not operate). On the space station a different situation. Sole content of the station completely paid off.

1. Prestige factor (the only country with a space station).

2. Military factor. In the USSR all the space stations acted as a gigantic military satellites. It is not hard to guess that they placed much more equipment and better than any satellite.
America is building its economy based loans (an increase of public debt).
Russia is building its economy based on actual current capabilities. Russia just takes the right tools it from the left pocket and shifts them into the right pocket.
It's pretty unusual. But in Russia, a lot of things unusual.
When I talked about the foreign exchange reserves, I was referring to the second budget.
U.S. has no such opportunity.

 

[Chogy]

I guess I'lll be the dude that ruins the party.

LEO space stations are a waste of money, unless and until they are used to assemble vehicles in orbit for deeper exploration of space. After MIR, Skylab, and now the ISS, what we don't know about human physiology in zero G is small.

How many tadpoles, radishes, are we going to raise in zero G? How many crystals are we going to grow? What is the point in having people drive around the earth over and over? All of the cool stuff in the last 2 decades have been probes to the outer solar system.

We need a moon base, harvesting raw chemicals on the moon, so as to form a jumping-off point for Mars and beyond. Space stations are a cash black hole.

 

[Ajaxpaul]

I guess I'lll be the dude that ruins the party.

LEO space stations are a waste of money, unless and until they are used to assemble vehicles in orbit for deeper exploration of space. After MIR, Skylab, and now the ISS, what we don't know about human physiology in zero G is small.

How many tadpoles, radishes, are we going to raise in zero G? How many crystals are we going to grow? What is the point in having people drive around the earth over and over? All of the cool stuff in the last 2 decades have been probes to the outer solar system.

We need a moon base, harvesting raw chemicals on the moon, so as to form a jumping-off point for Mars and beyond. Space stations are a cash black hole.

ISS is a step in the direction of moon base...Moon base cannot be done without the understanding of life in Low gravity...It might take years and years, but better safe than sorry.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I guess I'lll be the dude that ruins the party.

LEO space stations are a waste of money, unless and until they are used to assemble vehicles in orbit for deeper exploration of space. After MIR, Skylab, and now the ISS, what we don't know about human physiology in zero G is small.

How many tadpoles, radishes, are we going to raise in zero G? How many crystals are we going to grow? What is the point in having people drive around the earth over and over? All of the cool stuff in the last 2 decades have been probes to the outer solar system.

We need a moon base, harvesting raw chemicals on the moon, so as to form a jumping-off point for Mars and beyond. Space stations are a cash black hole.

Well said. However I think there will be a large market for commercial space stations once space tourism become cheaper.

 

[Chogy]

ISS is a step in the direction of moon base...Moon base cannot be done without the understanding of life in Low gravity...It might take years and years, but better safe than sorry.

But we understand human physiology in zero G, and have for decades. We don't need a space station to go to the moon.

LEO space stations are PR stunts. Believe me, I LOVE the notion of humans in space, but I think we are going about it the wrong way.

When the shuttle came about, I thought they'd haul heavy stuff to orbit (fuel, food, supplies), join them together, tip them with another shuttle, and launch the thing to Mars or the moon. Instead, the shuttle was used to drop off satellites, which we can do unmanned. The best thing they did was fix the Hubble space telescope, but consider - for the cost of 3 or 4 shuttle missions, they could have REPLACED the Hubble.