[goMac]

http://www.space.com/news/050921_senate_soyuz.html

Discuss!

[ghporter]

Wrong! The bill merely makes it ok for NASA to buy the Russian hardware needed to continue running the ISS, which includes Russian built and operated Soyuz spacecraft.

Since they've been using them for such a long time and have had relatively few problems with them, I don't see a problem here. What do you want, for NASA to pull a fully developed replacement for the Shuttle out of some bodily orifice? Wanna volunteer to be the "hat" that rabbit comes out of?

[The Godfather]

There's no other alternative I guess. Don't the European Space Agency have human transporters yet?

As for the non-proliferation-of-nuclear-energy-to-evil-countries program, I guess that nuclear energy is an economic force too big for the U.S. to squeeze.

[wdlove]

We are very fortunate to have a fully operational Soyuz spacecraft. It's been very helpful during the multi year downtown time of the Shuttle.

[opengame68]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Don't the European Space Agency

Doesn't.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally Posted by opengame68

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Don't the European Space Agency

Doesn't.

Don't think so anyway.

[production_coordinator]

"NASA to switch to Soyuz capsules" isn't really accurate. Perhaps "NASA to use Soyuz capsules until their next generation spaceship is completed"

NASA has their next craft on the drawing board... but it's not going to be ready until 2012-ish. Our current spacecraft has proven to be expensive, less reliable, and not worth upgrading. So why not buy a handful of Soyuz capsules (which are cheap and reliable) until we get our ship going.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

So why not buy a handful of Soyuz capsules (which are cheap and reliable) until we get our ship going.

You not only need a Soyuz capsule, you also need a Soyuz rocket. How would the NASA transport giant Soyuz rockets to the USA? They can't be transported on the back of a 747 like the Space Shuttle can be.

http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users..._transport.htm

[The Godfather]

Originally Posted by opengame68

Doesn't.

Damn these subject-verb agreement exceptions! Weren't companies, institutions and organizations supposed to be referred as plural. English is an sticky language

[Gator Lager]

OK I'll chime in here.
Their is nothing wrong with the orbiters. The problem is with the foam on the tank.
So we can't fly until that problem is address, again. dammit.

so NASA is just using the available launch vehicles. ours or the russians.

we had Atlantis stacked and ready to roll to the pad for launch. a flight ready bird. and because of some damn foam, we're grounded AGAIN. that area of foam in question on the tank was a repair. so it failed. and we sit and wait for fix. which is in work. ah hell. I'm f'en pissed. sorry just ranting, don't mean to derail the thread. just defending my shuttles.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Interestingly, the Russians are also planning a new spacecraft. The Kliper is the planned replacement to the Soyuz.

Artist rendering of the latest configuration of the Kliper spacecraft shown immediately after separation from the upper stage of its launch vehicle.

Basically, everyone is in a transition period, moving away from these old 1960s and 70s designs we have been flying for many years now.

[Gator Lager]

Basically, everyone is in a transition period, moving away from these old 1960s and 70s designs we have been flying for many years now.[/QUOTE]


well nasa is going back to the future so to speak. that is going back to the rocket design. with the current SRB and ET propulsion. this page http://www.nbc17.com/news/4996724/detail.html#
has two of the different next generation designs. like I said before, back to the future (past)
oh well.

what really sucks is when we finally do get back to the moon, it'll be almost 30 years since the last lunar landing. now thats sad. we should have a station on the moon.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Gator Lager

what really sucks is when we finally do get back to the moon, it'll be almost 30 years since the last lunar landing. now thats sad. we should have a station on the moon.

And flying cars. I distinctly remember being promised flying cars.

Arthur C. Clarke's op ed is worth reading. I hope he is right.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

And flying cars. I distinctly remember being promised flying cars.

Arthur C. Clarke's op ed is worth reading. I hope he is right.

I'm getting ready to write a really strongly worded letter to Walter Cronkite-in his CBS series "In the 21st Century," he DISTINCTLY PROMISED flying cars! And boy would they be useful in the traffic I go through every day!

As for the "don't"/""doesn't" issue, it's a matter of which type of collective/group noun you're thinking of. In the UK (and Australia, New Zeeland, maybe Canada too) it's traditional to use COLLECTIVE nouns: a collective noun like "The European Space Agency" refers to the bunch of individuals who fall under that title. In the US, it's traditional to use GROUP nouns, so NASA refers to a group of people. Thus, "Don't The European Space Agency..." is just as correct as "Doesn't NASA..." The philosophical implications of the individuation or disindividuation of membership in these noun groupings is left for later discussions.

[chabig]

I thought we'd have fusion reactors by now.

[MacNStein]

I just want a Hoverboard™.