Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

Palomar · 2005-06-09 05:38:50

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-fut … html]Click

*I searched prior to posting and can't find a previous mention of this. Is a short article.

Is a full-scale station to be displayed during the Paris Air Show.

--Cindy

Mad Grad Student · 2005-06-11 17:49:11

I find it odd that Russia touts models like this one when their space agency doesn't seem to have any real long-term plans beyond the ISS. A few weeks ago Putin went so far as to mention that long-term exploration plans should not be a priority for Russia.

NASA is often accused of being myopic but at least they have some clear roadmap to follow. It doesn't seem like anyone in the Russian Space Agency has any concrete plans beyond ferrying to and from LEO via Soyuz.

dicktice · 2005-06-11 19:11:45

When the (now) Russians say one thing, they mean another especially in connection with Space Travel. I remember the full-size Soyuz three-piece model exhibited at a Paris Air Show back in the 1960's, and thinking: what a funny looking (meaning un-NASA looking) conglomeration of shapes. Boy, was I wrong! As we now know, it represented a brilliant concept for reaching LEO routinely and remaining there indefinitely,through the expediant of parking in orbit habitable modules derived from the Soyuz family, and supplying them by unmanned versions of the same. They never once looked away from their ultimate dream of interplanetary space travel. Terrible as they have been, and can still be, they are the romanticizers of space as no other nation, quite aside from military ambitions. Why can't we do that, as long as no long-term programme has yet been projected by our Powers That Be?

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-11 22:08:45

Orrr else the Russians are just trying to show up America... "NASA is just now thinking about Moon ships again, ha, we're already designing a MARS ship"

Palomar · 2005-06-12 07:00:42

Orrr else the Russians are just trying to show up America... "NASA is just now thinking about Moon ships again, ha, we're already designing a MARS ship"

*That'd suit me just fine. Let our old rivals give us a good old-fashioned come-uppance; we're dragging our heels and a smart kick in the keister might be what the doctor ordered. Anything which works in the favor of getting on with Mars is fine by this gal.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-12 08:54:57

But this is just silly though, Russia is parading bluster and doesn't have much of a chance at all of actually pulling their mission plan off, they are doing it at least in part to maliciously hurt NASA with cheap shots... They've got a grudge or something, what gratitude for spending a hundred times what Russia has on the ISS that has kept their space program proped up.

dicktice · 2005-06-12 09:58:42

GCNR: Inspiration and asperations towards Space Travel knows no nationality. I can't understand your refusal to believe other than "maliciousness" on the part of presumed underpaid Russian rocket engineers, et al. Aren't we all dreamers, who no longer work on government-contracted space weapons development (yes, yours truly also, back in the Fatalist-Fifties) in these forums?

Commodore · 2005-06-12 18:40:56

Aren't we all dreamers, who no longer work on government-contracted space weapons development (yes, yours truly also, back in the Fatalist-Fifties) in these forums?

Well technically, I'm a dreamer who never worked in government-contracted space weapons development.

Loughman · 2005-06-21 23:59:17

I cannot help but be impressed with the Russians. They have been able to accomplish so many firsts and feats with many limitations.

A couple of advantages that the Russians have:

(1) They have a less complex, more reliable, more robust manned launch system.

(2) They know more about space stations.

(3) They have a promising youth and rigorous space industry.

(4) They don't suffer from the same space-economics (industry-controled) that we do.

lastly, (5) They may be able to gain the aid of other nations, whereas we have alienated many.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-22 07:35:57

I cannot help but be impressed with the Russians. They have been able to accomplish so many firsts and feats with many limitations.
A couple of advantages that the Russians have:
(1) They have a less complex, more reliable, more robust manned launch system.
(2) They know more about space stations.
(3) They have a promising youth and rigorous space industry.
(4) They don't suffer from the same space-economics (industry-controled) that we do.
lastly, (5) They may be able to gain the aid of other nations, whereas we have alienated many.

More Russia-worship...

-Their rocket is not robust, its capabilities are (crew size, payload capacity, on orbit storage) are severely limited given its size. The R-7 is not simply either, and has six engines with multiple staging events. Soyuz flight control computers have nearly resulted in ISS crew death.

-They don't know more about space stations in any practical sense, nothing was gained by flying Mir for years and years after it should have been disguarded. They can't even keep oxygen generators and batteries working for goodness sakes.

-Their space industry is not flourishing, and is on the brink of a final death once the ISS is gone. Proton and Zenit aren't even made or launched in Russia anymore, and they still can't even get the single-core Angara to fly.

-The state controlling the launch industry is a problem, not a solution, for "space economics." This is a throughly socialist point of view.

-The US is actively avoiding getting other countries in on VSE programs, as well they should, since international space projects are by and large doomed to fail and would dilute the nationalistic bennefits of spaceflight.

dicktice · 2005-06-22 10:46:31

GCNR: Damn, you are so right as a critic. Now, if you could only spell: I have to rewrite most of your stuff that I send off to my correspondents!

Palomar · 2005-06-22 11:04:43

*And if Russia had our money, they'd give us a run for our money. But that's not to say I'm not proud of the USA's accomplishments, because I am. Apollo has yet to be surpassed.

--Cindy

Commodore · 2005-06-22 11:29:19

I thought we were suppose to see pictures.

Fledi · 2005-06-22 14:23:50

About Russian space tech. I have to say the people involved in their development are usually top notch in knowledge, as there is more widespread enthusiasm for space throughout the population in the east as I have yet experienced in the west.
They're really getting the best out of the limited financial and political situation there. Those guys would do wonders were it not for that miserable system they got.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-22 15:50:16

*And if Russia had our money, they'd give us a run for our money. But that's not to say I'm not proud of the USA's accomplishments, because I am. Apollo has yet to be surpassed.
--Cindy

Nah, more likly they would take the money and run away with it, and then ask for more just like the ISS debacle. The Russians ought to give us free Soyuz rides for life compared to their swindling over modules.

dicktice: Aren't you, ya know, kinda acting childish again? I don't post on here in any formal way, so neither do I write like it.

Palomar · 2005-06-22 18:39:53

*And if Russia had our money, they'd give us a run for our money. But that's not to say I'm not proud of the USA's accomplishments, because I am. Apollo has yet to be surpassed.
--Cindy
Nah, more likly they would take the money and run away with it, and then ask for more just like the ISS debacle. The Russians ought to give us free Soyuz rides for life compared to their swindling over modules.

*Well, perhaps you're right. Guess I'm just wishing someone would light a firecracker under our seats again. :-\ Never so great a rival as the USSR (for better/for worse). IMO, anyway. Maybe Russia doesn't have what the USSR did, as pure moxie goes? But I haven't kept up with their space program as closely as some folks, I suppose.

--Cindy

Loughman · 2005-06-22 18:40:43

GCN there is a difference between Russia worship and being realistic. Russia built the Buran (their shuttle) and discovered that it was not going to be worth it. This was after they flew it unmanned and landed it perfectly (also unmanned, something that American technology has yet to perfect). We are riding Soyuz, and that should be evidence that we need to rethink our system. This means that we need to be realistic.

I do not support socialism (and that isn't what I was talking about). Let me explain. Because Russia does not have very many contractors, and they don't have the kind a red tape we do, they can speed things along.

They have more time (failures and successes) than we do (not just Mir either, check your history).

I did not say that they have a flourishing industry, I said they were rigorous. What I mean by that is they have scientists and engineers that really know their stuff, and they have an excited well-educated workforce to come.

I agree with you though, that we should go-it-alone. It's better for pride, and staying in control of our own destiny. On the other hand, I would sooner wish the mission accomplished somehow, than never getting off the drawing board.

Rxke · 2005-06-23 02:24:47

Nah, more likly they would take the money and run away with it, and then ask for more just like the ISS debacle. The Russians ought to give us free Soyuz rides for life compared to their swindling over modules.

Which is exactly what the American contractors do. Getting money, asking more, and more and more... and still get behind shedule. So I guess they're swindlers too? Oh, no, it's cost plus....

Disclaimer: Space isn't easy, so they both are probably not swindlers... Sometimes...

BTW, about the oxygen generator: there's an American equivalent onboard. Why isn' t it in use?

BTW 2: the batteries come from Space Systems/Loral (SS/L.) Which is an American company. And they're proud of their product, to boot.

BTW 3: if "They don't know more about space stations in any practical sense, nothing was gained by flying Mir," then why can you find innumeral astronauts/engineers stating-on the record an on informal occasions-exactly the opposite?

Conclusion: You're just posting your opinions, making them sound like facts, which they are not. Buyer beware!

Palomar · 2005-06-23 05:28:48

I thought we were suppose to see pictures.

*That'd be nice. I haven't seen any follow-ups to this; articles or etc.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-23 05:47:37

Nah, more likly they would take the money and run away with it, and then ask for more just like the ISS debacle. The Russians ought to give us free Soyuz rides for life compared to their swindling over modules.
Which is exactly what the American contractors do. Getting money, asking more, and more and more... and still get behind shedule. So I guess they're swindlers too? Oh, no, it's cost plus....
Disclaimer: Space isn't easy, so they both are probably not swindlers... Sometimes...
BTW, about the oxygen generator: there's an American equivalent onboard. Why isn' t it in use?
BTW 2: the batteries come from Space Systems/Loral (SS/L.) Which is an American company. And they're proud of their product, to boot.
BTW 3: if "They don't know more about space stations in any practical sense, nothing was gained by flying Mir," then why can you find innumeral astronauts/engineers stating-on the record an on informal occasions-exactly the opposite?
Conclusion: You're just posting your opinions, making them sound like facts, which they are not. Buyer beware!

There is a difference between US companies trying to squeeze money out of NASA and the space agency of the government of Russia trying to swindle money out of NASA, the offical government space agency of America.

There is an American Oxygen generator, its just built into the US Hab module that is never going to fly at this rate.

And are you sure about those batteries? The big 400V solar storage ones? Those batteries that were built into the Russian modules?

Of course they would say that the "Russian experience is a real boon," so people don't feel so upset about the US funding >90% of the "International!" project.

Rxke · 2005-06-23 06:23:29

There is a difference between US companies trying to squeeze money out of NASA and the space agency of the government of Russia trying to swindle money out of NASA, the offical government space agency of America.

yes, it's waaay funnier.

There is an American Oxygen generator, its just built into the US Hab module that is never going to fly at this rate.

I see. Now the critique towards the Russians sounds much more reasonable (not)

And are you sure about those batteries? The big 400V solar storage ones? Those batteries that were built into the Russian modules?

Quite. Zvezda launched wit 3 or so outa five batteries, then STS brought new ones. And those were Loral's for sure.

Of course they would say that the "Russian experience is a real boon," so people don't feel so upset about the US funding >90% of the "International!" project.

The US came up with the idea, because they could not do it alone. *they* offered to slap money around, and now it's the rest of the world's fault it turns out costly? Should've left MIr alone, and continue making sneering comments, while your hardware collecs dust. (SpaceHab X-3XXXXX)

Now, before this becomes a flamewar (too hot for that)
ISS was flawed in many ways, and *we* know it, they *had* to know it, so why did they go for it anyway? *Those* are the real bad guys...

c'mon, slapping 70's hardware (solarpanels and some modules) together with primitive (I'll give you that) Soviet-era stuff, with small hatches, adding some huuge but empty modules for the good looks (how many labs does one need with a crew of 6????) Designing a building senario that requires a shuttle, which was already hideously expensive, so you have to launch a mammoth to deliver some cargo pallets "hey, they have to be inside a shuttle, inside a pressurized module, then that module has to be docked at another dock yadayadayada... " Those guys must've had lots of fun, drawing it all out.
Everyone getting rich, on that pile of hack.
And now Cosmos One missed it!

BWhite · 2005-06-23 06:54:07

If ISS was make-work for shuttle, then getting the world to pay 10% was a good deal for us.

clark · 2005-06-23 07:08:33

Point of clarification, Russia was invited into the existing framework of the ISS, because we didn’t want a bunch of Russian rocket scientists finding gainful employment in the third world. The plan was a make work program for out of work Russian scientists (or so the rationale went). Bringing Russia in as a partner required moving ISS to the current orbital inclination, a sacrifice on the part of the rest of the ISS partners. Russia was basically asked to abandon MIR to demonstrate Russian dedication to the ISS partnership and to prevent US funds from subsidizing that portion of the Russian space program.

The scope of the ISS project was ambitious because it was trying to get all of the space faring (at the time) nations to cooperate in space exploration/science. It was one of the first times that space activities were about cooperation instead of competition.

The scientific merit of the ISS has always been secondary, much like the rest of the human space program. We don’t send people into space because it maximizes our scientific dollar. Those who expect or fault the ISS for being a waste because it does not contribute to science are really damming all of human space exploration. Humans in space will never be an efficient way to spend our science dollars.

But then, we don’t send people into space, and we didn’t build the ISS, solely to maximize our scientific return. We do both for entirely stupid and crazy reasons. It is irrational, and it is human. We tried to make it work, so learn from the mistakes, and do better next time. Try to salvage what we can.

But at least we tried.

That’s kind of the point, science be damned.

Vir Stellae · 2005-06-23 08:16:20

GCN there is a difference between Russia worship and being realistic. Russia built the Buran (their shuttle) and discovered that it was not going to be worth it. This was after they flew it unmanned and landed it perfectly (also unmanned, something that American technology has yet to perfect).

The Buran only died because the USSR collapsed, not because of some fabled Russian clairvoyancy. You cant really launch a large booster like that when 40% of your economy just ceded from yours and *then* you economy begins shrinking by 7% a year on average for the next 8 years....

Grypd · 2005-06-23 10:21:25

For the money that was spent it would have made more sense just to "create" an unmanned SDV that would have sent the space station into space in more or less three shots and still weighed more than the current ISS was planned to be.

Skylab was sent up in one shot and was a success except it was "sacrificed" in utility for the shuttles creation.

Another benefit would have been the creation of a heavylifter years ago.

But then this would make sense and since when did politics make sense......

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-06-09 05:38:50

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#2 2005-06-11 17:49:11

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#3 2005-06-11 19:11:45

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#4 2005-06-11 22:08:45

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#5 2005-06-12 07:00:42

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#6 2005-06-12 08:54:57

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#7 2005-06-12 09:58:42

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#8 2005-06-12 18:40:56

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#9 2005-06-21 23:59:17

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#10 2005-06-22 07:35:57

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#11 2005-06-22 10:46:31

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#12 2005-06-22 11:04:43

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#13 2005-06-22 11:29:19

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#14 2005-06-22 14:23:50

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#15 2005-06-22 15:50:16

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#16 2005-06-22 18:39:53

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#17 2005-06-22 18:40:43

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#18 2005-06-23 02:24:47

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#19 2005-06-23 05:28:48

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#20 2005-06-23 05:47:37

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#21 2005-06-23 06:23:29

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#22 2005-06-23 06:54:07

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#23 2005-06-23 07:08:33

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#24 2005-06-23 08:16:20

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

#25 2005-06-23 10:21:25

Re: Russia: Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed

Board footer