ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

Phobos · 2002-09-26 19:03:36

I came across an article over at the CNN website that claimed the Russians were thinking of pulling out of the ISS project because they couldn't keep up with expenses. If the Russians were to totally turn their back on the project do you think the ISS would live on or would it become an orbiting ghost town or cinders in the ocean?

Number04 · 2002-09-26 20:16:14

It raises some issues, but if they can't afford it, I don't want them to throw something together half-ass.

I hope it still goes through; the space station will be a big land mark (land mark.... hehe) in the minds of the public. I think if it goes well, it will be a big step for space exploration because of good public opinion.

And if it goes bad... well...

AltToWar · 2002-09-28 23:11:38

I hope they get rid of the thing. The space station serves no real scientific purpose, and is draining away money from the important missions.

Mark S · 2002-09-28 23:21:04

I think that politcal pressures will keep the Russians behind the ISS in spite of their shaky financial situation. But, if the Russians do accomplish the unthinkable, one of the folowing might happen:

1) China will step up and ease the Russians' financial obligations.

2) A private firm will purchase a share in the ISS

3) The US and ESA will, yet again, bail out the Russians

4) The station will go from being permanantly-manned to intermittently-manned, just as the Salyut stations were.

Options 1 & 2 are both acceptable to me, while option 4 seems like a horrible waste of a multibillion dollar project. It would also mean disaster for the Shuttle, which exists solely to support the ISS. NASA would, under no circumstances, allow the ISS to burn up before the end of its useful life. Even then, it might be possible to detach the ISS core modules, refit them, and send them for a manned Mars flyby.

AltToWar · 2002-09-29 00:29:06

3 is the most likely. It's happened before, it will happen again.

Palomar · 2002-10-16 13:14:57

*How terrible!! I didn't want to start a new thread for this, and thought it'd best fit here; some of you may have already heard this news:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl....=russia

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-10-16 19:33:36

*How terrible!! I didn't want to start a new thread for this, and thought it'd best fit here; some of you may have already heard this news:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl....=russia

Very tragic. It's bad enough when the rockets explode and no one gets hurt. I wonder if the soldiers were in any kind of bunker when the thing launched, seems like they would have been. Maybe some of the debris just flew a very long distance?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-16 21:33:21

A sad day for Russia indeed.
It reminds us how dangerous rockets are, doesn't it? And puts into perspective how infrequently a Russian rocket fails these days - they're so reliable that this event comes as a shock.

My condolences to the distraught parents who have lost a son.

Palomar · 2002-10-16 22:29:02

A sad day for Russia indeed.
It reminds us how dangerous rockets are, doesn't it? And puts into perspective how infrequently a Russian rocket fails these days - they're so reliable that this event comes as a shock.
My condolences to the distraught parents who have lost a son.

*The news article says it is a similar type of rocket which will carry persons to the space station very soon. Yipes.

What made this rocket explode, does anyone know? Without getting super-technical, please?

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-10-17 15:38:45

It reminds us how dangerous rockets are, doesn't it? And puts into perspective how infrequently a Russian rocket fails these days - they're so reliable that this event comes as a shock.

Do you know when the last Russian rocket failure occured? I can't recall any in the 1990's or later, at least ones that blew up before delivering their cargo.

The news article says it is a similar type of rocket which will carry persons to the space station very soon. Yipes.
What made this rocket explode, does anyone know? Without getting super-technical, please?

Actually that rocket that blew up has a very good track record of taking people into space. It's just a freak thing that happened. I have no idea what made it blow up.

Ranger_2833 · 2002-10-28 09:33:01

Here are just a couple of incidents since 1996 in Russia, but still a better track record than ours...

May 20, 1996: A Soyuz-U booster rocket carrying reconnaissance satellites explodes 49 seconds after lift-off from Russia's Baikonur cosmodrome.

June 20, 1996: A Soyuz-U rocket carrying reconnaissance satellites explodes after lift-off at Plesetsk cosmodrome.

May 20, 1997: A Russian Zenit-2 booster rocket carrying a Cosmos military satellite explodes 48 seconds after launch.

September 10, 1998: A computer malfunction brings down a Ukrainian rocket carrying 12 commercial satellites, minutes after blast off from Baikonur.

July 5, 1999: A Russian Proton-K heavy booster rocket launched from Baikonur suffers a malfunction which detached the engine and parts of the booster, causing them to crash onto the steppe. A 200-kg (440 lb) chunk falls into the courtyard of a private house. Kazakhstan briefly closes Baikonur in a row with Russia over clean-up costs and rent for the base.

October 28, 1999: A Russian Proton rocket carrying a communications satellite crashes shortly after take-off from Baikonur.

[I]

Even worse than this incident was the Chinese Rocket that failed during launch and destroyed part of a village near the launch site. The Chinese, of course, officially deny that anyone died, but a few western reporters smuggle out video of the destruction.

Ranger_2833 · 2002-10-28 09:52:52

But anyhow, back to the ISS.

I think the project was doomed from the start. Seeking financial assistance on such a large scale from countries who are infamous for not paying when the bill collecters come knocking was more of a political call than an intelligent one. The Russian people have enough trouble feeding themselves without having to help pay for a poorly planned space station that is twenty years after its time. I think it is time for NASA to stop trying to finally meet its goals from the 70s and 80s and start thinking about the present and more importantly the future.

Some one (Carl Sagan or Robert Zubrin, I think) once suggested that perhaps we should create a sort of "Port Authority" for near Earth space and force NASA to get out the way and start doing what they are supposed to be doing: EXPLORING. Set up an agency (just a minimalist operation not a bureaucratic dinosaur) to run everything inside of Geosynchronous orbit. This agency should also try ENCOURAGING not disouraging the private sector from getting involved in space.

The greatest barrier to our expansion into space for the last twenty or so years (in some ways since the beginning) has been the very agency created to break those barriers and the bureaucrats in charge. :angry:

Always remember: the government is their to serve the people, not to sabotage our destiny.

Phobos · 2002-10-28 19:42:06

Some one (Carl Sagan or Robert Zubrin, I think) once suggested that perhaps we should create a sort of "Port Authority" for near Earth space and force NASA to get out the way and start doing what they are supposed to be doing: EXPLORING. Set up an agency (just a minimalist operation not a bureaucratic dinosaur) to run everything inside of Geosynchronous orbit. This agency should also try ENCOURAGING not disouraging the private sector from getting involved in space.
The greatest barrier to our expansion into space for the last twenty or so years (in some ways since the beginning) has been the very agency created to break those barriers and the bureaucrats in charge.

YEs! Preach it bro! NASA did talk about privatizing the shuttle fleet by leaving its maintenance up to private contractors but I can't see why any contractor would take such a monster unless they were promised good profits which could cost us even more, not unless the contractor is able to cut out a lot of NASA's bloat and make it cheaper even with profits--which wouldn't surprise me.

Always remember: the government is their to serve the people, not to sabotage our destiny.

AltToWar · 2002-10-29 05:47:56

YEs! Preach it bro! NASA did talk about privatizing the shuttle fleet by leaving its maintenance up to private contractors but I can't see why any contractor would take such a monster unless they were promised good profits which could cost us even more, not unless the contractor is able to cut out a lot of NASA's bloat and make it cheaper even with profits--which wouldn't surprise me.

In most cases, private business can do the same job that a government beuracracy can do for half the cost.

It is the natual tendancy for government institutions to expand cost, where it is the natural tendancy of private institutions to lower them.

Ranger_2833 · 2002-10-29 11:27:01

In most cases, private business can do the same job that a government beuracracy can do for half the cost.
It is the natual tendancy for government institutions to expand cost, where it is the natural tendancy of private institutions to lower them.

YES! When companies are forced to compete, costs must go down for them to survive.
Look at the rocket manufacturers of the world. Here in America we follow the Cost+ rule for gov't contracts. That is, Uncle Sam pays the company the total cost (even if they don't meet the deadline and the cost raises) plus an extra 10% profit. The government has also banned the usage of forign rockets for government launches. Simply put, American companies have a government enforced monopoly on rockets bought by the U.S. But do you ever see American rockets launching foreign payloads? Of course not, or prices are astronomical.
It costs more now to launch a payload into orbit than it did in the 70s (taking into account for inflation of course). It seems to me to be bass-ackwards considering the technological leaps that have been made in rocket technology since then. Launch costs should be cheaper now than they ever have been.
If the American companies had to compete with companies like Arianne and the like, they'd be out of business in a short time. Or they'd be forced to change their ways. Companies like Arianne have to keep their cost low because the competition is tough and not restricted like it is here.
The best thing we could do to help the American space program in the immediate future is to get rid of these self-imposed regulations. Once the companies are forced to compete, they'll have no choice but to lower their prices. Another side benefit is that research will advance faster as the companies cmpete against eachother to stay alive (unlike our current rocket fleet which is mostly based on rockets designed before the 70s i.e. Titan and Atlas).
Maybe instead of petitioning Congress to make resolutions (laws with no real effect) about possibly investing more time in space exploration, when they have time, and if they feel like it, we should petition the to make space a free market. Isn't that what we struggled against the Soviets for? The ideals of a free market...

It sounds to me like some of the people up top are forgetting the intents and purposes of our forefathers. How dare they betray the ideals of the great men and women who started this country because of things like government controlled markets.

Free market. Free will.

Phobos · 2002-10-30 00:08:12

It sounds to me like some of the people up top are forgetting the intents and purposes of our forefathers. How dare they betray the ideals of the great men and women who started this country because of things like government controlled markets.
Free market. Free will.

Hey don't get the idea I'm against free markets! Hell one of the reasons I'm hoping Brad can get his elevator built is because it's a private venture (with some government funds!) I think we're a lot more likely to get into space if there's starving, profit hungry businesses out there competing for passengers and cargo. Screw the idea of governments carefully selecting certain people who will go into space to represent all mankind. I'd rather represent myself in space instead! *sees Clark circling overhead getting ready to swoop down with reasons why spaceflight will or should always be the sole business of big government!*

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-12-24 02:04:22

'NASA revises contract strategy for ISS deorbit vehicle'
https://spacenews.com/nasa-revises-cont … t-vehicle/

from 1 year back

'Russia Says It's Definitely Quitting the ISS But Doesn't Say When Exactly'
https://futurism.com/russia-quitting-iss-no-schedule

An old topic maybe worth bumping with all the news on Putin the past years, Baikonur, his imperial war mongering and invasion of Ukraine.
There was a time when the USA and others in Europe were in a spirit of co-operation with Russians, the Planetary Society even entered a partnership with Roscosmos but today relations are very different and there are sanctions on Russia.
with war happening I sometimes would take 'news' with a pinch of salt but multiple different news agency from different parts of the world are reporting the arrest

Now we have news of arrests, the deputy director of the Russian space agency Roscosmos.

'Russian space agency deputy head among three detained, accused of siphoning nearly $5 million'
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russian-space … 00223.html

Police on Friday detained the deputy director of Russia's space agency Roscosmos over the suspected embezzlement of 4.3 million euros from the crisis-hit sector.
https://www.barrons.com/news/russia-spa … d-3ca6dc8f

Russia space agency official held over multi-million euro fraud
https://mb.com.ph/2023/5/22/russia-spac … euro-fraud

Oleg Frolov and two other suspects are accused of a "large-scale fraud", said a statement from the Russian investigative committee, which handles major criminal investigations.
"Frolov, using his official position, took part in a criminal conspiracy with two other co-conspirators," said the statement.

Roscosmos emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is a Russian state corporation of the Russian Federation responsible for space flights, manned flight programs, and aerospace research. Originating from the feats of the USSR and old Soviet space program founded in the 1950s.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-12-24 03:35:05)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-09-26 19:03:36

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#2 2002-09-26 20:16:14

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#3 2002-09-28 23:11:38

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#4 2002-09-28 23:21:04

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#5 2002-09-29 00:29:06

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#6 2002-10-16 13:14:57

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#7 2002-10-16 19:33:36

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#8 2002-10-16 21:33:21

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#9 2002-10-16 22:29:02

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#10 2002-10-17 15:38:45

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#11 2002-10-28 09:33:01

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#12 2002-10-28 09:52:52

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#13 2002-10-28 19:42:06

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#14 2002-10-29 05:47:56

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#15 2002-10-29 11:27:01

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#16 2002-10-30 00:08:12

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

#17 2023-12-24 02:04:22

Re: ISS to crash and burn? - Russia reconsiders

Board footer