Posted on 06/16/2010 6:13:03 AM PDT by cunning_fish
With shuttle’s retirement, Baikonur will be NASA’s only path to space HOUSTON - The latest Soyuz launch underscores the gamble that the U.S. space program is embarking on: reliance for years to come on one other country to carry all of NASA's astronauts into space. No space system is ever 100 percent reliable — so how risky is this strategy?
The central lesson of the worldwide partnership that built the International Space Station has become clear. We have learned that multiple independent technologies for major space capabilities provide amazing robustness in the face of the unavoidable surprises. Whether for oxygen, or spacewalking, or crew access, redundancy can be crucial.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
1. Price gouging: The Russian temptation for monopolistic overcharging will be hard to resist, and the recent price hikes for space seats have aroused a lot of suspicion.
But hard bargaining goes both ways, and the U.S. side holds some high cards too. Most electrical power and most space-to-earth communications channels on the space station are U.S.-owned. Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Tyurin, a station veteran, complained last year that using Russian ground sites alone allowed for the downlink of only one large image file per communications session — a rate that was exceeded by the U.S. (and Soviet) space stations in the 1970s and 1980s. Russia’s new-generation space radio relay satellites are only now approaching launch. The U.S. can match any price hike for transportation with symmetrical price hikes for kilowatt-hours and megabits.
2. Technological flaw: The Soyuz spacecraft and boosters have decades of flight experience and evolutionary upgrades behind them. But because they're expendable vehicles, the reliability of each launch is determined by current industrial practices, not by any statistical momentum from the record books.
In recent years, there have been plenty of unpleasant surprises both in hardware and software. There's also been a distressing pattern of preference for preventing public knowledge of such problems in Moscow and Washington. On two successive Soyuz descents in 2008, the spacecraft failed to jettison its expended service module properly. As a result, the Soyuzes twisted nose-first into the fiery re-entry plasma, threatening lethal damage to unshielded sections of the capsule. Early in 2009, a software flaw led to a botched rocket firing that nearly shook the station to the breaking point. Later that year, the Soyuz launch escape system malfunctioned, but fortunately it was not needed for an emergency escape. In all these cases, news of the failures leaked out despite official silence. Perhaps there are more we don’t know about.
3. Crew training: If there’s one key to the ability of U.S. and Russian space crews to overcome emergencies or the loss of essential space systems, it’s the in-depth, hands-on training they receive during years of pre-flight preparation. Not knowing or doing the right thing could lead to serious consequences in the unforgiving space environment.
The Russian cosmonaut training center at Star City has recently undergone a tumultuous bureaucratic and budget shakeup, as its management (and funding) have switched from military to civilian agencies. The new director, former cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev, has issued public warnings that major investments are needed to replace equipment that no longer functions, or was removed by departing military personnel.
When asked, cosmonauts and astronauts express full confidence in the adequacy of their training. But just last month the current crew became the first crew in years to fail their "final exams." They passed a re-test, but in space, there are no such do-overs to get it right.
4. Diplomatic stability: Access to the Baikonur Cosmodrome in independent Kazakhstan depends on the benevolence of the current Kazakh leader, Nursultan Nazarbayev, whose iron hand holds together the ethnically divided nation ((Kazakh south, Russian north, Baikonur in the middle). But the 70-year-old is not immortal, and successor regimes may prove more uncooperative on issues such as environmental damage, utility bills and fair treatment of Kazakh workers at the base.
5. Terrorism: The launch site at Baikonur takes the terrorist threat (from Chechens or other separatists) seriously enough to conduct annual anti-terrorist drills with special military units. The special forces were actually scarier than the thought of a true terrorist attack, since their tactic of choice seemed to be to charge in and kill everyone in sight. Security for the now-demilitarized base has been turned over to civilian police and contractors, imported from Moscow.
While Islamic extremist groups and Chechen settlements are found throughout Kazakhstan, a closer-to-home potential target could be space facilities in Moscow, often located alongside busy public streets. Attacks there — or even threats of attacks — could seriously upset flight operations.
6. Demographics: The saddest secret of Russia’s space program is the aging workforce, retiring or dying off at their posts. These critical experts are only partially being replaced by new employees willing to work for laughably low wages because they are devoted to the ideal of spaceflight. Even recent cosmonaut recruitment efforts actually had to actively seek candidates for the job — there simply weren’t enough qualified applicants mailing in their forms.
Click for related content Shuttle successor succeeds in first test flight Russians report snag in space safety system Hard Soyuz landing raises harder questions
Combined with a cultural trait of not documenting procedures and past events (the fewer people who know something, the more essential become those who can remember it), these staffing trends are alarming in terms of the diminution of skills and corporate memory through continued hemorrhage of irreplaceable skilled workers.
In the long run, NASA will be able to turn to U.S. commercial launch providers as well as the Russians for rides to space. And even in the short run, the risks associated with Russian spaceflight are by no means a guarantee that something will go wrong. Rather, they define areas where constant alertness and remedial work is needed. Absence or inadequacy of that kind of work could then open the door to sudden failure.
NBC News space analyst James Oberg spent 22 years at the Johnson Space Center as a Mission Control operator and an orbital designer. He has written numerous books on the U.S. and Russian space efforts, including "Star-Crossed Orbits: Inside the U.S.-Russian Space Allance."
Well, given that the Russians continue building up and/or supporting many of our nation’s enemies, I’d say it’s very risky.
Well lets see we lost 2 out of what 5 Shuttles that is kinda risky
It’s sort of irrelevant- we are pulling back from space exploration.
Any “crisis” involving the station will be excellent justification for further pullbacks until we achieve the goal of the left to not waste money in space when there are human problems on Earth to throw taxpayer money at.
The Russians will soon have a strong space partner in China (and maybe India and Japan too), so any American problems will be incentive to partner-up elsewhere.
As we officially announce the end of our manned lunar program, the Chinese are still moving toward a permanent manned lunar base, with Mars aspirations. The Japanese are thinking about Mars.
We are so proud of our moonwalks- imagine how it will feel when a Chinese astronaut puts one of our abandoned Hasselblad cameras on ebay!
US and Russia are still cutting age in a few decades. No Japan or China has American or Russian technology to travel for Mars, neither money US have to finance that.
From the campaign trail, February 2008...
"I will not weaponize space"
"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems"
Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp
_____________________________________________________
2008 Pentagon Report (March 2008):
China's Growing Military Space Power
By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
March 6, 2008
GOLDEN, Colorado — A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.
Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.
Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 — the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon — is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers — a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."
To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], see U.S. Dept of Defense:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf
_____________________________________________________
From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html
_____________________________________________________
"Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."
Speaking from memory here, but I believe the Shuttle was designed with a 98% reliability rating. With two failures in 132 missions the reliability is working out slightly better than designed.
Well, with way more space flights Russians are still have much less deaths.
Why on Earth, or in space, should we trust the Russians given all they have done to undermine our security?
How many Shuttles have we lost?
Challenger & Colubmia. Two of five.
Tell that to the 14
“The saddest secret of Russia’s space program is the aging workforce, retiring or dying off at their posts.”
Key point. I’ve seen Baikonur - its a city built for 50,000 people that now has 20,000 (tops). There are derelict carnival parks with rusting roller coasters because there are no longer very many kids in the city.
‘Course our own generation of space engineering/ops people are also passing on to retirement - most of the kids coming out of school now have degrees in sociology, ethnic studies or similar soft disciplines which don’t help you get to Mars.
Well, most of Russian cities are like that now.
AAt the same time Russia is becoming a World second destiny for immigration. Who knows if their muslims and other asians are to go space after them.
But they are using most of their original 1950's technology. The Soyuz launch vehicle hasn't changed much. The benefit of doing that is the system kinks have all been worked out long ago, but make no mistake, the Russian have had disasters. I've forgotten who, but I was talking with someone who was involved with a Soyuz rocket engine test. They simply replaced the turbo pumps, valves, and controllers on the engine, and ended up boosting the thrust by 25% or so.
Funny thing about it though, the people who laud Soyuz's reliability are the same ones who make fun of the Shuttle for having less computing power than today's cell phones.
Not to diminish their sacrifice, but they all knew it when they boarded the vehicle.
‘the Russian have had disasters’
Yep, they lost 4 cosmonauts comparing to 15 Americans since 1961. Last Russian died in 1971. They still flew about four times as many missions and was usually stay longer in space.
And if we followed the Russian engineering philosophy, we'd have just three deaths and would still be using the Apollo system. In hind sight, maybe that would have been a better choice. OTOH, then we'd be laughing at our space craft having less computing power than a modern refrigerator.
In fact I do hardly understand a philosophy behind a shuttle. Too much wasted payload is a craft itself. It only have sence for a Star Wars lovers who likes an idea of a space ship like that. Russian method of building a space stations to live there for years and resupply that with numerous cheaper spaceflights is more effective. With their limited finances they could afford a space program of a way larger scale back when.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.