Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flankers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Injecteer
    ok, it's "defined" as an international, but it's based mostly on soviet/russian made modules. Only the money come from other countries
    Are you really that oblivious? Do you have any idea how much of that thing was made in the United States?

    Comment


    • #47
      ISS:

      U.S. elements include three connecting modules; a laboratory module; truss segments; four solar arrays; a habitation module; three mating adapters; a cupola; an unpressurized logistics carrier and a centrifuge module. The various systems being developed by the U.S. include thermal control; life support; guidance, navigation and control; data handling; power systems; communications and tracking; ground operations facilities and launch-site processing facilities.

      Russia is providing two research modules; an early living quarters called the Service Module with its own life support and habitation systems; a science power platform of solar arrays that can supply about 20 kilowatts of electrical power; logistics transport vehicles; and Soyuz spacecraft for crew return and transfer.

      One thing- Russia has been shouldering most of the burden of replenishment and support ever since the Challenger failure. This is something that we shouldn't overlook. Russia has footed most of the bill for the launches, etc, that otherwise would have been made by the Shuttle. I think the US needs to pony up some more money for Russia, since the ISS would probably be unmanned right now if it weren't for Russia's contribution.

      Just want to give credit where credit is due- but the ISS is not a mostly Russian project- it is an International effort, led by the US and Russia, with contributions from Europe, Canada, and Japan, and even Brazil.
      "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by highsea
        One thing- Russia has been shouldering most of the burden of replenishment and support ever since the Challenger failure. This is something that we shouldn't overlook. Russia has footed most of the bill for the launches, etc, that otherwise would have been made by the Shuttle. I think the US needs to pony up some more money for Russia, since the ISS would probably be unmanned right now if it weren't for Russia's contribution.

        Just want to give credit where credit is due- but the ISS is not a mostly Russian project- it is an International effort, led by the US and Russia, with contributions from Europe, Canada, and Japan, and even Brazil.
        You mean Columbia right?

        I agree, the Russians have really picked up the slack and then some.
        Especially since NASA has had to push back the next shuttle launch
        Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

        Comment


        • #49
          Yeah, I meant Columbia. sorry. ;)

          I guess it's better to push it back, but eventually it will have to go regardless- space is a dangerous business, and we will never eliminate the risk.

          We are in desparate need of a replacement though, the shuttles are all past their design life. I wish we would get off our asses and get to it, at the rate we are going we will be back to old fashioned rockets pretty soon- just stupid.
          "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by highsea
            Yeah, I meant Columbia. sorry. ;)

            I guess it's better to push it back, but eventually it will have to go regardless- space is a dangerous business, and we will never eliminate the risk.

            We are in desparate need of a replacement though, the shuttles are all past their design life. I wish we would get off our asses and get to it, at the rate we are going we will be back to old fashioned rockets pretty soon- just stupid.



            Is there any replacement on the board for the shuttles?
            "They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."

            Protester

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by MIKEMUN


              Is there any replacement on the board for the shuttles?
              Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed are submitting proposals for a new capsule called a Crew Exploration Vehicle or CEV. I think it's supposed to have airplane characteristics to make it easy to maneuver upon re-entry, like the Shuttle. However, it will be much safer with redundant heat shielding and a barrier capsule within to protect the crew in the occurrance of a rocket explosion similar to that which happened to the Challenger. It will also have the capability to reach far beyond the low earth orbit that the shuttles are limited to. I'm not positive, but I think it may launch on top of a rocket again, similar to the Soyuz or the Saturn launch vehicles.

              You should be able to find some good info if you punch in Crew Exploration Vehicle on a search engine.

              Comment


              • #52
                This is Lockmart's proposal.
                Attached Files
                "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                Comment


                • #53
                  Here's a good link to the Northrop/Boeing proposal. This shows the entire vehicle system including the propulsion unit, lunar lander, etc.

                  http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...ingblocks.html

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I don't know why this whole thing with the Columbia is so huge. Some bad heat tiles, and it blew up. God for it. It happened once, chances are it won't happen again.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      MIKEMUN
                      >If Man did not really land on the moon,the Soviets would have been the first to point that out.

                      I have nothing against it, I was talking about the movie, not landing itself. :)

                      about the CEV and similar projects...

                      I was kinda surprised, when I heard about the end of the Shuttle program due to it's cost-ineffectiveness. It appeared so, that the single-use Soyuz was cheaper, then reusable shuttles.

                      That lets me assume, that any Shuttle- or Buran-like projects will come to the same end. I think, there has to be something totally different, like a hybrid air-to-space plane, or a use of a plane as a carrier for a shuttle, or maybe an orbital lift.

                      Without all that all space programs will have strong mass/cost limitations.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        This thread has reallllllly gone off track! Starting with Flankers and is now on to space shuttles!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Back to the topic, I wonder why American don't buy some Sukhois from some 3rd world countries for their assessment?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Already have.
                            "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              "already have".

                              So it would seem...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Yeah Baby! Snipe, what can you tell me about those aircraft?
                                The markings indicate where they are "stationed" though I would assume either Fallon or Nellis.
                                Any idea who they were bought from......and do they have more for sale?
                                Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X