simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
 Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 11:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | They have outstanding contract with nasa for about $3.1 billion, this is almost as good as money as you can borrow against it, most expanding businesses get the contract and then go to the bank with it to borrow against |
I think they have over $4 billion in outstanding contracts. NASA is only $1.6 billion of that. With this success more will probably sign on. They are a private launch company, not a wing of NASA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AspieRogue wrote: | | DC wrote: |
Fact 2 - Nobody in the US is going anywhere on the back of a nuclear rocket for the foreseeable future. The technology was developed and refined in the 60s & 70s but most countries agreed to an above ground test ban and that is widely interpreted as also banning nuclear rockets. Without a ratification, no dice. |
Fixed that for ya. LIKE I SAID, Russia is already doing R&D on a nuclear rocket. But for now the designs haven't left the drawing board.
. |
And probably nothing will come of it. It is make work for their scientists.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AspieRogue wrote: |
Au contraire mon frere! Russia was the first nation to put both humans and objects in outer space. In fact, their presence in outer space has been continuous for the last 65 years. . |
And what wonderful new propulsion systems have they actually deployed. Being first does not mean being best or even good. Russian quality control sh*ts bricks, especially under the Soviets.
Give the devils their due, however. They have developed the best space suits.
The U.S. has developed the best tasting food at the lab located in Natick MA.
The real trick is to develop a decent propulsion system and get us way from the burn and coast approach.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Russia is not going to build anything like that unless it's part of a multinational effort to go somewhere. They have a very small space budget. They are focused on building a new rocket (Angara), capsule ((PPTS) and a new space launch complex.
It would be much easier to launch something like that from Russia though. Though it might be possible in the US if the reactor and fuel were launched seperately with the fuel launched in an extremely robust failure safe container. Then you robotically load the fuel in orbit or at a lagrange point. Maybe even include a launch escape system for the fuel pod. But this is nowhere on the horizon without significant money and policy changes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DC
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 16, 2011
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | Russian quality control sh*ts bricks, especially under the Soviets.
|
Not really, the opposite is true.
If you take a look at this table listing all rocket launches from 1957 -1999, USSR/CIS have consistently had the most reliable launch systems.
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2001/03_table_1.html
I know you don't want to believe it, but the data doesn't lie...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder what would have happened had they continued development of their space shuttle program, Buran. It was the only space shuttle for 22 years to fly automated and return
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They could have flown in circles, expensively, for decades. Like us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| simon_says wrote: | | They could have flown in circles, expensively, for decades. Like us. |
Competition is a driver of innovation, however, and two competing systems would have certainly been interesting. The ISS would probably have been completed in half the time
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe. But more money to build and fly Burans = less money for space stations. The US had the same problem with shuttle despite much deeper pockets. If the Russian agency had more money, sure, they'd have done more and that would have been fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DC wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | Russian quality control sh*ts bricks, especially under the Soviets.
|
Not really, the opposite is true.
If you take a look at this table listing all rocket launches from 1957 -1999, USSR/CIS have consistently had the most reliable launch systems.
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2001/03_table_1.html
I know you don't want to believe it, but the data doesn't lie... |
How do the quality of satellites compare. Who has the most working communication and location satellites in orbit?
Merely totaling all the launches and failures do not tell the whole story. Whose equipment is doing the most and working the best?
ruveyn
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | DC wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | Russian quality control sh*ts bricks, especially under the Soviets.
|
Not really, the opposite is true.
If you take a look at this table listing all rocket launches from 1957 -1999, USSR/CIS have consistently had the most reliable launch systems.
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2001/03_table_1.html
I know you don't want to believe it, but the data doesn't lie... |
How do the quality of satellites compare. Who has the most working communication and location satellites in orbit?
Merely totaling all the launches and failures do not tell the whole story. Whose equipment is doing the most and working the best?
ruveyn
ruveyn |
Well.. the space shuttle has a pretty poor track record, with 2 out of 5 vehicles destroyed with loss of life
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vigilans wrote: |
Well.. the space shuttle has a pretty poor track record, with 2 out of 5 vehicles destroyed with loss of life |
the space shuttle, that tiled abomination was the downfall of NASA's manned space flight program. It was based on the delusion that a reusable vehicle would cost less to run. It turned out to be just the opposite. Cost per kilogram put into orbit by the shuttle went through the roof.
NASA has done better in unmanned activities. I suspect both NASA and ESA put up better satellites than the Russians, and certainly better than the Soviets (defunct since 1991). Soviet safety and production standards were unbelievably bad.
ruveynb |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Soyuz has had it's share of failures. lethal and non-lethal. Because of the crew sizes NASA has lost more, but also put many more astronauts in space.
In the unmanned probe realm, NASA completely dominates. They do that really well, maybe because they have the money to do it often. The Russians quit 16 years ago after Mars-96 failed and only recently tried again in the past year, and lost the probe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
