Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russian "space monkleys" make "America Great" in Outer Space, etc.at

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

  • Russian "space monkleys" make "America Great" in Outer Space, etc.at

    So, not meaning to "spam"* rather to present material from other threads that some may not access, the following is an effort to show how for the past two decades plus the USA has depended upon our "adversary ~ enemy"; Russia, to provide us the means; via "rocket engines tech" to dominate the High Ground of Space Tech ...

    I'll admittedly using posts from other threads, but such isn't so much an effort to "spam" as one to provide material that others may not have accessed via those other threads of this Forum.

    Point/"Bottom-line" here is that the USA for decades has depended upon and "adversary/hostile Nation" to provide needed technology and devices to assist our Intel and Military Capabilities to counter the Source of our assistance ...

    What remains most disturbing is how many of the supposed "armchair generals" here remain oblivious or clueless to such, and have failed to comment upon same ...




  • #2
    Russian "space monkeys" keep America in Space- Part One

    Why Does the U.S. Use Russian Rockets to Launch Its Satellites?

    EXCERPTS:
    ...
    Sixteen [actually 17, this article is a year old - GDB] years ago, amid a post-Cold War glow, U.S. defense contractors began using a cheap and efficient Russian engine to launch American military rockets into space.

    Now, with Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime opposing American interests in Syria, Crimea and across the globe, the use of Russian technology to launch secret spy satellites and other sensitive payloads is increasingly viewed as a security and geopolitical liability. Defense officials say there is no ready replacement available, however.
    ...
    Sen. John McCain has been leading the charge to stop using the Russian rocket engines, arguing that by buying them, the U.S. is providing a benefit to Putin and his allies.

    “Purchasing these engines provides financial benefit to Vladimir Putin’s cronies, including individuals sanctioned by the United States, and subsidizes the Russian military-industrial base,” the Arizona Republican said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “This is unacceptable at a time when Russia continues to occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, menace our NATO allies, violate the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and bomb moderate rebels in Syria.”
    ...
    Shelby spokeswoman Torie Matous said the senator’s approach to the issue “is entirely built on his interest in protecting national security. Every senior official currently serving in the Air Force, Pentagon, and the Intelligence community shares the senator’s belief that banning the use of the RD-180 before we have a reliable domestic alternative would jeopardize assured access to space and put taxpayers on the hook for billions.”
    ...
    On the merits, there are no easy answers.

    If the supply of Russian engines were cut off, it would slow down satellite launches, cost serious money, and compromise U.S. national security, Air Force Gen. William Shelton, who heads Space Command, told Congress recently.

    “There would be serious national security implications,” he said, adding that the Pentagon estimates it will take 5 to 8 years to wean itself off the Russian engine.

    At the same time, many national security experts, including former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former CIA Director Michael Hayden, say it is a mistake to continue to rely on Russia.

    “We have an American industrial base with multiple providers that can produce All-American-made rocket engines,” they and other ex-officials wrote in a letter to McCain and Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, top Democrat in the Armed Services Committee. “There is no need to rely on Putin’s Russia for this sensitive, critical technology.”
    ...
    http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/wh...llites-n588526

    Continued in next post, BTW this may be used as material for a new thread.

    Comment


    • #3
      Russian "space monkeys" keep America in Space- Part Two

      Why Does the U.S. Use Russian Rockets to Launch Its Satellites?

      EXCERPTS:
      ...
      Sixteen years ago [actually 17, this article/link is over a year old - GDB], amid a post-Cold War glow, U.S. defense contractors began using a cheap and efficient Russian engine to launch American military rockets into space.

      Now, with Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime opposing American interests in Syria, Crimea and across the globe, the use of Russian technology to launch secret spy satellites and other sensitive payloads is increasingly viewed as a security and geopolitical liability. Defense officials say there is no ready replacement available, however.
      ...
      Sen. John McCain has been leading the charge to stop using the Russian rocket engines, arguing that by buying them, the U.S. is providing a benefit to Putin and his allies.

      “Purchasing these engines provides financial benefit to Vladimir Putin’s cronies, including individuals sanctioned by the United States, and subsidizes the Russian military-industrial base,” the Arizona Republican said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “This is unacceptable at a time when Russia continues to occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, menace our NATO allies, violate the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and bomb moderate rebels in Syria.”
      ...
      SpaceX is trying to break into the military launch market, having won its first military contract in April [2016 - GDB]. SpaceX’s PAC also contributed $2,500 to Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the chief sponsor of the ban in the House, who has proclaimed himself a friend and supporter of California-based Musk.

      SpaceX would benefit from the ban of Russian engines because they are being used by its chief competitor, the United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of defense contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
      A McCarthy aide who declined to be quoted said McCarthy’s district has a significant commercial space presence and that McCarthy believes a continued reliance on Russian rockets threatens U.S. national security interests.

      McCain spokeswoman Rachel Dean declined to address the donations, but said, “The Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence both confirmed that the United States can meet its assured access to space requirements without the use of Russian rocket engines.”
      ...
      Shelby spokeswoman Torie Matous said the senator’s approach to the issue “is entirely built on his interest in protecting national security. Every senior official currently serving in the Air Force, Pentagon, and the Intelligence community shares the senator’s belief that banning the use of the RD-180 before we have a reliable domestic alternative would jeopardize assured access to space and put taxpayers on the hook for billions.”
      ...
      If the supply of Russian engines were cut off, it would slow down satellite launches, cost serious money, and compromise U.S. national security, Air Force Gen. William Shelton, who heads Space Command, told Congress recently.

      “There would be serious national security implications,” he said, adding that the Pentagon estimates it will take 5 to 8 years to wean itself off the Russian engine.

      At the same time, many national security experts, including former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former CIA Director Michael Hayden, say it is a mistake to continue to rely on Russia.

      “We have an American industrial base with multiple providers that can produce All-American-made rocket engines,” they and other ex-officials wrote in a letter to McCain and Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, top Democrat in the Armed Services Committee. “There is no need to rely on Putin’s Russia for this sensitive, critical technology.”
      ...
      http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/wh...llites-n588526

      Should seem a real issue for immediate attention is to cut our dependency upon Russian to sustain out Space Programs, especially military and intellignece based ones.

      Comment


      • #4
        Russian "space monkeys" keep America in Space- Part Three

        Building upon material/links of post #168 above, and for those "techno-geeks" reading here ...
        EXCERPTS:
        ...
        Here is an April 3 tweet from Rogozin about Russian-made rocket engines used to launch U.S. satellites: “A Russian broom for an American witch.”

        We’re Glinda, the Good Witch of the Free World. And we’re embarrassed about needing Russian flying monkeys to get us into space.

        It didn’t have to be this way. United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing, puts U.S. satellites into orbit aboard all-American Delta IV rockets. ULA presented a paper to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics detailing how quickly the Delta IV-Heavy could be “human-rated” (Washington politician-speak for “safer than sending Christa McAuliffe up in the Space Shuttle Challenger”). ULA said 4 1/2 years. The paper was published in 2009.

        But leadership of the U.S. space program has been lacking. Don’t blame NASA. Every NASA official I’ve talked to, including its present chief, Maj. Gen. Charles Bolden Jr., and the head of NASA under George W. Bush, Dr. Michael Griffin, is eager to put the astro back in astronaut.

        However, President Bush said we were going to Mars, and we went to Iraq instead. And U.S. lack of space capabilities took President Obama by surprise, like everything else has—opposition to Obamacare, Tea Party, NSA snooping, IRS targeting of conservative nonprofits, Crimea, VA screw-ups, ISIS fanatics pushing toward Baghdad.

        And we’re a democracy. So we the people share blame for Russia finally winning the space race. (Tortoise disqualified for technical reasons, first place awarded to Sputnik hare.)
        ...
        That we’re unable, for the time being, get to space personally is one thing. The more important thing is our ability to get stuff into space—stuff that keeps the CIA informed, connects and positions our defense forces, and helps us get home from the bar. Much of our ability is dependent on two rocket engines, the RD-180 and the NK-33/AJ26. These are made in Russia.
        ...
        The factual situation is that ULA’s workhorse Atlas V rocket (more than three dozen launches vs. Delta IV-Heavy’s seven) was built around the RD-180 engine. Atlas V missions include, per the SF Fact Sheet, “military communications, intelligence collection, missile warning, planetary exploration…earth science payloads, a few commercial satellites, and possible human spaceflights in the future.”The NK-33 engine, designated AJ26 after modification by America’s Aerojet Rocketdyne company, is key to the design of Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Antares rocket. Fact Sheet: “The primary mission of the Antares…[is] to service the International Space Station. Orbital is pursuing future commercial satellite launches and possible military satellite launches using Antares.”

        A month after the Space Foundation published the Fact Sheet, the ever-twittering Dmitry Rogozin tweeted: “Russia is ready to continue deliveries of RD-180 engines to the US only under the guarantee that they won’t be used in the interests of the Pentagon.”

        Rogozin also announced that Russia will call it quits with the International Space Station in 2020. That is four years before the U.S. plans to leave.
        The ISS, launched in 1998, is the most expensive thing ever built—$150 billion and counting. The U.S. has provided more than $100 billion of that.

        There’s no astronomic reason the ISS can’t stay in use for another 10 to 14 years or longer. But it needs to be “reboosted” from time to time to lift it back into proper low earth orbit. Otherwise the ISS becomes a 357-foot million-pound surprise for earthlings. (Don’t worry too much. While the meteor that injured 1,000 people in Chelyabinsk last year was only 55 feet wide, it was 20 times as heavy.) Currently only Russian rocket engines, fitted with the Russian ISS docking system, can reboost the Space Station.To these Russian nose-thumbings, one finger salutes, and social media bullyings, we do have alternatives.

        The Delta IV can carry a larger payload into low earth orbit than the Atlas V, 60,779 lbs. vs. 41,478 lbs. But a Delta launch is much more expensive.
        ...
        The SpaceX Falcon 9v1.1, all privately funded, all domestically sourced, can carry 28,990 lbs. It’s made three cargo deliveries to the International Space Station. But the Falcon is not yet Air Force certified for military and intelligence payloads. SpaceX is suing the Air Force over the slowness of this certification, although going to the U.S. court system is not a famous way of speeding things up.U.S. Air Force four-star Gen. William Shelton, commandeer of Air Force Space Command and a guy who knows about these matters, said during a keynote address at the Space Foundation’s May 2014 Space Symposium that he would prefer the U.S. to develop its own equivalent to the RD-180. But he noted that would cost more than $1 billion and take between five and eight years.

        So we have alternatives, sort of like the veggie burger alternatives we have on the backyard grill.

        We’re dependent on the RD-180, which has flown 50 times on U.S. missions with 100 percent success. And to a lesser extent, we’re dependent on the NK33/AJ26 engine, which we’ve used six times with 100 percent success.

        Plus, of course, there are U.S. political as well as U.S. technological headaches. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2015, passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee and now going to the full Senate, contains an amendment from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) forbidding purchase of Russian RD-180 engines for national security missions after fiscal year 2017. The amendment is expected to survive the House-Senate conference and be in the bill signed by the president.
        ...
        http://www.thedailybeast.com/why-doe...-us-into-space

        Red highlight mine and this is a three year old article/link and little has changed since. Our presense in Outer Space still depends upon Russian aid and "collusion", is of greater national security concern than Trump, or Clinton "collusion with Russians on our recent election, yet remains "off the radar" of many an armchair general and expert here.

        Says a lot (disappointingly) about grasp and scope of those claiming to be concerned citizens and patriots when a major component of our national security, intelligence, and defense remains in the hands and controls of our "adversary" ~ Russia. And has thru several past POTUS administrations ...


        Comment


        • #5


          http://www.thedailybeast.com/why-doe...-us-into-space
          Last edited by G David Bock; 15 Jul 17, 17:21. Reason: trying to shrink picture size

          Comment


          • #6
            I rank the Apollo missions as one of mankind's finish achievements, so I do find it amazing that the USA hasn't had the ability to put man onto space for a while, and also for the foreseeable future.

            Has China now got manned space capability?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JFKvsNixon View Post
              I rank the Apollo missions as one of mankind's finish achievements, so I do find it amazing that the USA hasn't had the ability to put man onto space for a while, and also for the foreseeable future.
              I've always had a problem with this. It's embarrassing.
              ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

              BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

              BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JFKvsNixon View Post
                I rank the Apollo missions as one of mankind's finish achievements, so I do find it amazing that the USA hasn't had the ability to put man onto space for a while, and also for the foreseeable future.

                Has China now got manned space capability?
                I wouldn't say lack of ability so much as lack of will. Our shuttle program was fine but we opted to retire it.

                But our private sector sure hasn't given up the ghost. Elon Musk has been a busy little bee. It has me wondering if our space program isn't dying so much as changing, with private companies being contracted for space exploration instead of federal agencies.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • #9
                  One word: MONEY.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Pretty much. If there was something of value to be gotten by going to the Moon or Mars, there'd be commercial development of space. Right now, there's not.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      As suggested in the OP, I find it ironic and disappointing that so many want to make much of Trump Jr. speaking with a Russian to get "dirt" on Hillary, as if that would have been hard otherwise, and such is "collusion" that leads the Russians control our elections . meanwhile the Russians have a dominating involvement in our military presense in space providing the rocket motors needed for the communications, intelligence, and missile detection satellites.

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X