NBC has an interesting article about a subtle diplomatic trick that might be underway to force the United States into a catch-22 over recognition of the Russian annexation of Crimea.
Apparently, a Russian press report mentioned the possibility of moving Soyuz crew-survival training to a naval base in Crimea. US astronauts must pass this training to qualify for flight aboard a Russian Soyuz spacecraft, which is currently the only way for a manned mission to access the ISS.
The catch is that when traveling to Crimea for the training, astronauts would not request Ukrainian visas, resulting in the US government implicitly recognizing the change in diplomatic status of Crimea. Not traveling would be an automatic failure of the training, which would disqualify the astronauts from traveling aboard the Soyuz craft as per agreements between NASA and the Russian Space Agency.
Well played, Russia.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday September 12 2014, @02:08AM
That's not what recognition is. Astronauts traveling to a training site is far from an actual government representative declaring Crimea as a territory of Russia.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Friday September 12 2014, @02:37AM
It doesn't work that way. Those astronauts are government representatives whether you like it or not. And doing official business on occupied land is recognition of the occupation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @03:18AM
> It doesn't work that way.
Sez who?
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Friday September 12 2014, @03:21PM
So every post office worker gets to decide territorial boundaries since they are employed by the government?
Think about what you are saying.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday September 12 2014, @06:13PM
I have thought about what I'm saying. Astronauts are high profile. They have always been viewed as representatives of their governments. Further, this is a diplomatic analogue to defending IP. If you claim something is wrong, then you have to act like that is wrong.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday September 13 2014, @04:16AM
I grok what you're saying (and sounds like what Russia is trying to force), but what does international law (such as that is) say about it?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Informative) by octalrage on Friday September 12 2014, @09:00AM
This isn't about what the US citizens think, it's about what Russian citizens think. If NASA has to "recognize" that Crimea is now Russian territory it will make the US look weak in the eyes of the Russian people.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Friday September 12 2014, @10:01PM
Correct. The astronauts travelling have nothing to do with recognition. But someone has to authorize that travel. Someone has to answer questions about the legality of that travel. Because they're being sent to a foreign nation on official government business, I imagine that someone will be the State Department.
So Ukraine won't be issuing these astronauts visas (they're not gonna issue a visa to go help an occupying enemy.) Which means the State Department will have two options. Either they can say 'Yes, our government violated international law and illegally conspired to violate Ukraine's sovereignty and borders' or they can say 'They didn't go to Ukraine, they went to Russia.' Our government may violate the law constantly, but they rarely admit it, so they're likely going to go with the the latter. That's how this becomes official government recognition.
And yes, if it was a single post office worker being sent, the situation would not be any different. But no, the post office worker or the astronauts do not have any direct effect on our foreign policy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday September 12 2014, @02:18AM
Russia risks cash cow, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk risks cardiac arrest by cackling.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @12:00PM
You forget Russia has had space stations in orbit for much longer than the USA... the ISS wouldn't exist without Russia's contributions and continued support, experience and expertise.
Without the USA, Russia would just build another Mir no probs.
The USA doesn't even really have a manned space program any more without Russia.
SpaceX is interesting, but nothing new. Beoing or Lockheed Martin will no doubt buy them out after they've wasted enough tax dollars to make it worth their while.
Who needs who?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday September 12 2014, @01:24PM
The OP was not suggesting that Russia be removed from the international space station (it is partially theirs!). Just that the NASA astronauts would use SpaceX for access instead of asking Roscosmos.
Also, it will be hard to buy out a company that isn't public. Elon Musk, the owner of SpaceX, already made his big money. He started SpaceX to spend it.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @01:48PM
actually its easier to buy a private company than a public one as there are usually less stakeholders to deal with
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday September 12 2014, @03:11PM
It's only easier if both parties agree. If one disagrees it becomes impossible. No hostile takeover possible.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mendax on Friday September 12 2014, @02:46AM
This particular issue is one of the best reasons why the shuttle program should never have been discontinued until an alternative had been put into place. The folly of that decision will soon be readily apparent. (Trusting the Russians? Bush seeing Putin's soul in his eyes? How can a person without a soul see one in another soulless person?) The commercial space travel world is making great progress but it's not yet ready to haul passengers to the ISS. Furthermore, I personally prefer reusable spacecraft rather than the one-time only Soyuz.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday September 12 2014, @02:59AM
And the fact that this is "one of the best" is a glaring reason why the Space Shuttle was discontinued. The ISS just isn't that valuable and still isn't.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 12 2014, @03:13AM
Well, what about the Hubble telescope? No shuttle, no service, once is gone stays gone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @03:39AM
> Well, what about the Hubble telescope?
Isn't the Hubble like 7 years past it's scheduled end of life?
> No shuttle, no service, once is gone stays gone.
Why is that? Is it in a decaying orbit? Because otherwise it seems to me that we have nearly an indefinite period of time of do any repairs, so if it sits idle for a couple of years while SpaceX gets their ship up and running no big deal.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 12 2014, @03:59AM
Yes [wikipedia.org] - pessimistic estimation - 5 more years; optimistic one - 18 more.
However rugged, the electronics will fail after a while. Some may not be that easy to change - if indeed so, "indefinite" may mean "we can't define how long it will last" rather than "whatever long we like, no definition necessary".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @04:20AM
If SpaceX isn't up and running in 5 years something went drastically wrong.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 12 2014, @04:46AM
Anything that can go wrong... [wikipedia.org]
Have a good weekend!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @09:38AM
Um, SpaceX is up and running today. They still have work to achieve their goals, but they are putting things in orbit. However, I don't think they are developing anything capable of servicing a satellite in orbit. Will they be able to put a Hubble replacement in orbit in 5 years, probably. Will they have a working spacecraft that can service the Hubble telescope in 5 years, probably not.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday September 12 2014, @03:44AM
Put up several more Hubble telescopes. They aren't that expensive once you've built the first.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @04:07AM
Let's mass produce them, then they'll be dirt cheap. Like plastic [wikipedia.org]; what can go wrong [wikipedia.org]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @12:05PM
only the USSR could mass-produce rockets cheaper than Russia can
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday September 12 2014, @06:15PM
I'm simply observing that we could have put up several replacement Hubble telescopes for the cost of repairing the one we had in orbit. That's the huge flaw with the whole scheme.
(Score: 1) by demachina on Friday September 12 2014, @04:28AM
The best thing that could possibly happen to the U.S. space program at the moment would be for the U.S. to abandon it to the Russians and let them foot the bill to support it. Then the U.S. could turn to a space program that has a point (i.e. colonize Mars).
If the Russians had to keep the ISS going on there own they would soon be begging to fly U.S. Astronauts to it, just to get that white elephant off their backs.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday September 12 2014, @07:05PM
Frankly, I think the Russians would probably just let it re-enter the atmosphere. Putin could ask the metropolitan of Moscow to pray that it hits the US mainland. How do you say "oops" in Russian? (Google translate says, "ой". Боже мой!).
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @02:52AM
I wouldn't trust anything NBC, FOX, CNN, or the like would have to say. They don't report the news anymore, it's all speculation and wild theory.
(Score: 1) by NeoNormal on Friday September 12 2014, @01:32PM
> don't report the news anymore, it's all speculation and wild theory.
Actually, it's all a product they are selling. Invent something sensational and ride it into the ground.
(Score: 2, Informative) by gman003 on Friday September 12 2014, @03:06AM
Even if doing Soyuz training there somehow equaled recognizing the occupation, you're still making some flawed assumptions. Mainly, that NASA's loathing to use any vehicle that hasn't been tested to exhaustion and certified in triplicate outweighs America's hatred of 1938-style land grabs. They might just rush Dragon or CST-100 through testing, rather than submit to Czar Putin's demands.
I really think Putin is underestimating America's willingness to go to war over this. We've been psyching ourselves up to kick Russian ass for the past sixty years. The past decade of wars against insurgents may have made us more hesitant, but a good politician would realize they can spin it as "it's a straight-up fight, best-man-wins, no hiding behind civilians or IEDs, just two armies going at it with everything they've got". And *that* kind of war, against not just Russians, but Russians who are clearly the aggressor, being led by a guy who styles himself after Bond villains and wants to go back to the Soviet era... America can get behind a war like that. Especially since the people we'd be saving just went through pro-democracy, pro-capitalism protests that echoed our own popular sentiments, but had a much more successful protest. Even the threat of nuclear war isn't enough anymore. We both know that neither side wants this to go nuclear, so if you were willing to bet we wouldn't nuke you over Ukraine, we can bet that you aren't willing to nuke us over Ukraine.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday September 12 2014, @03:19AM
Or... you know... just requesting visas in advance from the Ukraine government through diplomatic channels?
Maybe a symbolic gesture in the defacto situation, but nobody will lose face.
Why wouldn't they request one? It's not like it's an expensive gesture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @07:09AM
Or they could even make a contract with Ukraine that Americans can visit Ukraine without a visa. It's not as if this sort of contract were anything unusual.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday September 12 2014, @02:27PM
Isn't Crimea under the *physical* control of Russia now? You can get the Ukrainian government's permission all you want but I assume there are armed Russian guards at the borders and airport(s) in Crimea itself.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @07:09AM
Exactly what i was going to say, why would they not request the visas? Just to make sure they do not accidently "recognize annexation of crimea", they should do that. Yeah, everyone knows USA will never recognize annexation of crimea and i do not understand how anyone would be fooled, that they do, even if they didn't ask for the visas. Everyone knows the Russian military is fighting in Ukraine, the only ones fooled to think that is some part of Russia, who only get their news from the official channels and who are lucky enough not to have their relatives fighting in Ukraine. Same shit. You can fool yourself as much as you like Russia, but no one is buying your crap, because it's bullshit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Friday September 12 2014, @10:41PM
Not expensive, but it could get just as complicated politically.
So they request a visa from Ukraine...but look at it from Ukraine's perspective. We want to send people to go visit a military base of an occupying foreign army. Russia just stole half their country; why should they help smooth over the US/Russia relationship? The more we hate Russia the better as far as they're concerned.
But OK, we say to them that they either issue the visas or we recognize Crimea as Russian territory. Unless they decide to make that threat itself an international incident (which probably wouldn't work; seems like that's pretty much business as usual) then it's in their best interest to issue the visa.
But what message does that send to Russia? We're asking for their help in getting our astronauts up there, but before we even send them we tell the whole world that the Russian base they're going to is illegal? That it's not even Russian? We call them a bunch of thieving warmongers and then ask for their help?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday September 14 2014, @09:48PM
Most of the Russian bases in Crimea were Russian before the take over. Ukraine allowed them to place bases there with an agreement. Sort of like how Russia has bases in Abkhazia, Armenia, Belaus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, South Ossetia, Syria, Tajikistan, Transnistria, and Vietnam (taken from wikipedia).
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by WolvesOfTheNight on Friday September 12 2014, @03:47AM
Ummmm.... OK, I agree that this could result in a rush of the current US maned space flight efforts (which could be a good thing). But "a straight-up fight" with Russia? No. They still have nukes. If the US and Russia go for a straight up fight it could easily escalate into a nuclear war. And even our two political parties are smart enough not to want that.
What can happen is yet another proxy fight with the US and Russia helping Ukraine. And that is anything but "it's a straight-up fight, best-man-wins, no hiding behind civilians or IEDs, just two armies going at it with everything they've got." It would be similar to what it is now - the Ukraine army vs limited Russian forces. Maybe the US gives the Ukraine more aide. Maybe the Russians send in more troupes. A proxy conflict, not the US vs Russia. If it really becomes US vs Russia then -the cold war is back on, and that won't be pretty.
Another option is the Ukraine developing its own nukes in order to tell Russia to F-off. Who knows, maybe Russia would. Or maybe it would get ugly quick, with Russia launching an all out attack and Ukraine using whatever nukes it has made by that time. Result: Ukraine wiped out and Russia loosing a few major targets. A conflict that I sure hope the US does not become militarily involved in.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 12 2014, @04:01AM
A better option is to pull our astronauts off the silly ISS, where nothing of value is being accomplished anyway.
Out last command to the ISS computers should probably be a large de-orbit burn, exhausting all the fuel.
In any event we should cease all supply missions and communication services and tech support and how long a bankrupt nation with no oil or gas revenue can maintain something they can't even find spare parts for. Maybe ask the Iranians how many of their Tomcat F14s are flying these days.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @04:27AM
> ask the Iranians how many of their Tomcat F14s are flying these days.
Uh, most of them? [theaviationist.com]
> how long a bankrupt nation with no oil or gas revenue
What is China smoking? [bbc.com]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 12 2014, @04:58AM
Nice try, but its an undated heavily photoshopped picture.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @06:00AM
It isn't the picture that is relevant. Nice try on the red herring though.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday September 12 2014, @01:37PM
CSA, ESA, and JAXA (all US Allies) are also invested in the ISS. The station is a good neutral zone for countries to cooperate. That is a good enough reason for its existence, imo.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 13 2014, @03:34AM
Sentimentality. Which ones of those countries will stand with us when we send a crew up there refusing to go through Crimea first? Answer: none.
Putin just declared it is no longer a neutral zone.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday September 12 2014, @04:19AM
You forgot the sarcasm tag, Komrad!
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Friday September 12 2014, @05:52AM
American politicians may be all too willing to make faces at Putin when the only lives at risk are in Ukraine, but a war between Russia and the USA risks too much. Only a few hardcore idealogues and war profiteers would think that is worthwhile.
I for one have no interest in seeing a war over the annexation of Crimea. If a unified Ukraine was so important, they should have gotten their shit together politically, instead of letting themselves be played by outsiders. Living under Putin is not good, but when your own horribly corrupt government was just overthrown and replaced by another rather dubious group are you really going to run off and get yourself killed just to preserve the status quo?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Magic Oddball on Friday September 12 2014, @06:45AM
Speak for yourself, gman003. Everyone I know that (like me) is well under 40 has never been "psyched up" to attack Russia -- we grew up during the era when Gorbachev and then Yeltsin were in charge over there, when our countries were at peace enough that American families hosted kids from Chernobyl. The threat of nuclear war, as well as the suspicion, fear and hatred we heard about have always seemed like something from the misguided past. Hopefully it will go back into the past again sometime soon.
People I know from Russia want to go about their daily lives just as much as most of us do, and are no less trapped & misrepresented by Putin & Co. than most of us were by Bush & Cheney's actions. It seems to me that it would be incredibly foolish to assume Putin will refrain from using a nuclear bomb -- he seems the sort that would use one just to assert his masculinity to the world (or otherwise intimidate any would-be enemies). They're seemingly stuck waiting him (or his ilk) out just as we were ("were" because Obama at least isn't as interested in actively attacking other nations).
Even if things didn't turn into a nuclear disaster, war sucks. "Two armies going at it" still boils down to a bunch of well-intentioned youngsters getting killed, maimed, mentally derailed by PTSD, while the people making all of the decisions (and of course the "armchair generals") sit safely back at home. That applies regardless of whether the soldiers in question are wielding fancy tech weapons in 2014, or a bayonet in 1914. There's a damn good reason that the best embedded reporters initially head overseas feeling full of righteous adventure & thinking war is a fascinating thing, and return convinced it's a horrific waste of human potential...
Not to mention that our government has spent over a decade openly rejecting the the Geneva Convention by declaring all civilians "enemy combatants" in order to "legally" torture & imprison them if convenient, and it has a long history of bombing civilian districts in cities during wars. The chances of it refraining from doing that again are very slim. It also means that any enemies we make will be willing to treat American soldiers & civilians the same way.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't help the Ukraine, just that I think you're vastly over-estimating how many people share your gung-ho "let's go kill us some reds in a good ol'-fashioned honest war" stance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @08:00AM
I'm not saying that we shouldn't help the Ukraine, just that I think you're vastly over-estimating how many people share your gung-ho "let's go kill us some reds in a good ol'-fashioned honest war" stance.
Imagine if we had a "foreign aid corps" funded to the level of the military. Where instead of dropping bombs we dropped doctors and teachers and engineers. "Smart" bombs that actually made the targeted areas smarter.
When you consider that war is always about resources and that whatever support Putin has within Ukraine has come from the alienation and disaffection of groups of ukraine citizens by the government in Kiev, it seems like the way to "win" this war isn't through fighting and economic blockades, but rather by stealing his base by giving the people what they want - a better quality of life and a larger say in how that comes to be.
Oh, and same thing with ISIS. Most of their support in the population comes from Shias in the central government ignoring and even exploiting the sunnis. If they had faith in their government they wouldn't be choosing the crazy religious nuts to make their lives better.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday September 12 2014, @01:39PM
In your opinion, what do you call an organized group of civilians shooting at you?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Friday September 12 2014, @03:46PM
Putin isn't that stupid. Everybody knows it's political suicide to deploy nuclear weapons in the age of everybody having nukes. You launch one of those larger than "tactical mini" size and you WILL have the entire world knocking on your door with every weapon they own. That's the reason the Cold War stayed cold - mutually-assured destruction. Getting to play the "I'm averting nuclear holocaust" is the biggest and easiest political card to play, if the circumstances make it plausible.
On the other hand, the American public is tired of war. Thanks to attrition in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're a bit gun-shy about sending ground troops anywhere. We'd probably be OK with building a massive drone armada and filling some of the useless remote mountainous land with cruise missile launchers though. They're just dollars, after all. And maybe, if the cards are down, an air-burst nuke at high altitude to trash all electronics in the country.
But no, Putin will not risk his kingdom over such a thing. He likes pushing his luck as far as it will go, but US defense budgets being what they are he knows that's a line he can't cross.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday September 12 2014, @11:54AM
So, you want to go to war with Russia??? Dude, wake up. It's not the 1980s any more.
And the thing about "fighting insurgents" makes me want to laugh. Who armed, trained and financed those "insurgents", calling them "freedom fighters"? Who illegally and illegitimately occupied countries and toppled leaders who kept those "insurgents" at bay?
And the worse thing it that you don't learn. You never learn. You still support religious lunatics, fascists and gangsters whenever you think you can get the slightest short-term advantage. When they turn around to bite you in the ass, you call them "insurgents" and then proceed to fuck it up even more.
"saving people"??? Come on, spare us the Captain America propaganda. The only people saved by the US meddling all around the world are your corporate lords. The rest just gets fucked, including the American people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @06:54AM
What's stopping the US government from requesting visas for Crimea and the Ukrainian government from granting them?
Can't be reality, we're talking about politics, after all.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday September 12 2014, @07:19AM
Nothing, probably. Good luck getting into Crimea on one of those, though.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday September 12 2014, @07:05AM
I do not understand what in the world could PREVENT astronauts from requesting and receiving Ukrainian visas, even if they won't be necessary. This is a non-issue.
Oh, by the way, I am well aware of the Ukrainian problem, and of course I have my own opinion about this whole mess - as well as the article's author. But this change of training location creates no political pressure whatsoever, as far as I can see. The article even points out that Crimea was always, until recently, a site of such training. Black Sea certainly is far more appropriate than a small lake where you can see the shore from any point. You can train in Crimea when all the lakes around Moscow are frozen solid (that is about 5-6 months in a year - not a negligible impact on schedules!) There are certainly purely technical reasons to move training to more suitable facilities once they became available.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday September 12 2014, @07:24AM
They can request and receive them, but can they use them to get into Crimea?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday September 12 2014, @07:55AM
Astronauts will not need them. They will fly to Crimea from Russia on an airplane, and nobody will ask them for a visa. They don't need to do anything to get anywhere. It's not their job anyway - their hosts will take care of all the paperwork, tickets, charter flights, hotels, vehicles, appointments, and a million other things.
They are welcome to request an Ukrainian visa, of course. Who can stop them? It will be a stamp in their passports. If they want they can go to Kiev, for example. Or not go there. They are free people. If they obtain the visa, they still can go to Russian Crimea. This is what I would do, were I working for NASA. It's a non-issue, and the article's premise that they "cannot or will not get a visa" is clearly wrong.
Besides, the article's author is thinking too much into this. Possession is what, 90% of the law? Why would Russia need to use an obscure US agency to feebly make a point if Russia, as matter of fact, owns the territory now, and parks its Black Sea Fleet there? Who would need that "proof" and how would one use it? I don't see any reason to even bother. Who cares what anyone thinks? (c) W :-)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday September 12 2014, @03:30PM
While possession is 90% of the *pragmatic* law, politics is notably not known for pragmatism. Politics is all about out-talking your opponent until the bullets start flying.
cf. de facto & de jure
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by octalrage on Friday September 12 2014, @09:16AM
Crimea has been a province of Ukraine for some time now. Russia is promoting the idea that Crimea is no longer part of Ukraine, and as such a Ukrainian VISA no longer grants access to Crimea. The political move here isn't to affect how the US populace thinks. The move is to foster the notion, amongst Russians, that the US is weak.
The idea of space exploration is numinous to many Russians. A lot of them think the US stole their thunder. The idea they can take it back could raise a lot of heads amongst their people.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday September 12 2014, @03:27PM
How is the quality of available lakes relevant to space training? Other than splashdown training if we're talking non-shuttle missions...and don't the Russians "land" their flights on land anyway? (with parachutes I doubt it really matters if it's land or sea)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday September 12 2014, @04:49PM
It's psychologically harder if you land into water and cannot see the shore. The article specifically mentions why water landings are considered a possibility - there had been one water landing already, into a lake in the steppe, however statistically improbable that may sound.
(Score: 1) by lentilla on Friday September 12 2014, @07:24AM
If Russia wants to play silly diplomatic games, then the USA should respond in a good-humoured fashion. It's not worth going to war over.
Simply create a multinational company that employs astronauts (formerly employed by NASA). Then NASA outsources "astronautical services" to this multinational. As a result the astronauts are not government employees.
Hats off to Russia - well played. It has strong parallels with the (fictional) "Yes, Prime Minister" episode "A Diplomatic Incident" where the French attempt to embarrass the British over an un-quarantined puppy arriving under diplomatic immunity.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @02:39PM
The astronauts are no longer government employees, and no longer part of NASA. So there is also no longer any contract between Russia and the astronauts meaning that Russia can now change the conditions under which the astronauts can get to space. Like they have to first kiss Putin's hand, record a video praising Russia, then pay a few additional M$ over the going price before being allowed near anything that can get their ass to the ISS.
And that's just for getting there, getting back is a different matter altogether.
(Score: 1) by FuzzyTheBear on Friday September 12 2014, @11:46AM
When the shuttle was scrapped , i saw no alternative than dismantling the station and ditch it in the ocean. If the US don't have a vehicle to go there , it's finished . To be at the mercy of Russia ( the arch villain enemy of the US ) for transport to and from the station is simply ridiculous. Too late now to think this through .. Question is , is the station worth saving in the first place ? For some reason .. i'm not so sure that the answer ain't to ditch it in the ocean. It will never serve as a platform to Mars or other planets. Ain't it time to go ?
Shut it down and accidentally ditch it on Moscow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @01:33PM
all the critical parts of the iss are russian anyway
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12 2014, @04:31PM
Since it's "International", could either the US or Russia block the other country from physical access to the station? Are there locks on the ports? Inside or outside? How would either side respond in that situation? Who controls the thrusters? Can either country de-orbit the station, with or without the other country's astronauts aboard?