Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday January 12 2016, @08:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the boosters-boosters dept.

Congress ain't walkin' the way it's talkin'? When it comes to rocket engines, it appears that Congress sucks it up, and quite silently at that as well. From the article:

For the global public looking on, flooded daily with news and op-eds about how much of a threat Russia is to global peace and stability, the fact that the US Department of Defense is still essentially buying rockets from Russia to put American satellites into orbit should serve as a reminder that nothing resembling actual principles, facts or honesty guides US foreign policy or how it is presented across US and European media.

If the US finds itself unable to justify continued sanctions against Russian rockets — rockets used in vital roles for maintaining US defense capabilities — how is the US continuing to justify other sanctions against Russia that remain in place? Are these sanctions in place simply because the businesses being hurt by them across the West lack the lobbying power of Boeing and Lockheed Martin? And are we expected to continue believing Russia is such a "threat" but still America's primary partner in launching defense satellites into space, not to mention American and European astronauts and supply missions to the International Space Station?"


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Geezer on Tuesday January 12 2016, @10:51AM

    by Geezer (511) on Tuesday January 12 2016, @10:51AM (#288590)

    Rocket engines, medical research, and space exploration are just a few of the areas in which mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia is suffering due to jingoistic dick-waving. US foreign policy is still governed by the Cold War/neo-con interventionist mentality, and the neocons get really butt-hurt whenever Russia or anyone else asserts themselves. Since the 1940's, the US foreign policy establishment and the military-industrial-banking complex have striven for global hegemony, and, sadly, probably always will.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @01:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @01:34PM (#288617)

      Neoconservatism as a unique force was a Democrat movement from the late 1960's led by Scoop Jackson, Dan Moynihan, and Jean Kirkpatrick to continue stuffing the scarecrow the Dulles Brothers built. Today's "neocons" like Cheney and the Clintons are Johnnies-come-lately.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dublet on Tuesday January 12 2016, @01:44PM

      by dublet (2994) on Tuesday January 12 2016, @01:44PM (#288622)

      Does "jingoistic dick-waving", as you so eloquently put it, ever make things any better for people?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 12 2016, @07:09PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday January 12 2016, @07:09PM (#288740) Journal

        Does "jingoistic dick-waving", as you so eloquently put it, ever make things any better for people?
         
        It makes some people really rich. Does that count?

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by pk on Tuesday January 12 2016, @02:26PM

      by pk (2591) on Tuesday January 12 2016, @02:26PM (#288636) Homepage
      Ah, so you consider it to be "assertive" when Russia invades a foreign country? Even when they have a treaty with said country and the United States to respect that country's borders?

      It's a shame you aren't my neighbor. I could come and "assert" myself over your property. Would you still call it being "assertive" then?

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 12 2016, @03:06PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday January 12 2016, @03:06PM (#288649)

        I remember reading that the U.S.-Russian-Ukrainian agreement you're referring to was a lot less than a "treaty" but can't seem to find any trace of it on Wikipedia anymore, oddly. Wasn't it a NATO resolution? I can't be imagining this...

        On the other hand, clearly Russia and Ukraine had a treaty.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday January 12 2016, @11:07PM

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday January 12 2016, @11:07PM (#288841)
        Not that I'm going to pretend the Russians are a bunch of angels, you are aware that the list of countries invaded by the US is pretty extensive aren't you?

        Off the top of my head:

        • Nicaragua
        • Mexico
        • Haiti
        • Dominican Republic
        • Chile

        The Russians are just doing what all powerful countries do to their weaker neighbours, intervening to protect their own interests. The US has been doing it since 1801.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 13 2016, @03:17PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday January 13 2016, @03:17PM (#289083)

          If by 1801 you're referring to the Barbary Wars, some interesting snippets from Wikipedia:

          According to Robert Davis, between 1 and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves between the 16th and 19th centuries.

          And that's not even counting the ones who got successfully ransomed back.

          Barbary corsairs led attacks upon American merchant shipping in an attempt to extort ransom for the lives of captured sailors, and ultimately tribute from the United States to avoid further attacks, as they did with the various European states.

          The U.S. Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson, decided to send envoys to Morocco and Algeria to try to purchase treaties and the freedom of the captured sailors held by Algeria.[7] Morocco was the first Barbary Coast State to sign a treaty with the U.S., on 23 June 1786. This treaty formally ended all Moroccan piracy against American shipping interests.

          All four Barbary Coast states demanded $660,000 each. However, the envoys were given only an allocated budget of $40,000 to achieve peace.

          In 1795, Algeria came to an agreement that resulted in the release of 115 American sailors they held, at a cost of over $1 million. This amount totaled about one-sixth of the entire U.S. budget,[12] and was demanded as tribute by the Barbary States to prevent further piracy. The continuing demand for tribute ultimately led to the formation of the United States Department of the Navy,

          Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. [...] The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships and the return of American hostages.[citation needed] A $1 million payment in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to approximately 10% of the U.S. government's annual revenues in 1800.[24]

          Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, on 10 May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate.[26] Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.

          So I think complaining about meddling in foreign affairs in this case is a bit unfair. These pirates were obviously a pain in everyone's asses and the U.S. was expected to pay a million bucks a year indefinitely?

          Hell, the U.S. wasn't even the one who declared war.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday January 13 2016, @10:05PM

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday January 13 2016, @10:05PM (#289290)

            You're quite right about the Barbary pirates, if Britain hadn't been so busy at the time I'm sure they would have help out too.

            I guess the point I was trying to make is that the US has a history of interfering in all sorts of other countries affairs too, almost every Central or South American country has had some sort of CIA naughtiness happen at some stage including overthrowing democratically elected governments.

            I don't think the Iranians have forgotten 1953 either.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 13 2016, @10:24PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday January 13 2016, @10:24PM (#289297)

              Yeah, no argument there. Too much meddling.

              Apparently after one of the Barbary states reneged on one of their agreements, Britain did in fact send a small fleet and basically bombarded them until they agreed to abide by it, heh heh.

              --
              "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, Offtopic) by khallow on Tuesday January 12 2016, @03:26PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 12 2016, @03:26PM (#288655) Journal
      The butthurt from nation-states asserting themselves can get pretty severe such as when six million Jews were butthurt to death by Nazi Germany (the overall butthurt during the Second World War from nation-states asserting themselves was on the order of 100 million deaths) or Pol Pot butthurt a million Cambodians, making piles of their skulls. Maybe you ought to go back to the kiddie pool.
      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @05:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @05:15PM (#288691)

        such as when six blah blah ...

        Meanwhile in the Soviet Union, about 60 million people were killed by Stalin. And those were real, productive, healthy people; not Jew parasites killed to make lampshades and soap. But I'm sure that doesn't fit in with your propaganda.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @07:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @07:14PM (#288742)

      Compared to how wonderfully well behaved the russians have been, just attacking other countries, taking their land, lieing, threatning everyone with nucular weapons like some cheap ass north Korea copy. Hmm looks to me that the only one doing the dick-waving is Putin and his serfs.

      Instead of using money for something useful, the russians are using that money to build up the military like there's no tomorrow. The only one threatning russia is russia itself. No one is attacking there and the sanctions are a direct result of russian actions.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @08:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @08:33PM (#288776)

        russians are using that money to build up the military like there's no tomorrow

        Do you have evidence to back that up? Is there a real threat to anyone?

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @11:52AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @11:52AM (#288599)

    If Russia is really considered a threat, then it only makes sense that the US should buy up as many Russian rockets as possible. The fewer they have to attach to long-range missiles, the better!

    • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Tuesday January 12 2016, @06:34PM

      by gman003 (4155) on Tuesday January 12 2016, @06:34PM (#288723)

      Decent joke, but that wouldn't actually work. Liquid-fueled rockets aren't that well suited for combat use - solid-fueled rockets are more compact, can sit indefinitely in launch configuration, do not require pre-launch fueling, cryogenic fuels (which are difficult to store) or toxic fuels (which require complicated, dangerous handling).

      All modern American ICBMs, and most modern Russian ICBMs, use solid fuels for this reason. And solid rockets don't really have separate "fuel" and "motor" parts - it's all built as one coherent unit. We have never really bought solid rockets from Russia, for the simple fact that they aren't particularly good at it.

      The "national security implications" of rocket engines is simply access-to-space - our ability to put navigation, recon or ELINT satellites into orbit. In theory, Russia could sabotage the engines they sell to us as a prelude to war (or simply stop selling them to us, if they want to be honest about it). This is fairly improbable, but military planners are paid to be paranoid about such things, and (re-)developing a completely native space industry has enough other benefits to be well worth it.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday January 12 2016, @12:38PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 12 2016, @12:38PM (#288601)

    rockets used in vital roles for maintaining US defense capabilities

    Typical military vs civilian confusion.

    From a world trade crony capitalist perspective the world should only have one immense factory in China producing everything for the planet to optimize efficiency or whatever.

    From a military perspective when you rely on other countries for your weapons you have slit your own throat. So ramping up production and R+D of Russian ICBM engines is a really dumb idea unless you want Moscow dictating your foreign policy. Its a small but additive effect. Note that we've been in proxy war with Russia pretty much since the end of WWII so it matters all the time, not just WWIII. You can talk all you want about "end of the cold war" but just one example is we overthrew the government of the Crimea and the Russians marched their military right in and fixed our mess.

    Its very bad for world peace from a deterrence / MAD standpoint. If we ever suspect that our ICBMs are untrustworthy because however tangentially the Russians owned them or destroyed our own R+D economically or whatever, from a game theory perspective we must start WWIII immediately by launching before the Russians figure out we're weak and our ICBMs won't work. Without the "Mutually Assured" part of MAD, we have to get in the best position we can, then launch. A nuclear WWIII would be pretty bad for all concerned even if we "won" so it would be in the planets best interest to make sure we have our own, self constructed, trustworthy weapons.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @12:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @12:54PM (#288606)

      We use Russian boosters for the satellite launch portion of our "defense capabilities", not the ICBM part.

      Our deterrent force is as reliable as Thiokol, Hercules, and Aerojet can make it!

      Bet you feel safer now.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @01:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @01:23PM (#288610)

      "overthrew the government of the Crimea"
      WTF are you talking about?
      The ukrainean people wanted to be rid of russian puppets in their government, and they revolted.
      The russian puppets started shooting at them, but the people still wanted them out.
      Russia's leaders decided that they weren't going to take this from ukrainean peasants just like that, so they took away Crimea *from the Ukraine*.

      EU and the US had nothing to do with it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @08:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @08:06PM (#288763)

      Can't provide citation but this is for those who want to know what to research on this: it may interest you to know that, given that open war between Rus/Chin and US is highly probable during 2016, there have already been secret negotiations for a peaceful "reset" in world geopolitics to avoid the mass casualties and risk that all sides will lose any control over the planet. So seeing apparently contradictory reports on US/Russia cooperation should be a cue to ask the question on what was actually negotiated.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @09:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @09:31PM (#288805)

        Take your meds.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by gman003 on Tuesday January 12 2016, @03:02PM

    by gman003 (4155) on Tuesday January 12 2016, @03:02PM (#288648)

    Who uses Russian engines in the US?

    United Launch Alliance's Atlas V, mainly. It uses the RD-180. ULA is "Big Rocketry", as it were - a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. They were basically a monopoly within the US until only a few years back - anything that needed to launch from American soil, ie. DoD or NRO payloads, went to them and only them. They've got a lot of lobbyists in Congress trying to put things back the way they were, because they're getting undercut pretty hard on prices now, and won't be able to fight fair. This is all that's going on with this - they're being hurt more by the rocket sanctions than SpaceX or the others are, so they're bribing Congress to help them out.

    For full information, Orbital Sciences also uses the Russian-sold NK-33, but a) they're a very small player, and b) they've grounded the Antares until they find a new engine. And OSC has been kind of a parasitic player anyways - all of their other rockets are decommissioned ICBMs, and the NK-33 is literally using Apollo-era engines (the NK-33 was built for the Soviet equivalent of the Saturn V... then stuck in a warehouse for fifty years when it got canceled). So I doubt they're the ones behind this.

  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday January 12 2016, @05:11PM

    by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday January 12 2016, @05:11PM (#288689)

    Perhaps one big reason we can't stop buying from the Russians is because doing so would imply we need to maintain our military separate from trade with them. And obviously if we're going to consider them anything other than our sworn ally, that's true, but what does it say diplomatically? Cutting trade ties is cutting trade ties and may escalate conflict.

    That said we shouldn't be in this situation in the first place. Relying on Russia for rockets is a bad idea, but what are you going to do when Congress doesn't want to actually pay for them? It's just NASA after all. It's not like space has national security implications</sarcasm>.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @05:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 12 2016, @05:14PM (#288690)

    So does Putin pay for these personally or does it show up as a line item in Russia's budget?

  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday January 12 2016, @06:01PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday January 12 2016, @06:01PM (#288709)

    Some tried to warn that eliminating our space program would put us in a situation of dependence on Russian lift capacity. Some said there would be national security implications. All were ignored and our space program wound down. We critics were assured that the smartest man to trod the Earth was in charge and nothing could possibly go wrong. As usual the smartest man ever has proven himself an idiot surrounded by morons.

    Hope springs eternal that repeated lessons will eventually sink into irrational heads but irrational, emotional children don't think; but they are allowed to vote and thus we are likely to continue being humiliated until we follow the British into the history books under the deading of Death by Democracy.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2016, @11:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2016, @11:22PM (#289317)

    should serve as a reminder that nothing resembling actual principles, facts or honesty guides US foreign policy or how it is presented across US and European media.

    HERP, PROPAGANDISTS propagandize PROPAGANDA!

    DERP, while we give up rights to fight influences of the "other", we welcome said "other" in space: "Thanks for the resupply comrade, you're a boon to capitalism my communist friend!".

    let this be a lesson. Human colonization of space breeds international cooperation (the true purpose of NASA).