Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Halts Non-ISS Work With Russia Over Ukraine Crisis

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

NASA 291

An anonymous reader writes "The Verge reports on an internal memo from NASA indicating that they've suspended all contracts and activities with Russia that aren't involved with operating the International Space Station. Quoting: 'Given Russia's ongoing violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, until further notice, the U.S. Government has determined that all NASA contacts with Russian Government representatives are suspended, unless the activity has been specifically excepted. This suspension includes NASA travel to Russia and visits by Russian Government representatives to NASA facilities, bilateral meetings, email, and teleconferences or videoconferences. At the present time, only operational International Space Station activities have been excepted.' NASA Administrator Charles Bolden argued recently that our dependence on Russia for putting astronauts into space needs to end."

cancel ×

291 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Politcs vs. Science (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642063)

It's really too bad these have to get in the way.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (5, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 6 months ago | (#46642107)

This. NASA is not a political body and should not act like one.

If an anti-science President gets elected in 2016, will the world refuse to stop working with the USA? If they did, wouldn't we be upset?

Russia didn't refuse to work with the USA when America invaded Iraq, did they?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46642143)

No, Russia looked the other way. They did not care.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1, Flamebait)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#46642237)

Most people look the other way when a roid-raging bully crosses their path, especially when you have to do business with that bully. It doesn not mean they do not care. At least Canada had the guts to reply to bush's "your either with us, or against us." with a slightly peeved "whatever".

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642435)

No, Russia looked the other way. They did not care

That's an absolutely stunning degree of revisionism you've got there. Actually,

Russia provided intelligence to Iraq's government on US military movements in the opening days of the US-led invasion in 2003, a Pentagon report released today said.

Source (there are many): http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10374415

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1, Insightful)

kwiecmmm (1527631) | about 6 months ago | (#46642159)

If an anti-science President gets elected in 2016, will the world refuse to stop working with the USA? If they did, wouldn't we be upset?

Most of the world didn't care that much about our previous president...

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

galloog1 (3433335) | about 6 months ago | (#46642267)

Would you rather war? Economics also has nothing to do with politics except that it involves cooperation between countries to further mutual benefit. These sanctions are a temporary issue but serve severe medium term benefit.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

neonKow (1239288) | about 6 months ago | (#46642465)

There are plenty of other things we can sanction. Scientific progress is a stupid one to choose.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2, Insightful)

bobbied (2522392) | about 6 months ago | (#46642283)

Russia didn't refuse to work with the USA when America invaded Iraq, did they?

No, they didn't, but it was obvious to everybody and clear from history that the USA wasn't interested in annexing Iraq into US territory. So the comparison to what Russia has done with part of Ukraine is a false one. They split up a sovereign country, then annexed parts of it after invading it. Seems clear to me that Iraq remains it's own entity, despite the US winning decisive military actions in Iraq TWICE. Time and time again, the USA has taken territory it could have just kept for itself, but we insist on giving it back to the people we took it from. Iraq is it's own sovereign country, we didn't keep even a runway or military base there, but left when the elected government of the country told us to leave.

Now if the USA was out capturing territory and then annexing it into the US you could make the comparison. But we don't do that, and haven't acted like an imperial power, increasing our borders though military force, for a LONG time.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642409)

but it was obvious to everybody and clear from history that the USA wasn't interested in annexing Iraq into US territory

Not only wasn't it "obvious," but it still isn't. Iraq is still controlled by a U.S. puppet government to this day.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642477)

Russia annexed the part of Ukraine which was part of Russia for 200 years prior to 1964. It was done by force and it was done at the moment when Ukraine was at the lowest point. But it happened without any casualties from both sides and Russia will be subsidizing Crimea for foreseeable future. USA invaded Iraq, killed over 100 thousand people, caught and hung Saddam, put in place controlled government that gave all oil contracts to US companies, now profiting from high oil prices. No need to annex Iraq in such scenario.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 6 months ago | (#46642797)

It's not about the individual conflicts. The world has seen what modern wars of conquest look like, last time we had one tens of millions of people were killed. Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, while undeniably terrible, don't escalate to the world stage the way wars of conquest do. The fact that relations are currently described as being as poor as they have been since the cold war is a bad thing, we were supposed to have gotten paste the specter of world powers directly clashing against each other. I understand that we did it by proxy anyway for the past 30 years, but proxy is a lot less messy than outright conflict which has become a serious possibility over the past couple of months.

As for Crimea being "part of Russia for 200 years prior to 1964", I bet one could find numerous areas where the same would hold true, I'd rather not have everyone running around annexing land simply because they held it half a century ago.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

brainboyz (114458) | about 6 months ago | (#46642833)

Minimal casualties. It wasn't bloodless.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (4, Insightful)

mar.kolya (2448710) | about 6 months ago | (#46642511)

Iraq is it's own sovereign country, we didn't keep even a runway or military base there, but left when the elected government of the country told us to leave.

This is very much a matter of opinion. US had left when people in Iraq had elected government US wanted. Does this make Iraq a sovereign country? I think not. Iraq is pretty much controlled by US. As well as all NATO countries, especially east European ones. BTW, did anybody invited US into Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? So yeah, look at yourself first and mind your own business - and your business has nothing to do with east Europe. US has much more imperial ambitions than any other country.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Servaas (1050156) | about 6 months ago | (#46642527)

Oh please! In all but name is Iraq now an American state. It had an evil dictator but the country "worked" for the most part. Now its controlled by US interest groups lording over all the mayor oil refineries. And the country itself is still "Working" the exact same way. People kill other people over beliefs.

At least with Russia their upfront about taking ownership of a piece of land.

I'm 33 years old, democrat, dutch guy who used to believe we needed to look to our big brother country America but these days i'm feeling more and more that Russia (doing pretty well atm jobs, income, healthcare) and the imo very sexy Putin are maybe another way of doing things...

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642835)

In all but name is Iraq now an American state

I can't wait until Iraq starts paying taxes to the US, then!

People kill other people over beliefs

You really think that happens all the time in the USA? You watch too many movies.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642603)

USA invaded Iraq and scared and killed thousands of people. Then it controlled its territory while people of Iraq went to polls to vote. The vote was considered democratic and the results were recognized.

Russia invaded Crimea in a peaceful way and didn't kill anybody. Then it controlled its territory while people of Crimea went to polls to vote. Despite numerous international observers and absence of any concerns from them, US doesn't want to recognize this vote.

Looks like hypocrisy and double-standards.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 months ago | (#46642749)

US doesn't want to recognize this vote.

Of course not - most of the US States would be better off leaving the Empire. USG can't possibly recognize a peaceful secession.

It's hard to make a case for why Vermont e.g. wouldn't be better off as a province of Canada than a State of the US.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

schlachter (862210) | about 6 months ago | (#46642643)

there is the argument, of course, that these people want to be part of russia as they historically had been until the 50's when russia gave the territory away to ukraine.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 6 months ago | (#46642285)

> This. NASA is not a political body and should not act like one.

NASA is an agency of a government that's a part of the alliance that is supposed to defend a number of countries that are likely Putin targets.

NASA should not be dependent on Russia right now any more than they should have been dependent on the Soviet Union when it was still around.

Lack of self-reliance can be a right b*tch sometimes. You never know what kind of abusive crap you will have to tolerate.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 6 months ago | (#46642469)

Not having the USA flag floating over Iraq doesn't mean they don't control it. The USA has been very good at injecting puppets so that political control remains possible. Not saying that these are vile intensions but they do benefit them in the end. After all, if you go fight a war and move the dictator out, the last thing you want is another dictator showing up and the best way to avoid that is political control.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

butalearner (1235200) | about 6 months ago | (#46642579)

The USA has been very good at injecting puppets so that political control remains possible.

I don't know about that. I mean, we try our best, but I wouldn't say we're good at it.

Russia is no longer a democracy (1)

coolmanxx (150620) | about 6 months ago | (#46642293)

NASA is under no obligation to work with Russia. Fast track Elon Musk, keep it American.

Fuck Elon Musk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642565)

It takes a seller 60 days to get paid off ebay/paypal. By the people are probably already homeless and cant pay their bills.

But Elon Musk has a spaceship!

Re:Politcs vs. Science (3, Insightful)

cyn1c77 (928549) | about 6 months ago | (#46642297)

This. NASA is not a political body and should not act like one.

You're joking right?

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is a government organization that has to appeal to the president and Congress every year for funding and scope. Their employees are considered federal employees on the GS (general schedule) pay scale. NASA has both "national" and "administration" in the title. It doesn't get any more political than that.

How are they NOT a political body?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642327)

America annexed Iraq?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642655)

America annexed Iraq?

They annexed Florida, Hawaii and Alaska. They failed to annex Cuba but still try hard. They also have military bases around the world the same way Russia have military in Crimea. If there was a threat to the US control of these military bases you can bet Obama would react the same was Putin did.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642331)

Too bad Russia didnt suspend its contracts with NASA back in '99 when the US bombed the shit out of Serbia in order to free Kosovo. But yeah that was the good ol' yankees liberating the "enslaved" 40% of Albanian Kosovars from the evil Serbian rule.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

quantaman (517394) | about 6 months ago | (#46642415)

This. NASA is not a political body and should not act like one.

If an anti-science President gets elected in 2016, will the world refuse to stop working with the USA? If they did, wouldn't we be upset?

Russia didn't refuse to work with the USA when America invaded Iraq, did they?

I'm a huge opponent of the Iraq war but I consider Russia's actions in Ukraine quite a bit more objectionable than the US's actions in Iraq.

I think there's two parts to NASA, there's the straight science part and the space exploration part. The science part should mostly ignore the politics and ideally not be affected by the crisis. But the space exploration aspect doesn't have a lot of practical impact at this point and is more symbolic and aspiration, I'm still not sure if I agree with it, but a given the primary product of the space program is prestige it does make sense to use it to punish Russia for political reasons.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (4, Informative)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 6 months ago | (#46642533)

Is it really more objectionable?

Maybe the news I'm seeing isn't accurate but it appears the majority of people currently "invaded" wants to join Russia. Hope is all those people want and joining a large world force/economy is something that can provide people with a better life. Especially considering that a large percentage of this population is of Russian background.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46642759)

You mean the ones that are being interviewed want it? Or do you mean that ones that live there? Because they are 2 very different groups.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 6 months ago | (#46642951)

Yes it is more objectionable.

If the people want to join Russia, why don't they emmigrate? Russia took sovereign land from Ukraine and made it Russian. That isn't even demonstrably close to what the US did and it directly violated a treaty that Russia had signed.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

ravenlord_hun (2715033) | about 6 months ago | (#46642617)

You didn't find a few hundred thousands getting killed objectionable - while one (reportedly anyway) guy getting killed you did?

I'm sorry, but... what?

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46642867)

First off, there are several issues with Iraq:
1) W/neo-cons DID invade Iraq wrongly. OTOH, the Iraqi's were happy to have us do it and rid themselves of him.
2) The real issue is that W/neo-cons basically occupied Iraq and was attempting to steal their oil.
3) Under O, we have given back the nation to their citizens. IOW, it remains whole, though it is pretty much in civil war due to W/neo-con's occupation allowing AQ to sneak in (and no doubt it will be one for many military books on HOW TO NOT RUN A WAR).

Russia's issues are very different:
1) Putin/Russia invaded Crimea and took control of it. In addition, they are anexxing it back into Russia. Considering that Crimea has historically been Russian (200 years worth until around 1960), I have less issues about this.
2) Putin/Russia are waiting to invade Ukraine. These is all territory that has ALWAYS been Ukraine. The Russians that are living there now, come in with the USSR. IOW, they were transplanted there.
3) the areas that Putin/Russia wants, are all related to oil, nat gas, and piplines. Think that there is a reason for it?

They are somewhat similar, but Putin/Russia IS far worse because it is a grab for oil/gas. This is leading to them wanting to control this so as to control Western Europe.
In addition, if it happens, Russia is counting on nations like Germany and Italy to do NOTHING since they both depend heavily on Russian energy.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#46642923)

3) Under O, we have given back the nation to their citizens. IOW, it remains whole, though it is pretty much in civil war due to W/neo-con's occupation allowing AQ to sneak in (and no doubt it will be one for many military books on HOW TO NOT RUN A WAR).

It should, perhaps, be noted that the schedule for withdrawal from Iraq that O used was the one written (and agreed to by both Congress and the Iraqi government) by W a couple years earlier.

No, Obama didn't get us out of Iraq early, contrary to what you may have heard.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 6 months ago | (#46642601)

No, because everybody hated Saddam.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 6 months ago | (#46642831)

NASA is not a political body

Did you happen to notice the story title?

Perhaps NASA used to be different, but today, for the money it spends, it functions mostly as a way for Congressmen to funnel cash back to their home district.

At this point, they should just spin off JPL as a non-profit and sell the rest to SpaceX for launch vouchers. With level funding *much* more science would actually get done.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642357)

Wait until the astronauts need to return to Earth or require supplies. Who will NASA turn to for assistance? Politics should never enter into sceince. NASA is a scientific organisation not a political body. Obama pounding his chest imitating a gorilla. Meanwhile, Putin strokes the Siberian Tiger laying in his lap. Curious George versus Dr. Evil.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Megane (129182) | about 6 months ago | (#46642629)

Wait until the astronauts need to return to Earth

That is handled by default. It is a requirement for ISS to have enough seats docked for everyone on board to get down to earth. Of course that depends on the Soyuz going down with all seats occupied.

or require supplies.

Fortunately, that's under control with the commercial cargo launches, aside from ground problems delaying Dragon or Cygnus from getting up there. (The Air Force radar system that confirms launches are not off-track is currently broken, holding up the launches of both Dragon and a new spy satellite.)

Re:Politcs vs. Science (2)

BradMajors (995624) | about 6 months ago | (#46642829)

My prediction is Russia is about to increase their rates for supplying the ISS.

Re:Politcs vs. Science (1)

Megane (129182) | about 6 months ago | (#46642561)

At least this is a change from the usual politics that get in the way of space science. Usually it's Congress messing with the NASA budget to protect the pork of legacy "OldSpace" jobs that have been threatened since the end of the Shuttle. We've already had to extend buying rides from Russia for three more years because Congress keeps underfunding the Commercial Crew program. At least SpaceX shows every indication of plowing ahead with their own manned spaceflight projects in spite of all that bullshit.

How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642071)

That's why they NEED Putin. Suck his ball, NASA!

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (2)

camperdave (969942) | about 6 months ago | (#46642191)

SpaceX is not too far from manned launches. Of course, if NASA had gone ahead with Orion and Jupiter-Direct, the US would have manned space flight capabilities by now.

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46642393)

uh, no.

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (2)

blueturffan (867705) | about 6 months ago | (#46642405)

SpaceX is not too far from manned launches.

I believe the most optimistic schedule has a manned launch sometime mid-2015. I'd guess early 2016 as the soonest we'll see a manned SpaceX launch.

Of course, if NASA had gone ahead with Orion and Jupiter-Direct, the US would have manned space flight capabilities by now.

It would be great to have an Orion capsule ready to launch on a SpaceX Falcon9 rocket. Unfortunately the rest of the Constellation program was so horribly over budget and behind schedule that it needed to be shut down.

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 6 months ago | (#46642729)

They should have shitcanned Ares-1 from the start, and gone with Ares-V.

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (1)

Megane (129182) | about 6 months ago | (#46642707)

SpaceX is not too far from manned launches.

The word I've heard is that they simply don't have enough free time (their satellite launch business is doing very well) to do it in 2014, so it's pretty likely to be next year.

if NASA had gone ahead with Orion

...they wouldn't have had any budget left to actually go anywhere. Or at least not anywhere Congress could agree to let them.

Seriously, go read this guy's stuff, he explains a lot about NASA's budget troubles: http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:How else is NASA going to get there otherwise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642423)

Ha! He does have one ball doesn't he.

Wait... (5, Insightful)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | about 6 months ago | (#46642095)

Isn't this the sort of thing that the ISS collaboration was supposed to prevent?

Re:Wait... (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#46642137)

Only on paper. The truth is that NASA and Russia have been at each others' throats from day one. Remember how pissy NASA got when Russia one-upped them on the first space tourist [wikipedia.org] ? It was like watching a jealous child throw a goddamn temper tantrum.

Re:Wait... (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 6 months ago | (#46642185)

The ISS collaboration was a make-work program to ensure Russian engineers didn't run off to work for states in the axis-of-evil just to put food on the table. That's why a lot of dodgy MIR-2 bits were shoehorned into the design. Now that the Russian economy is in a better condition than in the 90's they don't need to be beholden to us especially when they control the manned launch services industry now.

Re:Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642235)

Funny, the collaboration does continue on the ISS.

I tell you what--I sure was mighty sad to see the last Space Shuttle on its pad. I went to Cape Canaveral and saw Atlantis on its pad before it made its final launch.

Re:Wait... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#46642873)

Funny, the collaboration does continue on the ISS.

For now. Until I noticed it was 2014 today, I thought "am I watching 2010 [imdb.com] again?" :-)

MAIN SCREEN TURN ON (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 6 months ago | (#46642439)

It was the dawn of the Third Age of Mankind, ten years after the second Iraq War. The ISS Project was a dream given form. Its goal: to prevent another war by creating a place where Americans and Russians could work out their differences peacefully. It's a port of call - home away from home for astronauts, cosmonauts, scientists, and tourists. Russians and Americans wrapped in 450,000 kilograms of spinning metal, all alone in the night. It can be a dangerous place, but it's our last best hope for peace. This is the story of the last of the IIS stations. The year is 2014. The name of the place is the IIS.

WOW. SO FUTAR. Just like when they quarantined Clavius base.

Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (4, Funny)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#46642097)

Gas, grass, or ass--no one rides Soyuz for free!

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46642129)

The good news is that SpaceX can actually be ready to send man up there within 1 year (6 months if the house republicans will quit blocking funding for private space and increase it to less than 2 B for this year). And we can actually bring ppl down in less than 1 month. Issue solved.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642203)

Call me when SpaceX has a safety record that even begins to compare with Soyuz.

obvious troll is so obvious you can't see him. (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 6 months ago | (#46642505)

Oh come on, you're being unrealistically tough on a fledgling company. Can't they first shoot for the Shuttle's safety record?

Soyuz slightly worse than shuttle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642765)

Call me when SpaceX has a safety record that even begins to compare with Soyuz.

Oh come on, you're being unrealistically tough on a fledgling company. Can't they first shoot for the Shuttle's safety record?

Actually, Soyuz has (just slightly) a worse safety record than the Shuttle. As of March 2014, Soyuz had two fatal accidents in 121 launches (also, two serious aborts).

It also had some pretty hair-raising close-calls on re-entries.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (1)

blueturffan (867705) | about 6 months ago | (#46642625)

4 people have died in 2 separate Soyuz accidents.

There have been other non-fatal incidents in Soyuz. Here's just one such example:

April 19: Soyuz TMA-11 suffered a reentry mishap similar to that suffered by Soyuz 5 in 1969. The service module failed to completely separate from the reentry vehicle and caused it to face the wrong way during the early portion of aerobraking. As with Soyuz 5, the service module eventually separated and the reentry vehicle completed a rough but survivable landing. Following the Russian news agency Interfax's report, this was widely reported as life-threatening while NASA urged caution pending an investigation of the vehicle. South Korean astronaut Yi So-Yeon was hospitalized after her return to South Korea due to injuries caused by the rough return voyage in the Soyuz TMA-11 spacecraft. The South Korean Science Ministry said that the astronaut had a minor injury to her neck muscles and had bruised her spinal column

  I'd say SpaceX with 0 fatalities is looking pretty good by comparison.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642793)

Remind me how many manned missions SpaceX has launched again? Because the Soyuz hasn't lost a single man in over 40 years and they've launched over a hundred of them in that time.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46642683)

Hmmm. 100% success with their F9. Russia does not even come close.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642301)

Soooo... "private space" need public funding? What?
 
I just bet you're one of the people who scream bloody murder about "big [whatever]" getting tax breaks or subsidies. Why should "private space" be any different?
 
Also, can you cite bills that Republicans have defeated for this funding?

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46642483)

In the house, Shelby, Coffman, Wolf, Hatch, Lamar Smith, Hall, granger, Sessions, Bill Young, Connie Mack, come to mind
In the senate Hutchinson and Cornyn come quickly to mind.

And from a national security POV, we need private space since it is much cheaper and safer to have 3 companies that can deliver humans and cargo to space. Sadly, the above and many other neo-cons/tea* prefer the communist approach to space of paying off large companies to do this. And yes, paying L-Mart, Boeing, Ball, Gaumen, etc 3B/year for 20-30 years, Rather than paying a total of 3B for 3 different companies to do the work strikes me as being smart.

Sadly, you neo-cons/tea* woudl much rather destroy America and Capitalism and send money to your definition of 'enemies', then to actually make successful companies here. And I can understand why you remain AC.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642975)

Again, can you cite an actual bill or are you just going to throw names of people you don't like out there.
 
I'm neither neo-con nor tea. There are more than two options, you know? I see you don't have much to back up your claims and that even leaves me more skeptical. All you have is name calling. That's pretty sad.

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642389)

(6 months if the house republicans will quit blocking funding for private space and increase it to less than 2 B for this year).

That is not a 'private' company then is it?

Re:Maybe you can hitchike to space, yankee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642661)

What part of private, do you not understand?

Tit-for-Tat (4, Insightful)

hubang (692671) | about 6 months ago | (#46642099)

Would have the Russians suspend all ISS related contracts.

Good for the goose and all.

It would be nice for Russia to do that (1)

coolmanxx (150620) | about 6 months ago | (#46642333)

It would give incentive for the US to fund their own launch vehicle. Nothing spurs funding like patriotism!

Re:Tit-for-Tat (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 6 months ago | (#46642459)

Yeah, this reminds me of the 1980 Moscow Olympics boycott. While it may have had a symbolic meaning (it was in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan), it ended up hurting the athletes more than the Soviet Union it was intended to hurt. And it seemingly forgot that the 1984 Olympics were in Los Angeles, which of course the Soviets promptly boycotted.

should'a boycotted Sochi, it was a toilet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642591)

it was in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

OP is so gay he cain't even get his facts straight. US invaded Afghanistan, look it up.

Re:should'a boycotted Sochi, it was a toilet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642839)

it was in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

OP is so gay he cain't even get his facts straight. US invaded Afghanistan, look it up.

Just in case you're not trolling, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, and stayed for a decade before abandoning it. Look it up yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

And Russia will announce shortly (0)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46642111)

no more human flights to the ISS.

What is odd is that the house neo-cons/tea* have been the ones blocking development of human launchers, because they were afraid that it would stop funding to their SLS. In fact, they even gave more money to the Russians, than what they have approved to go to private space funding here.

And now, those traitor's actions are coming to haunt America. What do you bet that they will scream that we instead need to increase SLS spending to 10B/year and finish it by 2020, rather than simply spend less than 1B and have systems available next year?

Flame away neo-cons/tea*. Never take responsibility for your leader's actions.

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (1)

Kogun (170504) | about 6 months ago | (#46642347)

Except Bolden has said he would recommend killing SLS and Orion if Russia stops flying our astronauts to the ISS.

'Bolden said the space station would probably have to be shut down without Russian transport, and in that case, "I would go to the president and recommend we terminate SLS and Orion."'

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/03/nasa_administrator_says_cancel.html

Care to rethink what the agenda is?

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 6 months ago | (#46642507)

I think that killing the SLS makes the most sense. Spending 3B/year for another 10 years just to get a system taht will costs us 1-3B PER LAUNCH for 70 tonnes is nothing less than insane.

Care to rethink your logic?

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (1)

Kogun (170504) | about 6 months ago | (#46642897)

You prefer to leave space flight to the whims of a billionaire instead of dictator?

I hope private companies are successful in achieving reliable manned flight, but I don't believe the US should be putting all its eggs in one basket. Until there are viable alternatives, the US would be wise to pursue as many avenues to space as possible.

Re:And Russia will announce shortly (1)

blueturffan (867705) | about 6 months ago | (#46642653)

Care to cite any sources to backup those claims?

Yes...but no (2, Interesting)

Johannes Sebastian (3601881) | about 6 months ago | (#46642119)

As a Dane im proud that the Secretary General of NATO and the Danish foreign minister is in front with sanctions against Russia. Putin is effectively destroying what has created lasting peace in Europe from the last 69 years. Putin will keep pushing, until we stand firm. Then he will pick as with someone else...even the gay community, anything that will take eyes of the fact that he rules the country like a dictator. But, the US Russian space cooperation was first initiated as a sign of good will. It will always stand as one of the greatest examples of respect, despite differences. I want to keep the space cooperation out of any foreign relations.

Re:Yes...but no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642281)

NATO cowards were bombing Yugoslavia to support Muslim thugs and steal Kosovo, killing hundreds of people and telling lies and more lies (they even bombed TV station in Belgrade when their lies were exposed), and their biggest lie about NATO being self-defense pact. I guess US need more brave Arab pilots and Tsarnaev brothers...

Re:Yes...but no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642837)

Naw what is needed is more Kool-Aid drinking Russians(spiked with vodka of course). Clearly there is not enough. Poohtin ONLY has a 71% approval rating and ONLY 51% of Russians supported taking not just Crimea, but ALL of Ukraine.

Seriously though, the reality of these latest events are this. It's clear how completely blinded and stuffed full of themselves Russians really are, not to mention stupidity approaching indescribable lows. And here I thought education levels in the USA were bad.....here comes Russians to show us truly epic traits of dumbfuckery. Poohtin has also demonstrated he is not anywhere near as smart as the world thought he was. He is really just a stupid little kid with a lot of toys, all paid for by his drooling sheeply followers.

Re:Yes...but no (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 6 months ago | (#46642317)

The sanctions are just a farce. If Putin turns off the gas to Western Europe, Germany's economy will sputter, taking down the rest of the EU, and it will get all Mad Max-y there. This is why Germany will never agree to any serious sanctions against Russia.

Note that one of Obama's first moves was to try to whip up some plan to get Europe off their dependency on Russian Gas. And there is no quick and easy solution to that.

And, no, we can't just build a "series of tubes" to bring gas from the US to Europe.

digging it's own grave (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642131)

The rhetoric coming out of Washington these days is about as lost as it's foreign policy.

Win for Space-X (1)

kwiecmmm (1527631) | about 6 months ago | (#46642141)

Space-X has done a bunch of docking with the international space station already, if they have a rocket capable of transporting people to the space station, this will be huge for them.

Re:Win for Space-X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642261)

And it's going to be even more huge if one of those barely-tested things explodes with a bunch of astronauts in it. Say what you want about the Russkies, but they *know* how to consistently send people to space and back safely. They haven't lost a man in over 40 years.

Re:Win for Space-X (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 6 months ago | (#46642365)

...that we know of.

It's a lot like bragging about closed sourced software. Most of it was done in secret without any chance for outside review with critics likely being sent to the gulag if they dared speak up.

Re:Win for Space-X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642551)

Typical American. Anytime anyone claims to have done anything better than you, you find some snide way to insult them. As if Russia has secretly been hiding a spate of Soyuz accidents since the 70's just because they're *so jealous* of the great USA. Maybe you want to claim they faked every "first" in space too, while you're whining.

Re:Win for Space-X (1)

ravenlord_hun (2715033) | about 6 months ago | (#46642685)

Yeah, because anyone can sneakily launch something into orbit without the whole world watching! There are certainly no radar systems that are capable - and even purposefully designed - of tracking any larger missile being launched.

Oh wate...

The dark side clouds everything.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642175)

You heard it first here folks (well, maybe not): This is a bad omen.

Space has, for a long time, been one bright spot of US/Russian relations. For the US to make a move like this is basically a way of saying that we're not going to be friends any longer, and as soon as the ISS becomes obsolete, our governments will work separately in projects which serve to benefit all of humanity.

Now we shall once again enter a period of cold war style relations between these countries. Don't get me wrong, Putin has been blood-hungry for quite a while, and only through a fortunate (by unintentionally spoken) hypothetical by the US secretary of state were we able to temporarily diffuse the recent Syrian chemical weapons incident. Russia/US relations are coming to a head...start the popcorn.

2 days later..maybe have to kill SLS and Orion if (1)

Kogun (170504) | about 6 months ago | (#46642241)

.."if Russia stops American astronaut rides to the International Space Station any time soon and before U.S. companies are ready to do the job."

Asshole. How does this even make sense?
'The space station would probably have to be shut down without Russian transport, and in that case, "I would go to the president and recommend we terminate SLS and Orion."'

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/03/nasa_administrator_says_cancel.html

The good thing about politics in space is... (1)

bradrum (1639141) | about 6 months ago | (#46642269)

It inspired a race between two great nations to reach further than each other towards the stars.

The bad thing is that this doesn't seem likely again as we move out of the basic science business. I would love to proven wrong on this, but it seems that the US public looks upon basic research funded by the fed as some kind of socialist program. George W was instrumental in sabotaging basic science programs, especially those that study climate and geology, because there research objectives and discoveries didn't fit his agenda.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642295)

Who would have thought it would be NASA taking a hard line with the Russians instead of the president.

Thats bad for science. (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about 6 months ago | (#46642305)

That's unfortunate that we loose scientific abilities because of political reasons. Science in this country already suffers from enough political religious groups and budget cuts. Hopefully SpaceX or the airforce will be able to fill the gap until it stabilizes.

Re:Thats bad for science. (1)

js3 (319268) | about 6 months ago | (#46642407)

That's unfortunate that we loose scientific abilities because of political reasons. Science in this country already suffers from enough political religious groups and budget cuts. Hopefully SpaceX or the airforce will be able to fill the gap until it stabilizes.

For it to work both parties have to operate in good faith. Stealing parts of other countries is not good faith.

Oh (1)

The Cat (19816) | about 6 months ago | (#46642335)

But I thought outsourcing was the solution to all our problems? It was going to make everything cheaper and lead to a capitalist utopia of free beer, cheap drugs and hookers?

Or maybe it was a bill of goods sold to us by lazy pigs who were too busy filling their pockets to plan ahead more than one fiscal quarter?

After the space station burns up in the atmosphere maybe China will flip the switch on Wal-Mart and we can watch the middle third of the country go dark too.

nbn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642385)

cgbgjjkk,

Finally someone with a pair (1)

iamacat (583406) | about 6 months ago | (#46642401)

Space program is one of the few unique things Russia can be proud of on the world stage. If it's prestige is endangered, Putin is apt to take notice. Unlike oil, space is above every country in the world and there is no inherent reason Kazakhstan has to keep its dominance for launches.

Paying for a Bad Move (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46642445)

Well, I guess it turns out that shutting down our only manned space vehicle and going with another country was a bad move on our part. I can't believe this political powers were so short minded to force us to rely on another country in which we have had such a rocky history.

Contract$ contract$ contract$, oh, oh, aaaaaah (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 6 months ago | (#46642479)

The MIC just had a cold-war-gasm

Good-bye Agnitum's Outpost (0)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 6 months ago | (#46642687)

Early last week I uninstalled Agnitum's Outpost software from my PC's. Not sure I want to rely on Russian software for security applications nowadays.

ISS deorbiting fear, interesting Russian science (2)

volvox_voxel (2752469) | about 6 months ago | (#46642859)

I understand that the Russians are the only ones that can put people in the space station, and that the US serves as the ground control. If Russia refuses to let Americans on to the space station, what are the chances that the US would not coordinate ground control for an exclusively Russian or non-American crew? I've read from a number of sources speculating on this probability. What kind of ground support and communications structure are needed to keep the station operational? With the addition of the alpha magnetic spectrometer, the ISS has become a lot more interesting. : http://ams.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]

Perhaps this is one thing that both countries really care about, it's one thing that could serve as leverage between then; a negotiation point.

It's a shame that the cooperation deminishing. The Russians are doing some really fantastic work. They've put a radio telescope in orbit: They launched a radio telescope (Spektr-R) into space. By synchronizing this telescope with earth based telescopes, it can resolve features that are 1250x times smaller than what Hubble can see (40u-arc-seconds vs 0.05 arc-seconds).. Did you know that by pointing all of the radio dishes on one side of the earth, and that knowing the exact time radio waves hit each receiver with atomic clocks, you can out resolve any optical telescope on earth? We can literally see finer details with a radio telescope than we can with our best optical ones (using "VLBI " interferometry). The more separation between radio dishes, the better the angular resolution; and now we have one in orbit that will give us much much better resolving power. We may be able to "see" planets with radio waves. (I'd love to hear from radio astronomers about the practical limitations of this -- real world vs back-of-the envelope)

They only started recently announcing their achievements on their website. Several of my friends joked that the reason we heard nothing for so long was that it was an expensive and embarrassing dud. It works, but they don't market or advertise themselves well. http://www.asc.rssi.ru/radioas... [asc.rssi.ru]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?