Transterrestrial Musings  


Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
Journoblogs
The Ombudsgod
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
Joanne Jacobs


Site designed by


Powered by
Movable Type
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Not Plagiarists--Just Unimaginative | Main | O'Reilly's Right »

Effective Cooperation

Jim Oberg contrasts useful international cooperation (as demonstrated by the recently launched Mars expeditions) and "feel-good" international cooperation (e.g., the International Space Station) in space activities.

I've previously commented on this as well, almost exactly a year ago, in fact.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 17, 2003 09:14 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/mt-diagnostics.cgi/1342

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
Comments

I feel like a jerk mentioning this, but...Columbia didn't explode, dammit. It broke up on reentry, no explosions involved.

The rest of the article hit the nail right on the head, but that happens to be a pet peeve of mine.

Posted by Jeff Dougherty at June 17, 2003 11:13 AM

Don't necessarily blame Jim for that--it's possible that an editor did it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 17, 2003 11:33 AM

The Russians do, in fact, have some unique technologies of value to the ISS. the failing lies in making them a "partner" on the project rather than a contractor.

Posted by Kevin L. Connors at June 18, 2003 02:30 AM

Good point. I suppose one of the reasons it struck me is that Oberg is generally a lot more careful than that.

I don't think that bringing the Russians in on the program, in and of itself, was such a bad thing. Bringing them onboard to an extent where the program is held up for years because they can't deliver their modules, and get to either command the crew or make up 2/3rds of it even though they don't pay anything near that percentage of the costs, is ridiculous.

Or rather, it's perfectly rational *if* you envision the ISS as a way to funnel foreign aid to Russia from out of NASA's budget, which is essentially how the Clinton administration saw it and how Bush's administration has left it.

Posted by Jeff Dougherty at June 18, 2003 09:47 AM

Breaking up in a plasma field is as close to an explosion as your going to get. All the elements of the definition are there (including the breaking-up part). The landing gear had explosive marks on it, presumably from the plasma breaching in and causing an explosion of the wheel.

The Russians, the Europeans, etc, were all brought in to build relations. It was the political ideology (selling point for congress) of the station. Unfortunately, all we've done is pissed all of them off by abandoning the Crew Return Vehicle and letting two astronauts sit up there and document which Station pieces are failing off while trying to keep the toilets running.

Posted by Transistor at June 18, 2003 07:16 PM


Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments: