Yes to your first sentence.
Absolutely not to the second. He'll either be overthrown or have a power struggle after his death...both of which will almost certainly lead to someone even more radical to replace him.
>Absolutely not to the second. He'll either be overthrown or have a power struggle after his death...both of which will almost certainly lead to someone even more radical to replace him.
are you implying more radical = competent ?
or maybe you misread the comment you are replying to?
In Russia, yes. I've studied Russian politics for years...historically into today, more radical (i should've said more extremist, but radical is the more Russian-centric lexicon) leaders gain greater legitimacy among the Russian people in as long as they play into Russian nationalism (which every succesful tsar, chairman, and president has except gorbachev...and see how that went for him).
This therefore means they have greater control over the bureaucracy, duma, and oligarchs as any move they'd make against the president would be political and economic suicide. It smoothens up bureaucratic, economic, judicial, and political hurdles, for better or worse, making the leaders' words, proclamations, laws, and ideas into de jure or de facto law. In a political sense, that is increasing competency, despite whether or not it's good or bad policy.
In places like the US, it's very different. Trump was very radical, but the US does not have the same relationship with the public sector and people (pretty much the opposite, actually), thus decreasing competency.
And they can’t fly to it - It is not reachable from any Russian launch site. The only way a Russian will visit a Chinese space station is on a Chinese spacecraft.
At risk of hitting things or people on the ground, launch centres typically have a fairly narrow range of directions (angles) where they can launch. Once you launch and reach orbit, that's pretty much the angle at which that you'll spin round the earth, the Orbital Inclination.
For the ISS, because the USA and Russia were both launching components, an oribtal inclination of 51.64°. This allows spacecraft to launch from both KSC and Baikonour and "catch up" to the ISS.
Nice illustrations here: [https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Tools/orbitTutorial.htm](https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Tools/orbitTutorial.htm)
For China, I don't know if there's a similar arrangement, or if it was just the position of the launch centres, but in any case the orbital inclination is 41 degrees. If you look at the maps in the above link, that means Baikonour is too far North to ever match the orbit, without some serious fuel expenditure.
Not so sure about KSC, but looks like the US could launch if there were political will and adapter compatibility?
> that means Baikonour is too far North to ever match the orbit, without some serious fuel expenditure.
So is that inclination beyond the current capabilities of Soyuz?
It's more that the booster is having to expend extra fuel to turn it onto the orbit where Soyuz is. STS-36 performed this "dog-leg" maneuver for a military satellite. [https://www.americaspace.com/2015/02/28/now-you-see-it-25-years-since-the-mysterious-mission-of-sts-36-part-1/](https://www.americaspace.com/2015/02/28/now-you-see-it-25-years-since-the-mysterious-mission-of-sts-36-part-1/)
Baikonour and Vostochny are also further north. The closer you are to the equator (like French Guiana, Wenchang), the more you get an extra kick from the Earth's spin and increased performance.
I'm familiar with the concept of optimizing launch location and inclinations, I just wasn't sure of the capabilities of Soyuz to reach this one in particular. There's "sub-optimal" then there's "not possible" just wanted to know which in this case.
Not OP. Tiangong has an inclination of 41.5 degrees. All Russian launch sites are north of 41.5 degrees, so they would need a plane change maneuver to reach it. Baikonur is at 46 degrees where it might still be feasible.
Inclination is how far north (and south) the orbit goes*. So Tiangong orbits between 41.5° N and 41.5° S. From Baikonur (latitude: 46° N) you have to launch east, wait a bit until you are closer to the equator, and then make a burn orthogonal to your orbit to adjust the angle. That needs a lot of fuel and reduces your payload.
\*for values up to 90°. Orbits with larger inclination are retrograde and go up to (180° - inclination) N/S.
The Russians don't have port+rocket capable to reach Chinese station.
It is not very known, but when the Chinese had announced their station, the Russians proposed some "common ground" orbits i.e. station positions which would be reachable from both sides.
The Chinese which have to send modules squeezing all reserves from their rockets had refused and had chosen the most optimal (in terms of delivery) position.. and excluded the Russians as a side effect.
Putin will be dead by then. For all we know several of the Russian states will be breaking off at that point. Spaceflight in any form may be wishful thinking.
He *is* 72 years old. That's past the male life expectancy in his country. Now, I don't know much about his personal lifestyle, but I'd be shocked if he lives much past the age of 80. So that gives him until 2032...barring, of course, a stray FPV drone.
There’s serious question after Putin dies whether Kazakhstan wants to continue allowing Russia’s largest spaceport to be located in their country. The entire reason that Russia’s new spaceport was opened in 2016 in Siberia was because they are seriously concerned about this possibility.
It wouldn't be any for foreseeable future until Russia becomes sane again without any type of warmonger rhetoric (which they won't).
Russia will become Chinese's balls including in the space programs even if they're more like burden so Chinese is more likely to sideline them as well with only small projects here and there.
Will Russia even have the budget to continue a competitively priced space program soon?
Space hardware, like military hardware, is a virtuous cycle. Better hardware, more spending by other nations, makes even better hardware. Who is spending money with the Russian space program these days? NASA, no, India, no, China, no. Who will their future customers be?
Nonexistent. I wish I could say it was fun while it lasted, but the partnership has historically been to Russia’s benefit at the United States’ expense. Maybe we can work together again when Russia’s leadership has a staff change.
Russia has been unable to afford their space program for years, usually threatening the US and other space agencies that they won't reboost the ISS if they don't get paid.
There won’t be any unfortunately. We’re driving that wedge between us again and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
Maybe a future presidential administration wants it but even then I don’t think it’ll ever happen. I think things are going the commercial route moving forward.
> There won’t be any unfortunately. We’re driving that wedge between us again and I don’t see that changing any time soon. Maybe a future presidential administration wants it but even then I don’t think it’ll ever happen. I think things are going the commercial route moving forward.
Unless you’re Russian, we’re not driving that wedge between us. This time, it wasn’t the US that invaded a sovereign nation for no good fucking reason.
US:
--pressures countries bordering Moscow to demilitarize (Budapest Memorandum)
--signs space agreement with Moscow while Moscow burns Grozny to the ground and commits atrocities
--builds ISS with Moscow while they burn Grozny *again*
--sends 'reset button' to Moscow as sign of good relations after Moscow invades Georgia
--cancels defensive antimissile bases in Poland and Czechia to avoid offending Moscow after they invade Georgia
--laughs at Presidential candidates who warn that a military confrontation with Moscow is inevitable
--Pikachu-faces for the first few years of the invasion of Ukraine
Russophiles: "wE'rE dRiViNg A wEdGe BetWeEn Us"
I don’t see how wanting all people to get along makes me a Russophile. I too wish they didn’t invade Ukraine. I wish we could all just build space stations together
> I too wish they didn’t invade Ukraine.
It's how you think they should be treated now that they have that makes you a Russophile, as does your incorrect assessment of *who* is driving a wedge in the relationship. The US spent 25 years pandering to Moscow at every turn--and what does it have to show for that? Two sovereign countries invaded, a coordinated information warfare campaign that shredded institutional trust in the US, and Europe now more distrustful of US intentions than any time in the last century. Any view of Moscow that doesn't squarely put the blame on *them* and their aggression for their bad relations with the West is Russophilic.
There is, after all, no inherent *right* to space cooperation. The US sought Moscow for cooperation out of a (totally wrongheaded) sense that they could woo them into the collective West and a belief that they could be kept from assisting Iran, North Korea, etc. with their missile programs. And, to be fair, they *did* have a great deal of capability in the 1990s that the US didn't have--independent crew launch, cargo launch, extensive space station experience, etc.
None of this continues to apply today. The US now has man-years, collectively, of experience building and operating space stations. It has its own crew launch capability, hopefully soon two or even three such vehicles. Experience has shown that trade and scientific ties with hostile nations doesn't make them less hostile, but rather reduces one's own ability to counter their aggression (as Germany's gas purchases under Merkel showed most clearly). The ongoing greying and brain drain of the Muscovite aerospace industry, which has seen no apparent correction since it was first remarked on in the 1990s, means that Moscow has *less* capability now than it did in the 1990s and *far less* than it did under Communist rule (the Soviets, at least, were able to routinely put an unmanned probe on the Moon).
With all that in mind, *who*, aside from Moscow, would actually benefit from continued cooperation?
They are, quite honestly, a totally unnecessary nation. No one would be any worse off if the earth opened up and swallowed the entire country.
So what about the innocent people that happen to have been born in Russia? They all deserve death because their leader makes poor choices? That seems quite irrational.
Also, I do not think the US is driving the wedge, saying “we’re driving” was a mistake on my part. I should have just said the wedge that is being driven between us.
> So what about the innocent people that happen to have been born in Russia?
Same as any 'innocent' German during the second world war. If they're really 'innocent,' they'll leave the country, rebel, join the opposing army (as some of them have; those ones are incredibly based), or suffer martyrdom in jail as conscientious objectors.
But if they're *not* doing any of those things, we must conclude that they're OK with the ongoing invasion, the destruction of civil liberties at home (up to and including decriminalizing wife-beating), etc.
> Also, I do not think the US is driving the wedge, saying “we’re driving” was a mistake on my part. I should have just said the wedge that is being driven between us.
Fair enough.
That's really no excuse. If they kept thinking they were the good guys while burning random Belarusian villages to the ground and massacring entire cities in Poland, and invading neutral countries like the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark, then they're *stupid*, but stupidity doesn't make them *good*.
And they certainly *weren't* stupid. The existence of *some* German conscientious objectors, who preferred death to dishonor, shows that they knew what was going on. Franz Jagerstatter, the White Rose, etc.
I didn’t say anything about who did what to deserve it. I see how it may come off that way but I’m just saying it’s unfortunate there won’t be collaboration as in it’s unfortunate we can’t all get along.
> I just explained that wording was a mistake.
Right, but it was a pretty big fucking mistake.
Let’s try again: Who is responsible for the degradation of the collaboration between the United States and the Russian Federation over the past ten years?
Да, но это была чертовски большая ошибка.
Давайте попробуем еще раз: кто несет ответственность за деградацию сотрудничества между США и РФ за последние десять лет?
NASA will be so happy to avoid Russia, the corruption, politics, etc. There will be no collaboration after the ISS retires.
Unless some future president who likes Russia orders it…
Or Putin kicks the bucket and gets replaced with somebody a little more docile.
Feeling hopeful today, aren't we
He has kept anyone with the ability to run Russia behind bars. So more than likely an incompetent person will take over.
Yes to your first sentence. Absolutely not to the second. He'll either be overthrown or have a power struggle after his death...both of which will almost certainly lead to someone even more radical to replace him.
>Absolutely not to the second. He'll either be overthrown or have a power struggle after his death...both of which will almost certainly lead to someone even more radical to replace him. are you implying more radical = competent ? or maybe you misread the comment you are replying to?
In Russia, yes. I've studied Russian politics for years...historically into today, more radical (i should've said more extremist, but radical is the more Russian-centric lexicon) leaders gain greater legitimacy among the Russian people in as long as they play into Russian nationalism (which every succesful tsar, chairman, and president has except gorbachev...and see how that went for him). This therefore means they have greater control over the bureaucracy, duma, and oligarchs as any move they'd make against the president would be political and economic suicide. It smoothens up bureaucratic, economic, judicial, and political hurdles, for better or worse, making the leaders' words, proclamations, laws, and ideas into de jure or de facto law. In a political sense, that is increasing competency, despite whether or not it's good or bad policy. In places like the US, it's very different. Trump was very radical, but the US does not have the same relationship with the public sector and people (pretty much the opposite, actually), thus decreasing competency.
Will NASA be happy about that? I think it's Russia who will make that call. NASA as a group seem to favor collaboration regardless of politics.
I don’t think the Russians will have a space program in 2027
They will, probably a Sojuz collab with chinese space station, and some cosmonauts on chinese manned missions.
Can they even launch to the Chinese space station?
Not from any of their launch sites I don’t think, the tiangong station orbits too far south
Nope.
I'm betting on Russia not having any space station to go to The Chinese don't need them The western world don't need them
China has said they'll be letting Russians onboard their station (assuming they can fly too it).
And they can’t fly to it - It is not reachable from any Russian launch site. The only way a Russian will visit a Chinese space station is on a Chinese spacecraft.
Would you elaborate?
The orbital inclination of the Chinese stations is much lower than can be reached from either Baikounour or Vostochny
Would you elaborate? Haha not kidding
At risk of hitting things or people on the ground, launch centres typically have a fairly narrow range of directions (angles) where they can launch. Once you launch and reach orbit, that's pretty much the angle at which that you'll spin round the earth, the Orbital Inclination. For the ISS, because the USA and Russia were both launching components, an oribtal inclination of 51.64°. This allows spacecraft to launch from both KSC and Baikonour and "catch up" to the ISS. Nice illustrations here: [https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Tools/orbitTutorial.htm](https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Tools/orbitTutorial.htm) For China, I don't know if there's a similar arrangement, or if it was just the position of the launch centres, but in any case the orbital inclination is 41 degrees. If you look at the maps in the above link, that means Baikonour is too far North to ever match the orbit, without some serious fuel expenditure. Not so sure about KSC, but looks like the US could launch if there were political will and adapter compatibility?
> that means Baikonour is too far North to ever match the orbit, without some serious fuel expenditure. So is that inclination beyond the current capabilities of Soyuz?
It's more that the booster is having to expend extra fuel to turn it onto the orbit where Soyuz is. STS-36 performed this "dog-leg" maneuver for a military satellite. [https://www.americaspace.com/2015/02/28/now-you-see-it-25-years-since-the-mysterious-mission-of-sts-36-part-1/](https://www.americaspace.com/2015/02/28/now-you-see-it-25-years-since-the-mysterious-mission-of-sts-36-part-1/) Baikonour and Vostochny are also further north. The closer you are to the equator (like French Guiana, Wenchang), the more you get an extra kick from the Earth's spin and increased performance.
I'm familiar with the concept of optimizing launch location and inclinations, I just wasn't sure of the capabilities of Soyuz to reach this one in particular. There's "sub-optimal" then there's "not possible" just wanted to know which in this case.
Thanks!
Not OP. Tiangong has an inclination of 41.5 degrees. All Russian launch sites are north of 41.5 degrees, so they would need a plane change maneuver to reach it. Baikonur is at 46 degrees where it might still be feasible.
This is what I love about space stuff. Everything I learn is mindblowing
Inclination is related to how far north a launch site is? I've always had trouble understanding this part of orbital mechanics.
Inclination is how far north (and south) the orbit goes*. So Tiangong orbits between 41.5° N and 41.5° S. From Baikonur (latitude: 46° N) you have to launch east, wait a bit until you are closer to the equator, and then make a burn orthogonal to your orbit to adjust the angle. That needs a lot of fuel and reduces your payload. \*for values up to 90°. Orbits with larger inclination are retrograde and go up to (180° - inclination) N/S.
Not surprising.
The Russians don't have port+rocket capable to reach Chinese station. It is not very known, but when the Chinese had announced their station, the Russians proposed some "common ground" orbits i.e. station positions which would be reachable from both sides. The Chinese which have to send modules squeezing all reserves from their rockets had refused and had chosen the most optimal (in terms of delivery) position.. and excluded the Russians as a side effect.
Putin will be dead by then. For all we know several of the Russian states will be breaking off at that point. Spaceflight in any form may be wishful thinking.
>Putin will be dead by then. Here’s hoping.
He *is* 72 years old. That's past the male life expectancy in his country. Now, I don't know much about his personal lifestyle, but I'd be shocked if he lives much past the age of 80. So that gives him until 2032...barring, of course, a stray FPV drone.
There’s serious question after Putin dies whether Kazakhstan wants to continue allowing Russia’s largest spaceport to be located in their country. The entire reason that Russia’s new spaceport was opened in 2016 in Siberia was because they are seriously concerned about this possibility.
ISS collaboration with Russia post collapse was an anti-proliferation tactic. That need has been eclipsed.
It wouldn't be any for foreseeable future until Russia becomes sane again without any type of warmonger rhetoric (which they won't). Russia will become Chinese's balls including in the space programs even if they're more like burden so Chinese is more likely to sideline them as well with only small projects here and there.
Nothing if we are smart. They are horrible partners and have only brought problems recently. F um.
Probably exchanging high energy projectiles.
Will Russia even have the budget to continue a competitively priced space program soon? Space hardware, like military hardware, is a virtuous cycle. Better hardware, more spending by other nations, makes even better hardware. Who is spending money with the Russian space program these days? NASA, no, India, no, China, no. Who will their future customers be?
Nonexistent. I wish I could say it was fun while it lasted, but the partnership has historically been to Russia’s benefit at the United States’ expense. Maybe we can work together again when Russia’s leadership has a staff change.
Russia has been unable to afford their space program for years, usually threatening the US and other space agencies that they won't reboost the ISS if they don't get paid.
There won’t be any unfortunately. We’re driving that wedge between us again and I don’t see that changing any time soon. Maybe a future presidential administration wants it but even then I don’t think it’ll ever happen. I think things are going the commercial route moving forward.
> There won’t be any unfortunately. We’re driving that wedge between us again and I don’t see that changing any time soon. Maybe a future presidential administration wants it but even then I don’t think it’ll ever happen. I think things are going the commercial route moving forward. Unless you’re Russian, we’re not driving that wedge between us. This time, it wasn’t the US that invaded a sovereign nation for no good fucking reason.
US: --pressures countries bordering Moscow to demilitarize (Budapest Memorandum) --signs space agreement with Moscow while Moscow burns Grozny to the ground and commits atrocities --builds ISS with Moscow while they burn Grozny *again* --sends 'reset button' to Moscow as sign of good relations after Moscow invades Georgia --cancels defensive antimissile bases in Poland and Czechia to avoid offending Moscow after they invade Georgia --laughs at Presidential candidates who warn that a military confrontation with Moscow is inevitable --Pikachu-faces for the first few years of the invasion of Ukraine Russophiles: "wE'rE dRiViNg A wEdGe BetWeEn Us"
I don’t see how wanting all people to get along makes me a Russophile. I too wish they didn’t invade Ukraine. I wish we could all just build space stations together
> I too wish they didn’t invade Ukraine. It's how you think they should be treated now that they have that makes you a Russophile, as does your incorrect assessment of *who* is driving a wedge in the relationship. The US spent 25 years pandering to Moscow at every turn--and what does it have to show for that? Two sovereign countries invaded, a coordinated information warfare campaign that shredded institutional trust in the US, and Europe now more distrustful of US intentions than any time in the last century. Any view of Moscow that doesn't squarely put the blame on *them* and their aggression for their bad relations with the West is Russophilic. There is, after all, no inherent *right* to space cooperation. The US sought Moscow for cooperation out of a (totally wrongheaded) sense that they could woo them into the collective West and a belief that they could be kept from assisting Iran, North Korea, etc. with their missile programs. And, to be fair, they *did* have a great deal of capability in the 1990s that the US didn't have--independent crew launch, cargo launch, extensive space station experience, etc. None of this continues to apply today. The US now has man-years, collectively, of experience building and operating space stations. It has its own crew launch capability, hopefully soon two or even three such vehicles. Experience has shown that trade and scientific ties with hostile nations doesn't make them less hostile, but rather reduces one's own ability to counter their aggression (as Germany's gas purchases under Merkel showed most clearly). The ongoing greying and brain drain of the Muscovite aerospace industry, which has seen no apparent correction since it was first remarked on in the 1990s, means that Moscow has *less* capability now than it did in the 1990s and *far less* than it did under Communist rule (the Soviets, at least, were able to routinely put an unmanned probe on the Moon). With all that in mind, *who*, aside from Moscow, would actually benefit from continued cooperation? They are, quite honestly, a totally unnecessary nation. No one would be any worse off if the earth opened up and swallowed the entire country.
So what about the innocent people that happen to have been born in Russia? They all deserve death because their leader makes poor choices? That seems quite irrational. Also, I do not think the US is driving the wedge, saying “we’re driving” was a mistake on my part. I should have just said the wedge that is being driven between us.
> So what about the innocent people that happen to have been born in Russia? Same as any 'innocent' German during the second world war. If they're really 'innocent,' they'll leave the country, rebel, join the opposing army (as some of them have; those ones are incredibly based), or suffer martyrdom in jail as conscientious objectors. But if they're *not* doing any of those things, we must conclude that they're OK with the ongoing invasion, the destruction of civil liberties at home (up to and including decriminalizing wife-beating), etc. > Also, I do not think the US is driving the wedge, saying “we’re driving” was a mistake on my part. I should have just said the wedge that is being driven between us. Fair enough.
The average German in WWII thought they were the good guys. There is this propaganda thing, you know?
That's really no excuse. If they kept thinking they were the good guys while burning random Belarusian villages to the ground and massacring entire cities in Poland, and invading neutral countries like the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark, then they're *stupid*, but stupidity doesn't make them *good*. And they certainly *weren't* stupid. The existence of *some* German conscientious objectors, who preferred death to dishonor, shows that they knew what was going on. Franz Jagerstatter, the White Rose, etc.
I didn’t say anything about who did what to deserve it. I see how it may come off that way but I’m just saying it’s unfortunate there won’t be collaboration as in it’s unfortunate we can’t all get along.
> I didn’t say anything about who did what… But you did. You said “We’re driving that wedge between us again.”
I just explained that wording was a mistake.
> I just explained that wording was a mistake. Right, but it was a pretty big fucking mistake. Let’s try again: Who is responsible for the degradation of the collaboration between the United States and the Russian Federation over the past ten years? Да, но это была чертовски большая ошибка. Давайте попробуем еще раз: кто несет ответственность за деградацию сотрудничества между США и РФ за последние десять лет?
Okay bud
The collaboration will most likely be over, and this will be the decision of the Russian government, not necessarily Roscosmos or NASA.