Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Tearsheets | Media Kit | All Access E-Edition | Routes | Home RSS
 
 
 

U.S.-Russia strain blasts into space

April 14, 2014

NASA officials revealed this week that in protest of Russian actions in Ukraine, the U.S. space agency is suspending most cooperation with its Russian counterpart....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(19)

OsamaBinHidin

Apr-17-14 2:06 PM

The "International Space Station" is a boondoggle -- not worth the price as a "Cooperative Partners Gesture" with the Russians - & Putin knows it. The current contract will be filled, & "stranding US personnel?" NOT AN OPTION -- as Putin eyes Finland - could be a "Google+" for Ft. Drum?

re:"One wonders whether it has crossed the minds of anyone in Washington that Moscow may inform NASA that if it wants to cut ties, fine - but it will have to be an all-or-nothing deal, and good luck getting those astronauts back to earth."

When "...the minds of anyone in Washington" need sage advice - "'PC'rowley" will be contacted - go to ADE "Weather" thing & click - change location from SL to "Hell" -- & watch for that approaching "Cold Front"....

>>>>BREAKING>>>NEWZ>>>>

NEW!!! Contributor to Adirondack Daily Enterprise (current)

goo.gl/ztkxdt

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wondering

Apr-17-14 8:29 AM

"one administration doesn't shape the policy of subsequent Administrations" Huh??? Any administration has to cope with the bone headed self-serving moves of their predecessor just as their successor will deal with theirs. As much as I would like to believe the dems are better than the repubs I see no evidence that either side cares about anything but themselves and even that is in a short-sighted way.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wondering

Apr-17-14 8:26 AM

"Iran Nonproliferation Act" Too bad we didn't have that when Reagan was president.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Apr-16-14 9:43 PM

dafoxx...must be terrible to be so consumed with hate that you lost your sense of reality. Anyone with an objective sense of reality can see that The Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (INA)had NOTHING to do with the Space Shuttle. Also, the same reasonable person knows that the policies, dreams, visions etc of one administration doesn't shape the policy of subsequent Administrations. Just as Obama changed US policy of the treatment of the LBGT community, gun control etc. he did not have to kill the Space Shuttle, Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), use Russian Spacecraft etc.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dafoxx

Apr-16-14 7:25 PM

Just brilliant DW you can read, guess what, I read the bill also. Comprehension, well that's another story.

Let me ask, who was president and signed that amendment to the bill in 2005, oh that would be George Bush wouldn't it and who signed the spending bill in 2008 that extended the exemption to 2016, oh that would have been George Bush wouldn't it.

And I suppose if you were president you would simply ignore the NASA administrator's warning of a shuttle disaster if the program were continued, because obviously you know so much more than he does.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Apr-16-14 4:42 PM

As far as NASA administrator Griffin goes, he may recommend policy but, the President, with congressional approval, sets policy.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Apr-16-14 4:32 PM

dafoxx...would be nice if you knew what your talking about. The Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (INA) was enacted to help stop foreign transfers to Iran of weapons of mass destruction, missile technology, and advanced conventional weapons technology, particularly from Russia. Section 6 of the INA banned U.S. payments to Russia in connection with the International Space Station (ISS) unless the U.S. President determined that Russia was taking steps to prevent such proliferation. In 2005 Congress amended INA to exempt Soyuz flights to the ISS from the Section 6 ban through 2011. This was due to Putin's assurances that he had safeguarded Russian Technology and wasn't directly dealing with Iran.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dafoxx

Apr-15-14 1:53 PM

Oh banned, I'm really disappointed with your response. I really expected more delightful gibberish from you. Instead you resort to juvenile name calling. How pathetic.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dafoxx

Apr-15-14 1:38 PM

So DW I guess we'll just ignore this part.

"Congress passed an emergency spending bill that included a provision to extend NASA’s exemption with Russia until July 1, 2016. Bush signed the bill on Sept. 30, 2008."

And this. "In early September 2008, NASA administrator Griffin expressed concern about the safety of the shuttle. He told the Orlando Sentinel that flying the shuttle for an additional five years, to 2015, would greatly increase the odds of a shuttle disaster that would cost the lives of the crew. “This is why the shuttle needs to be retired,” he told the paper." But of course in your and this paper's twisted logic it's now Clinton's and Obama's fault we're contracting with Russia.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Apr-15-14 12:38 PM

As far as using Russia as a taxi, it was Bill Clinton who issued the Executive order and signed the law authorizing using the Russian Spacecraft. See PUBLIC LAW 106–178—MAR. 14, 2000 and Executive Order No. 12938 as in effect on January 1, 1999.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Apr-15-14 12:22 PM

dafoxx, do you know the difference between "a vision of the future" and actual policy? Bush gave a speach, which was his vision. Obama made policy decisions killing BOTH programs.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dafoxx

Apr-15-14 11:57 AM

Gibberish banned, gibberish. That's all you ever contribute. And gibberish can not be responded to intelligently. But let me try, "`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe."

Now that probably resonates with you.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-15-14 11:32 AM

all our gov't representatives past and present have sold us out to all our enemies. now no country takes serious as we have become a paper tiger....why is it we seem to run out of many things in this country, but we never run out of turncoats who get in public office?party loyalty....bah humbug!!!!!!!both parties are full of idiots!!!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dafoxx

Apr-15-14 9:46 AM

Well DW that means, quoting Bush's NASA administrator “There would be no American manned access to space between the shuttle’s retirement in 2010 and the launching of the exploration vehicle, envisioned for 2014.” Key word there is envisioned. But yeah, let's blame Obama for following Bush's plan to retire the shuttle in 2010.

In a 2007 speech at Georgetown University, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said the U.S. may have “no alternative other than to use Soyuz for crew transport and rescue.” The Bush administration knew there would be a gap of at least 4 years where we would need Russia's aid in sending our people to the space station. But the editorial states, "Barack Obama's decision to end the U.S. space shuttle program." This is a flat out lie. This newspaper should be ashamed of printing this tripe.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wondering

Apr-15-14 8:14 AM

I should listen to you banned becuz you do know whining. The real question here is, given the sorry state of the economy and the cutting of essential services and earned benefits, why are we spending money trying to determine the effects of long term space travel. I'd say fixing infrastructure here should trump pie in the sky fantasies about space travel.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Apr-14-14 7:29 PM

"First, he said, America will "finish what it started," completing the International Space Station by 2010. Research on the station will be focused on studying the long-term effects of space travel on humans, preparing for the longer journeys of the future. After the Station is complete, the Space Shuttle would be retired, after nearly 30 years of duty."

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DW12983

Apr-14-14 7:27 PM

OK, let's get this straight. Bush wanted the shuttle replaced by the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) by 2014. Obama killed both programs. From NASA "President Bush Offers New Vision For NASA". Quote "Second, the United States will begin developing a new manned exploration vehicle, called the Crew Exploration Vechicle (CEV). The first craft to explore beyond Earth orbit since the Apollo days, the spacecraft would be developed and tested by 2008 and conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014..."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wondering

Apr-14-14 6:38 PM

Why would the congress approve funding when Bush had directed that the shuttle be retired?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dafoxx

Apr-14-14 3:53 PM

You know if you intend on printing these crap opinion pieces you really should try to get it right.

"Michael Griffin, NASA administrator under Bush, privately blamed the Bush White House in internal emails in 2008 for launching a “jihad” to retire the space shuttle without giving NASA the authority and funds to simultaneously replace it." "In 2004, Bush directed NASA to retire the shuttle in 2010 to coincide with the scheduled completion of the space station."

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 19 of 19 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web