Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Due to the heavy reliance of U.S. space travel on Russian space vehicles:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/05/why-is-nasa-teaching-us-astronauts-russian/

Along with training in spacewalks, robotics, and piloting a spaceship, NASA is requiring that all future astronauts learn to speak and read Russian.

Yes please. I don't want to see us lose astronauts because they couldn't read instruments in an emergency situation.

WarOne wrote:Due to the heavy reliance of U.S. space travel on Russian space vehicles:

Since when? Huh...did not know that...

Yeah, do people think this is actually a problem? The Russian Cosmonauts learn English too.

Since when?

At a guess since the Space shuttle programme went wonky.
Also with the International Space Sataion getting resupplied by Russian craft.

Key phrases may include:

Why the feth won't this work?!
Oh Bugger! The handle has fallen off!!
Good Grief not MORE pickled cabbage!
and
How do I get out of a skit based on national stereotypes?

Why cant the Yanks do the smart thing and simply buy Soyuz?

Its up for sale, not just individual missions but the technology. Plans and rights to build Soyuz has recently been bought by the ESA and is being assembled in French Guiana.

Soon (?currently?) there will be/are two means to fly Soyuz, either from Russia, or on a Euro-copy from French Guiana.

People will make this about the end of the shuttle program, but it was ALWAYS a good idea and we all know that prospective astronauts were learning russian on their own to improve their chances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:Why cant the Yanks do the smart thing and simply buy Soyuz?

Its up for sale, not just individual missions but the technology. Plans and rights to build Soyuz has recently been bought by the ESA and is being assembled in French Guiana.

Soon (?currently?) there will be/are two means to fly Soyuz, either from Russia, or on a Euro-copy from French Guiana.

What would be the advantage? We're both going to the ISS anyway. Why not carpool? Money spent making knockoff soyuz would come out of the budget that's making our next vehicle, so there would be no real point. It's cheaper to just buy rides for a while than start a whole manufacturing program.

WARORK93 wrote:

WarOne wrote:Due to the heavy reliance of U.S. space travel on Russian space vehicles:

Since when? Huh...did not know that...

Recently.

Practical reasons for why: We are heavily reliant on the Russian Space Agency right now for travel to and from outer space. Therefore, to communicate between Russian and American crews, it should be mandatory that we learn Russian in order to reduce any complications related to a language barrier.

Also, America is only paying about 25-ish million per astronaut. The rate goes up to 55-ish million in 2013 I believe from what the article said.

So in short, it is a very pratical price. We paid 450 million for a space shuttle launch.

We're paying pennies on the dollar piggybacking our astronauts onto Russia Molotov Cock-err...flying death traps.

Not actually recent. Our astronauts have been sometimes returning to earth on the soyuz since the beginning of the ISS project in the 90's, even when there were regular shuttle flights. The US and Russia are the biggest ISS players and we've both been riding each other's vehicles since the beginning.

Further, we've been sharing a station, interfacing hardware from both countries, using technical manuals in one language or the other.

This should have been policy in 1998

Rented Tritium wrote:Not actually recent.

It is true that we have used Russian since the Space Race in one form or another.

I'll be more specific- The language requirement for new astronauts is an ability to speak/understand Russian. That has not been a policy for all astronauts before.

Yeah. I'm pretty shocked it took this long

Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah. I'm pretty shocked it took this long

The FOX New article notes that the US Space Agency did not update their pamphlets on this suddenly pertinent requirement for being an astronaut.

So I guess a whole boatload of people didn't get the memo.

WarOne wrote:Due to the heavy reliance of U.S. space travel on Russian space vehicles:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/05/why-is-nasa-teaching-us-astronauts-russian/

Along with training in spacewalks, robotics, and piloting a spaceship, NASA is requiring that all future astronauts learn to speak and read Russian.

What has happened to my country?

Because of universal translators, Sisko could be speaking russian the entire run of the show. We have no way of knowing.

Rented Tritium wrote:Because of universal translators, Sisko could be speaking russian the entire run of the show. We have no way of knowing.

My personal theory:

Because of the heavy use of universal translators (everyone wears one), and the fact that they seem to work on magic to translate completely unknown languages, no one in Star Trek actually speaks the same language. They all speak whatever they did when their translator first recognized it as "language". So, most of them are making baby noises and crying.

Rented Tritium wrote:Because of universal translators, Sisko could be speaking russian the entire run of the show. We have no way of knowing.

Unlikely. If there's one thing I learned from Naked Gun is that there's no such thing as a black russian.

Am betting that is a joke concerning cocktails and race but even so:


Black Russian Terriers! :wub:

Frazzled wrote:What has happened to my country?

It is sad to see the US coming up second in space exploration, after we led the way with Yuri Gagarin and Sputnik.

Let us not forget the lessons taught to us by the Cosmonaut in Armageddon.

Monster Rain wrote:Let us not forget the lessons taught to us by the Cosmonaut in Armageddon.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX RUSSIAN SPACE STATION!!!

Grakmar wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Because of universal translators, Sisko could be speaking russian the entire run of the show. We have no way of knowing.

My personal theory:

Because of the heavy use of universal translators (everyone wears one), and the fact that they seem to work on magic to translate completely unknown languages, no one in Star Trek actually speaks the same language. They all speak whatever they did when their translator first recognized it as "language". So, most of them are making baby noises and crying.

Best.

Rented Tritium wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:Why cant the Yanks do the smart thing and simply buy Soyuz?

What would be the advantage? We're both going to the ISS anyway. Why not carpool? Money spent making knockoff soyuz would come out of the budget that's making our next vehicle, so there would be no real point. It's cheaper to just buy rides for a while than start a whole manufacturing program.

Soyuz is tried and tested. Just knock em together, light the fuse and stand well back. So you can spend more of your efforts on building a replacement, this is what the ESA and Russians are doing. They have it right with what they have got, so the pressure is off to get the next vehicle even better.


On aside check these out.

I love Soyuz and what it says about space travel. To the Soviets ergonomics was an unnecessary luxury. The above picture is of the current Soyuz TMA, designed to have more crew space and comfort.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:

We're paying pennies on the dollar piggybacking our astronauts onto Russia Molotov Cock-err...flying death traps.

Just to dispel a few myths.

Soyuz is rugged. True.
Soyux is cramped. True.
Soyuz is basic technology. Not true, though the hardware is only really advanced in areas that need advancing in.
Soyuz is a death trap. Not True. Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 were destroyed with the crew lost. Both were Soyuz A series. Since 1971 and Soyuz B series starting with Soyuz 12 the vehicle has had a perfect operation safety record, through a number of the 70's era Soyuz failed to dock with their target vehicles. There have been nearly two thousands Soyuz launched including 110 manned missions.

The Space Shuttle as we are all too painfully aware, hardly had a 100% safety record :(

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The Space Shuttle as we are all too painfully aware, hardly had a 100% safety record :(

Very true...

But then again I just found the statement that America was now using mostly Russian craft for space travel surprising...I dunno I'm not that into space exploration mythos but I always thought of space travel as the big Saturn V rockets that got the first astronauts to the moon or the shuttles that took them to space later...:/

One of the early Saturn V's blew up iirc killing all the crew the rush to get to the moon before the Soviets meant the programme went ahead with little assurance the same wouldn't happen again.

I think that the Cold War Space Race mentality maybe colourng some of the opinions about the Russian collaboration. But given the the current economic situation and economics of manned space flight it makes sense

WARORK93 wrote:

WarOne wrote:Due to the heavy reliance of U.S. space travel on Russian space vehicles:

Since when? Huh...did not know that...

Space Exploration was put on hold in the US, well at least for NASA. Funny thing is everyone says private companies will take it up, yet NASA was a private company, not part of the US Government. It is funded by the tax payers, but tit is not a government entity.

DIDM wrote:Space Exploration was put on hold in the US, well at least for NASA. Funny thing is everyone says private companies will take it up, yet NASA was a private company, not part of the US Government. It is funded by the tax payers, but tit is not a government entity.

I heard the same thing and thought the same thing...apparently NASA hasn't been a government entity all this time...who would've guessed it?

but tit is not a government entity

If the government didn't put the tit in entity, who put the tit in charge

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

but tit is not a government entity

If the government didn't put the tit in entity, who put the tit in charge

even in my typing you can see I'm a man

DIDM wrote:

WARORK93 wrote:

WarOne wrote:Due to the heavy reliance of U.S. space travel on Russian space vehicles:

Since when? Huh...did not know that...

Space Exploration was put on hold in the US, well at least for NASA. Funny thing is everyone says private companies will take it up, yet NASA was a private company, not part of the US Government. It is funded by the tax payers, but tit is not a government entity.

Yea...sure. Do the employees have government pay grades, benefits, and protections?