Rocket Engine Controversy Continues to Undermine U.S. Space Security & Future Programs

Russian rocket takes off from Baikonur Cosmodrome last year with supplies for the ISS.

As I noted in a post last year, the U.S. is undermining its own space security and the future of its space program by allowing dumpkopfs in the Repuke congress to play politics with our space programs.  In case people forgot,  the Russians came to the rescue of the ISS crew back on July 2nd, 2015  with three tons of food, fuel and other supplies ferried up, mere days after the Elon Musk private commercial rocket (Space-X)  failed miserably. That failed launch not only messed up reception of needed supplies but also caused consternation for more than 60 Colorado science students who had patiently prepared experiments - all of which came to perdition.

How was the Space-X different from the Russian rocket OR to the previous successful military spy satellite launches? This is the 64 dollar question that needs to be addressed. The primary difference is that the military-Pentagon has been using a proven performer in the Russian-produced RD-180 rocket engine (also used for the Soyuz)  which powers the Atlas V that lofts two thirds of all national security satellites.

As noted in a WSJ piece at the time ('National Security After the Space X Explosion', June 30, 2015, p. A18) by William Shelton, the U.S. government "encouraged Lockheed Martin to use this engine primarily because of its performance and relatively low cost."

Pretty straightforward, eh?  Well, for anyone of normal intelligence or higher, but evidently not a dumbass Reeptard congress, determined to teach those Russkies a lesson or two. And the Bozo who takes the cake is Sen. John McCain, who's instigated a brawl over the Air Force continuing to use RD-180 Russian rocket engines.  The doting Senator from AZ whose judgment has been an issue for years (after picking Sarah Palin as running mate in '08) now is trying to claim that the use of the RD-180 engines is a "threat to U.S. security" because the money from their sale to the U.S. is going into Vladimir Putin's pockets.

Fortunately, as noted in a recent WSJ article ('Air Force Plan on Rocket's Fate Is Under Attack', Mar. 7, p. B1) Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James went on the record to correct the old fart by noting she had no inside information on WHO was making money from rocket engine sales. Implying if ol' Johnno has some information he needs to make it known. She did tell an Armed Services Committee that if the AF followed McCain's edict (to use only U.S. engines) then "that would end up costing $5b above current projections".

Five billion bucks! That's enough to pay for free college tuition and room and board for 100,000 students for a year at a public university.  But let's try to unpack for readers why that is the case.  We note that two years ago congressional legislation was stupidly  passed that prohibits the use of any Russian-made engines on U.S. rockets.  As a result of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act which became law in December, 2014, the RD-180 Russian made engines were banned with the exception of the few remaining in stock. According to Shelton (ibid.):

"The purported rationale is to uphold Russian sanctions and avoid rewarding the country's bad behavior in Ukraine"

Which is totally stupid and irrational, given it puts pressure on a rapid phase out.  Anyway, an independent panel examining the phase out, and looking at different strategies, concluded that (WSJ, 3/7/16):  "a slower schedule is needed for deploying a domestic replacement roughly stretching through 2025.  "

Adding that this plan "would be less risky and probably save taxpayers billions of dollars".  Under this plan the AF would gradually shift satellites slated to be launched on the Atlas V rocket (using the RD 180 engines) to the Delta IV rocket (scheduled for retirement in 3 years and with U.S. made engines) 

The Air Force, however, strongly disagrees with the projected impact, estimating it will be much more. In fact, $5 billion more than the panel projects.   McCain, in his senile dotage, isn't buying this and wants a speedier phase out - not wanting the use of any Russkie engines for much longer. The problem is the extra costs will be in the billions and land right in U.S. taxpayers' laps. But I guess as a Senator gets older he doesn't really care.

What we know, as the WSJ piece makes clear, is that if a compromise isn't forthcoming this controversy could have much broader implications for the U.S. space future as well as space security with spy satellites. Do the moralistic repukes care? One wonders.

U.S. Compromises Own Security By Banning Russian Rocket Engines

Russian Soyuz blasts off from Baikonur Cosmodrome on July 2nd - saving the ISS from potential evacuation.

How dumb is dumb, and while we're at it, how childish is childish? The answer is a '10 out of 10' on the extreme dumbo-childish side when a nation's congress and defense establishment reacts with emotions and pique and threatens its own (space) interests, as well as national security. In this case because those bad nasty Russkies are "behaving badly" and have to be taught a lesson by "God's country", 'Murica!

In case people forgot,  the Russians came to the rescue of the ISS crew back on July 2nd  with three tons of food, fuel and other supplies ferried up, mere days after the Elon Musk private commercial rocket (Space-X)  failed miserably. That failed launch not only messed up reception of needed supplies but also caused consternation for more than 60 Colorado science students who had patiently prepared experiments - all of which came to perdition.

How was the Space-X different from the Russian rocket OR to the previous successful military spy satellite launches? This is the 64 dollar question that needs to be addressed. The primary difference is that the military-Pentagon has been using a proven performer in the Russian-produced RD-180 rocket engine (also used for the Soyuz)  which powers the Atlas V that lofts two thirds of all national security satellites.

As noted in a WSJ piece at the time ('National Security After the Space X Explosion', June 30, p. A18) by William Shelton, the U.S. government "encouraged Lockheed Martin to use this engine primarily because of its performance and relatively low cost."

Pretty straightforward, eh?  Well, for anyone of normal intelligence or higher, but evidently not a dumbass Reeptard congress, determined to teach those Russkies a lesson or two. Which makes one wonder who or what our illustrious representatives really are: spoiled, mentally deficient brats or mature and responsible leaders.

You can decide!

Last week the Pentagon, according to a Denver Post story ('Pentagon to ULA - No Russian Engines') the Pentagon refused to grant a waiver allowing United Launch Alliance to bypass a congressional ban on Russian-made engines that the company needs to compete in the national security launch market (as well as ISS resupply)

This refers to last year's congressional legislation that prohibits the use of any Russian-made engines on U.S. rockets.  As a result of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act which became law last December, the RD-180 Russian made engines were banned with the exception of the few remaining in stock. According to Shelton (ibid.):

"The purported rationale is to uphold Russian sanctions and avoid rewarding the country's bad behavior in Ukraine"

Which is totally stupid and irrational, as I also noted last year in terms of NASA halting cooperation with the Russians, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-short-sighted-decision-nasa-suspends.html
As Shelton noted, the U.S. will run out of RD-180 engines well before the new rocket is ready. Would the military be ready to go to Elon Musk's Falcon  9,  1.1 full thrust engine when the RD-180s run out? After the recent performance of the 1.1 prototype for ISS resupply, don't hold your breath.

But there was still an 'out' in terms of a waiver.

Shelton writes:

"In April, the House of Representatives passed a new, slightly revised fiscal 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. It contains a clause that allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the ban on the RD-180 for as long as needed if the Secretary deems it in the national interest to do so."

But evidently, the Secretary of Defense - either on his own or with the Obamians' pressure, is as determined to teach them Russkies a lesson as the congressional nitwits, given the waiver wasn't granted.  (And bear in mind this is to support the launch of our own national security satellites, for god's sake!).

As the recent Post article noted "ULA had pleaded with the Pentagon for a waiver that would allow it to use more RD-180 engines to power its Atlas V rocket".  The Centennial, CO company also tried to explain to the Pentagon pinheads that it had 4 engines it could use for national security launches but needed 14 to launch payloads such as spy and communications satellites.

SO this begs the question of why the Pentagon big cheeses would cut off their noses to spite their faces in the national security satellite sphere. Was it THAT important to teach a lesson to the Russians to not mess with Uncle Sam? Especially when Sam lacks the rockets to do the launches himself or even resupply his own on the space station?

Cleverly, a Pentagon spokesperson said it "cannot be in the position of relying on only one source of space launch for critical national security launches ....that must be launched reliably and on schedule"

Fine, so why not use the remaining RD-180s - which has the best record for reliability and safety- for at least four launches? Unless there's another reason afloat - that the eggheads at the Pentagon don't want to rely on any engines that are Russian.

As I said, as dumb as the congressional fools! Who needs realpolitik when idiocy can suffice?

Why Russian ReSupply Rocket Made It - While Space-X Rocket Failed

Russian Soyuz blasts off from Baikonur Cosmodrome yesterday - saving the ISS from potential evacuation.

Yesterday the Russians came to the rescue of the ISS crew with three tons of food, fuel and other supplies, mere days after the Elon Musk private commercial rocket (Space-X)  failed miserably. That failed launch not only messed up reception of needed supplies but also caused consternation for more than 60 Colorado science students who had patiently prepared experiments - all of which came to perdition.

How was the Space-X different from the Russian rocket OR to the previous successful military spy satellite launches? This is the 64 dollar question that needs to be addressed. The primary difference is that the military-Pentagon has been using a proven performer in the Russian-produced RD-180 rocket engine (also used for the Soyuz)  which powers the Atlas V that lofts two thirds of all national security satellites.

As noted in a WSJ piece ('National Security After the Space X Explosion', June 30, p. A18) by William Shelton, the U.S. government "encouraged Lockheed Martin to use this engine primarily because of its performance and relatively low cost." The RD-180 is also used in the Delta IV rocket, and with the Atlas V there've been 83 launches without failure.

Space X meanwhile used the Falcon 9  rocket 1.1 engine which as the WSJ observed "ought to give everyone pause about jettisoning a dependable arrangement vital to U.S. security". (Space - X is also developing a "full thrust" version which has yet to be certified but designed to take astronauts to the ISS).

What is he talking about?

He's talking about congressional legislation that would prohibit the use of any Russian-made engines on U.S. rockets.  As a result of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act which became law last December, the RD-180 Russian made engines were banned with the exception of the few remaining in stock. According to Shelton (ibid.):

"The purported rationale is to uphold Russian sanctions and avoid rewarding the country's bad behavior in Ukraine"

Which is totally stupid and irrational, as I also noted last year in terms of NASA halting cooperation with the Russians, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-short-sighted-decision-nasa-suspends.html

Is it stupid to ban the RD-180 before a reliable U.S. engine comes to the fore? Of course! This isn't rocket science! (The December legislation mandated a new U.S. engine to be ready by 2019 - but that is 4 years away and many more ISS resupply missions are needed).

As Shelton notes, the U.S. will run out of RD-180 engines well before the new rocket is ready. Would the military be ready to go to Elon Musk's Falcon  9,  1.1 full thrust engine when the RD-180s run out? After the recent performance of the 1.1 prototype for ISS resupply, don't hold your breath.

Unlike the evidently expendable civilian rocket trips, the military and security state will not tolerate sub par rocket engines (or what they perceive as such) for their special security missions.

My argument is that this congressional legislation is hare-brained and needs to be repealed, or at least modified. This is feasible since as Shelton writes:

"In April, the House of Representatives passed a new, slightly revised fiscal 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. It contains a clause that allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the ban on the RD-180 for as long as needed if the Secretary deems it in the national interest to do so."

I, along with many others do believe it in the national interest, and Ash Carter ought to act expeditiously to ensure the RD-180 remains in use until a certified U.S. engine is available and passes at least five performance tests in real life cargo operations.

Still, it's a pity NASA also doesn't mandate the use of the RD-180 for resupply to the ISS as opposed to the iffy commercial space -based engines like the Falcon 9 1.1.

Congrats to the Russians for at least getting some critical supplies to where they need to be!

Rocket Re-Supply Disaster Shows Commercial Space Ferrying Not Ready for Big time

The images of the explosion last night, shown on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show were difficult to watch. What had been touted as a  re-supply mission to the International Space Station (ISS) came a cropper just six seconds after launch. This was for a two-stage Antares space launch vehicle to boost a Cygnus spacecraft into orbit.  Tuesday night’s launch was also to be the first in which a more powerful second-stage motor was to be used.

The launch had been scheduled for 6:22 p.m. from the Wallops Island launch facility on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Had all gone according to plan, the launch would have been visible for hundreds of miles along the Eastern Seaboard.  The plans called for the spacecraft to dock with the space station and deliver about 5,000 pounds of food and other cargo.
.
The first stage employed a liquid-fueled rocket powered by two Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ26 engines, according to Orbital Sciences Corporation which company NASA had contracted to do the re-supply.  The second stage was to use a solid motor to boost the Cygnus into orbit. Orbital Corp. said the Tuesday night mission was the first to use a larger, more powerful CASTOR 30XL second stage motor.

The Associated Press,  quoting a NASA spokesman,  reported that none of the cargo was urgently needed on the space station. According to the AP, the Russian space agency is proceeding with its own resupply mission. Which is just as well, else the astronauts may have to start rationing. 

As currently envisaged the commercial -linked program is to deliver up to 44,000 pounds of cargo to the space station over eight missions, including Tuesday’s.   But I have always been skeptical of using private companies even for ferrying cargo. (We were warned last night by O'Donnell's guest James Oberg not to jump to conclusions and form "bias" and fair enough. But I will still do so.

While NASA honchos are convinced that private, commercial craft will fill the  current cargo transport vacuum, I don't buy it. We are really comparing the limited private efforts of disconnected, competing companies with a total capitalization and resource allocation of barely 1/1000 of what NASA had, to the vast monetary resources commanded by a federal agency featuring specialized talent levels hundreds of time greater- in quality and quantity. 

Anyone who seriously believes any of these private operators (even acting in concert) will match Shuttle achievements is either drunk, comatose or suffering from early onset Alzheimer's. It just isn't going to happen in this version of the multi-verse!  We are also comparing a few companies like Space-X  -with a few hundred jobs- against a mass, federally-funded effort that saw cooperative jobs in 32 states - with detailed construction of every single Shuttle piece to specifications, from its heat-resistant tiles, to the internal gyroscopes, to the solid rocket boosters, and the Rafaelo cargo bay (designed to accommodate tons of cargo to the Space station). 

By comparison, none of the planned private spacecraft will have the hauling capability of NASA's Shuttles whose payload bay stretches 60 feet long and 15 feet across. Bays this size hoisted megaton observatories like Hubble. Much of the nearly 1 million pounds of space station was carried to orbit by Space Shuttles. The private companies biggest models, by contrast, will be lucky to lift one one-hundredth the cargo by volume and one five-hundredth by mass, which means many more trips and much more costly fuel expenditures.

Worse, if human assistance is required, or re-staffing the ISS, we'll no longer be able to send seven astronauts up at once - but only two. Because that's the maximum that can be accommodated in the Russian Soyuz craft! As I wrote in an earlier(2010)  blog post,  JFK - who envisioned not only beating the Russians to the Moon but dominating them in space - would be appalled at the spectacle of American astronauts now having to play the role of hitch hikers on Russian craft. The truth is the Shuttle could easily have continued its role of servicing re-supplies to the ISS, as well as further repairs to the Hubble, but unbeknownst to most Americans - the Shuttle program was re-directed to military spy missions. (A number of special Shuttles had been re-fitted for military use.) 

In the meantime, Space-X claims it can get astronauts to the space station within three years of getting the all-clear from NASA. Station managers expect it to be more like five years. Some skeptics say it could be 10 years before Americans are launched again from U.S. soil. I say it's more like 15, especially if we continue our wasteful squandering of money in places like Afghanistan (A remaining quota of 10,000 troops to remain until 2024). That  ongoing Afghanistan farce wastes more money in two months than NASA's WHOLE budget uses,  for one year!  And I won't even count the waste of using Shuttles for military spying.

Sadly, almost everyone appears to have bought into this "private company as the solution to future manned space" formula. But I don't! During the late 60s and early 70s I saw what could be done via a united effort commanding public (tax ) resources the way the military does now. It got us to the Moon and back and would have gotten us to Mars by now - had the Vietnam War not gobbled up $269 billion. 

It can get us to Mars again, as well as supply the ISS, but the will isn't there. Like everything else, the mantra has become: "Privatize Privatize! Privatize!" 

Which could well be the final words on this country's epitaph.

Remembering the Apollo Moon Landing - And How Far Our Manned Space Vision Has Regressed

                                                                     

                         Astronaut Buzz Aldrin on lunar surface, July 1969

Forty-five years ago, at roughly 4:10  eastern time this afternoon,  I'd just returned from an Introductory Astrophysics class with Prof. Sabatino Sofia at the University of South Florida, and trekked to the Beta Hall Commons. There,  nearly 40 students had already gathered to watch the Apollo 11 Moon landing and the first time humans set foot on our natural satellite..

Within eight minutes of my arrival - watching the black and white images on a 22" TV set - Neil Armstrong slowly stepped off the landing ladder and uttered some of the most famous words ever spoken: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.".   Most of us then envisaged a great space future, with this event only the warm up. I mean, after the fantastic film '2001 - A Space Odyssey' - which had just opened a year or so earlier - we had visions of space stations and Moon colonies dancing in our heads - not to mention trips to Mars by the turn of the century.

What spawned the Apollo project? Space historians go back to May 25, 1961, barely 3 weeks after Alan Shepherd's successful first sub-orbital trip in the Mercury capsule. At that time President John F. Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress and asked for a joint commitment to 'landing a man on the Moon and returning him to Earth', within the decade. Thus began America's biggest, costliest and most ambitious effort ever, rivaled only by the building of the Panama Canal and the Manhattan Project's building of an atomic bomb.

It would take just over 8 years to fulfill the vision, which included disastrous mishaps such as Apollo 1, in which Gus Grissom was killed along with fellow astronauts Ed White and Roger Chaffee during a pre-launch test at Cape Canaveral on January 27, 1967. Despite the setback and other problems that came up, the vision remained in place.

On July 16, the Apollo 11 crew was launched aboard a Saturn V rocket topped by the 'Eagle'  lunar module, arriving on the dusty surface of Tranquility Base 4 days later.. As commander, Neil Armstrong was first out of the module and walking on the Moon, followed by Buzz Aldrin. Alas, somebody had to remain behind and that was command module pilot Michael Collins who was responsible for being the 'gatekeeper' - in lunar orbit.

The success of the mission met with resounding public approval and the U.S. emerged as leader in space faring after a string of losses to the Soviet Union. This was despite the final cost tally of $20b or about $80b in today's dollars. There followed six landings in all through 1972 with 12 men  having explored the Moon. We  spaceniks wanted more - including the establishment of lunar colonies, to show the whole Apollo deal wasn't a flash in the pan for PR. But it wasn't to be.

What happened? Short story: the country painfully learned it couldn't support "guns, butter" and manned space exploration all at once. There wasn't enough money to do so. Recall a short time earlier Johnson's 'Great Society' programs were launched and before that - the Vietnam War - after a concocted incident in the Tonkin Gulf in August, 1964.

Indeed, as the red ink bled, both from the war and LBJ’s “Great Society” programs, it was evident by 1971 that: a) the Apollo missions would have to be truncated, and b) the manned space program – if kept – would devolve and diminish to a low Earth orbit substitute of earlier aspirations. When then President Richard Nixon (just before his Watergate crisis) confronted NASA’s administrators in 1972, they were basically informed of the writing on the wall: Either come up with a much tailored down program for manned space exploration, or have nothing at all.

Given the choice between something and nothing, NASA chose the first – which meant pursuing the less costly Space Shuttle program, already on the drawing boards. Alas, since the Shuttle was really designed for re-supply of existing space stations and none existed yet, this meant it would be constrained mainly to ‘show and tell’ events in low Earth orbit. There were no other choices, it was either this, leading on to the eventual substantive Shuttle missions 20 years later, or no manned flights.

And so the nation's manned space vision had begun to dim and recede.

Once Reagan assumed office in January, 1981, the constrictions on spending for space grew much more formidable, thanks to his massive tax cuts (going from a maximal marginal rate near 70% to 28%) and the $2.7 trillion defense spending spree (which combination was in fact responsible for converting us into a global debtor). Naturally, in this anemic and hostile (to space spending) fiscal environment the screws tightened even more on NASA and they were forced to lowball cost estimates and cut corners for future flights. The latter included ramping up an already overly ambitious launch schedule. If they didn’t do this, they’d be totally left out of the manned space budget. In these circumstances, the Challenger disaster must be understood and referenced- as the ultimate result of excessive cutting corners, and rushing launch schedules (the Challenger never should have been launched under those frigid conditions – and the O-ring risk had been noted by engineers at Morton Thiokol)

By 2011, and the final launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis, the U.S. had basically reached its nadir in space exploration. Now, three years later, the U.S. is still dependent on the Russians to get crew to the Space Station. Without the Russians allowing our illustrious guys to "hitch hike" on the Soyuz, there wouldn't be any Americans in space.

To me, this 'beggar thy neighbor' motif,  along with the capitulation of  national manned space programs to the private sector, shows how far we have regressed in vision and acumen along with the symbols embodied by our collapsing bridges, sewer lines, water mains ......and the fouling of our air and water by natural gas fracking. Not to mention squandering nearly 80% of current budget expenditures since 1969 on military BS and other wars of choice (Iraq, Afghanistan.)  We have thus become a nation in monumental decline, though pie-eyed,  false hope pols and others brainwashed by PR refuse to see it.

U.S. space junkies, some of them, assert the U.S. will soon have its own program back, thanks to private outfits like Space-X. But from my vantage point, that is years away, if ever. I'd even be amazed if they have a manned craft ready to go to the IST in 3 years. (Robot craft are one thing, but you need lots of redundancy with manned craft and private companies are more likely to cut corners for profit.)  I will bet it's more like five years, again, if ever. Space-X  truth be told, is a pale imitation of the NASA -government funded space program we once had until too many wars of choice made it unaffordable.

To underscore my justifiable skepticism, I can refer to an April 7 article  from The Denver Post to the effect Space X is filing suit against Colorado- based UAL which has an AIR FORCE contract worth $70b to use Russian-made rocket engines.   Hmmmmm......wonder why that is? Because they're MORE RELIABLE! As a UAL spokesperson put it: "We've been using them (in Atlas rockets) for twenty years now".

So why - without meeting QA test criteria, would the AF give a contract to Space X? Well, because they don't believe that outfit is ready yet to handle its ELVP (Expendable Launch Vehicle Program) demands.   Instead of squallering like brats and babies whose nappies are soiled, Elon Musk and Space X need to show- by meeting the Air Force's standards,  how and when they can deliver better quality engines than the Russian ones used by UAL.

Most serious space junkies that I've talked to are appalled at how far we have receded in our space vision and the commitment to manned space exploration - which is emphatically not a 'gimmick' or ploy to hook the hoi polloi. It is the only means by which we can eventually leave this planet and colonize another world, because - as Isaac Asimov put it in his 1976 Barbados lecture: "Only a foolish species would leave all its eggs in one planetary basket."

Right on! Let's hope our species gets some smarts before the next 'planet killer' asteroid arrives.

Russians Put Kibosh On Joint U.S. -Russian ISS Missions and Dash American Space Hopes

Well, we knew some kind of blowback was in the offing after the Obama administration hit the Russians with trade sanctions (following the legal Crimea occupation) and then - two months ago- discontinued the sharing of key ISS info with NASA's Russian counterpart, the Russian Federal Space Agency. I don't know how Obama and his Crew believed or thought the Russians would just suck this up and take it, but they evidently did.

Now, however, we have the announcement from Russian deputy premier Dmitry Rogozim that there will be no Russian cooperation with NASA on the International Space Station after 2020. (The U.S. had hoped to have it through 2024, at least until a credible U.S. manned space program could be re-established.)


This move, while it might not seem like much to those not interested in manned space operations, is a big blow and serves the Americans right for acting like they own the only leverage in town. They do not. The U.S. depends entirely on the Russians for their maintained area of the space station, and while the Russians can exist independently of the U.S. area, the converse is not true. Hence, shutting that area off is a huge outflanking of the U.S. and its belligerent warhawks at State -who've finally gotten their stupid way.

This means many science experiments now won't get done, nor will there be much advancement in manned space studies, research which both the Russians and Americans had cooperated on. Minus such research it is very difficult to imagine a manned Mars mission anytime soon. (Of course, assorted "suicide" trip are always possible - like the 'Mars ONE' foolishness.)

The other hammer ready to drop is the Russians informing the Americans there will be no more ferrying of American astronauts to the Space Station. If the U.S. wants to get those guys there, it will have to push "Space-X"  to move a bit faster on readying a manned craft. (Which in any case, as per the Russian announcement, would only be practical until 2020- when the Russians effectively close the door to the ISS. To me, it is likely the Space-X ferry won't even be ready by then).

Oh, and to add insult to injury, the same Russian announcement made it clear no more Russian NK-33 or RD-180 rocket engines will be sold to the U.S. Air Force if they are to be employed in military space operations. The Russians are damned if they are going to subsidize the U.S. military with THEIR rockets, if the same military is dispatching troops to Europe - to potentially act against the Russians. (If "troop proxies" haven't already in the guise of 'Academi' i.e. the former 'Blackwater' renegades- stirring up trouble in eastern Ukraine, as assorted reports from ORF - the Austrian Broadcasting Network-  have suggested.)

None of this bullshit ever occurred during the Cold War because both the principals understood it was in their best long term interests to cooperate in space. Now, with the Neoliberal domination of the planet, and acting as if they own it, that appears to have 'gone through the eddoes' in Bajan parlance. Because the Russians displayed the temerity to merely defend their own sphere of interest from American-NATO encroachment they've been taken to task by the primary agents of the Neoliberal Global State - the U.S.

For all of us who've followed the manned space program since Alan Shepherd's historic sub-orbital ride in a Mercury capsule on May 5, 1961, this is a real setback and mightily distressing. That it came under a Democratic President's watch - who as a candidate repeatedly called out the words "hope" and "change" - makes it even more distressing. "Hope" and "change" all right-  in the wrong direction!

We were told, at one political confab in 2008, that "we were the change we were waiting for."

Well, evidently not, and neither was Mr. Obama. (Whose administration, again emanating from State, also announced a cut in Fulbright scholarships- one of the primary props for good international relations - because they encouraged cross cultural and cross-national understanding.)

Go figure.