Comments on: Denying a rejection

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 04 May 2007 19:59:19 +0000

Anonymous: I always thought that the lack of opportunities for early international cooperation in the ESAS plan would take away one of the major political rationales for spending on human space exploration.

I fully agree. This is yet another big political mistake made by Dr. Griffin (or, possibly, his boss, but I don’t he cares enough to have made the decision).

— Donald

By: anonymous

anonymous — Thu, 03 May 2007 15:32:54 +0000

It’s just a guess, but I suspect that the Ruskies asked for a part in the Constellation transportation architecture (not NASA’s overall lunar planning) and were rejected because Griffin has ruled that the transportation system must be an all-NASA one. But since Ares 1/Orion won’t fly until 2015 at the earliest and there will be no lunar elements to work on for many years to come, this effectively means to the Ruskies that NASA did reject their cooperation. I always thought that the lack of opportunities for early international cooperation in the ESAS plan would take away one of the major political rationales for spending on human space exploration. But I did not anticipate that NASA would also take heat from the internationals for it.

By: Allen Thomson

Allen Thomson — Wed, 02 May 2007 15:57:25 +0000

It appears that Perminov may not have said what was reported:

http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/2007-May/022868.html

I’m going to try to get a copy of the Interfax report. If I find it, I’ll provide a translation of the relevant parts.

By: Shubber Ali

Shubber Ali — Wed, 02 May 2007 00:42:10 +0000

I'm not sure why the Russians would be offended, given that NASA isn't going to be building a lunar base anyways, and certainly not one which is mining and shipping back fairy dust. um, i mean He3. But hey, I'm a cynic on this....