http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint/

Or

http://office.microsoft.com/ru-ru/FX010048776.aspx?WT%2Eintid1=ODC%5FRURU%5FFX010064710%5FXT103926097

Looking at the link above I wonder what happened to Russian no-nonsense rustic (agricultural?) and robust sense of technology.

“But, like NASA’s Orion capsule, the New-Generation Advanced Manned Transportation Spacecraft will do nothing to reduce the cost of access to space, nor will provide new capabilities beyond those which the US and Soviet Union possessed in the 1960′s.”

As to the Russian SLS, sounds like they are expected to offer a formal competition to develop a rocket which might be built. Horrors! But it does make for good Powerpoint and, at least unlike SLS, the Yenesi-5 is not now costing them a large fraction of their space development budget. That’s because they aren’t building it. Pretty smart, no?

So they’re not copying the U.S., but they’re probably smarter than the U.S. Maybe we should call that “riding high”?

http://www.citizensinspace.org/2013/10/russia-unveils-advanced-capsule/#!

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/
“The agency’s tender would essentially start the development of the rocket, which if ever built, could carry cosmonauts to the Moon and even become a foundation for an expedition to Mars.”

Well, as you say, Soyuz has been been flying for decades. The main part of Soyuz is 1960s generation, though the latest models have been outfitted with modern avionics. If Shuttle were still working, it would be with upgraded 1970s technologies. “Operational” doesn’t really mean “flying high” to me. If I want to go downtown, I could “ride high” on a horse. Horses are wonderfully “operational”, especially if you’re nice to them. One will always get me downtown. But, as for Soyuz, their capabilities are really quite limited.

At least we aspire to “ride high”. What are the Russians building that will offer access to deep space?

Yes, really. Soyuz is still operational. Been flying for decades. Shuttle is not.

The Russian space program is still flying high? Really? I guess that’s related to the fact that just the other day the head of the Russian Space Agency was thrown out on his rear, and that Roskosmos is likely to be split in two halves. It would seem that you have more confidence in the Russian space agency than the Russian government does!

As to the death of one of the Original Seven being symbolic of the American space program being a punchline, what it really symbolizes is that the American space program doesn’t look anything like it did with the Original Seven. With all due respect to the Original Seven, I firmly believe that preservation of that view, of what it takes to be a credible space effort, after fifty years, is in no ones interest.

But I will correct myself and acknowledge that while civil service people are likely to get back pay for work they weren’t allowed to do, the same is not necessarily the case for contractors. In that case, the government may indeed end up spending less, and the savings accrued will be taken from contractor employees who actually thought they had a job.

So this week, NASA made the headlines for being closed and laughed at; was depicted in a disaster film about shuttle which in reality hasn’t flown in years- and for the death of one of the Original Seven. America’s space program is now a punchline.

Over time, most folks watching this expect contractors to cut their staffing, but it’s not quite a mechanical process.