The US is preparing an international agreement on the extraction of resources on the moon, but without Russia


In Washington, they set about preparing an international treaty on the extraction of resources on our natural satellite. The US administration even plans to include a number of partner states in the agreement. At the same time, Russia is not included in this list, Reuters reports, citing sources involved in the preparation of the document.


At the moment, it is known that the contract should be called Artemis Accords. One of the main points of the agreement is the creation of so-called "security zones" around the perimeter of the lunar bases of the United States and partner countries. This will prevent damage from potential interference by competing states.

At the same time, Washington emphasizes that this is not a matter of territorial claims, but of ensuring security for all participants in lunar expeditions. So, if a country has announced the establishment of a “security zone” around a certain region, then representatives of another state must knowingly warn it of its approach and conduct joint consultations.

Also, the agreement must spell out rules confirming ownership of the extracted lunar resources at the level of international law.

It is worth noting that the United States has not yet submitted the project to its allies, but in the near future Washington plans to begin formal negotiations with Canada, Japan, the UAE and the EU states. Russia is currently not included in the list of partners. Partly due to the position of the Pentagon, concerned about the "dangerous" maneuvers of Russian satellites.
  • Photos Used: NASA
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. Observer2014 Offline Observer2014
    Observer2014 6 May 2020 14: 41
    0
    We are for "Pipeline" without Russia, even from the moon. am laughing Better not even think that. I will not be surprised that sooner or later they will say that Russia got Siberia and all that.
    Mr. Rogozin, what do you think up there to say about this external threat?
  2. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 6 May 2020 14: 49
    0
    It is high time to study this issue, so that by the time available technologies for the extraction and transportation of lunar minerals to Earth appear, there is already a well-thought-out legal base. Then the business will reach the moon. And when a business drags on, the industry begins to grow faster.
    1. Observer2014 Offline Observer2014
      Observer2014 6 May 2020 15: 02
      +2
      And when a business drags on, the industry begins to grow faster.

      God forbid my company from our Russian business! Protect him from these hungry eyes and paws! May God allow me to stay at least in such a state as now! And do not care that we work without anything in practice. We even buy specials. clothes for your money! Amen! recourse
      Ieide !!! With your thoughts and beliefs like that! Nothing can be worse for people than Russian business in Russia! This is poverty and ruin in everything!
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 6 May 2020 15: 24
        0
        Did I say something about Russian business? And in Russia, everything is normal with business.
      2. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 7 May 2020 09: 18
        +1
        Ieide !!! With your thoughts and beliefs like that! Nothing can be worse for people than Russian business in Russia! This is poverty and ruin in everything!

        Did you have the opportunity to compare?
  3. Dust Offline Dust
    Dust (Sergei) 6 May 2020 17: 10
    +3
    Well, how can you seriously take this nonsense! “We staked out territories where we were not, but saw them through a telescope!” Rupture of the brain!) .... Why are they doing this? They want money! Space exploration is a really expensive pleasure! So they want other countries to give money or develop secondary tasks during development! Which also need money!)
  4. cmonman Offline cmonman
    cmonman (Garik Mokin) 6 May 2020 17: 36
    0
    Russia is currently not included in the list of partners. Partly due to the position of the Pentagon, concerned about the "dangerous" maneuvers of Russian satellites.

    I do not agree with the author regarding the “Russian satellites”. Here is what one of the Amer’s officials said:

    The United States will work with “like-minded countries,” because the contract process is lengthy, and working with nations without space capabilities would be a waste of timeReuters said a senior administration official.

    Russia was offered to participate in the Artemis program by developing a docking station, but the Americans gave the technical requirements. Rogozin openly said that Russia would not be a "carrier of shells" and left the project. These are the countries that are included in the project, and will develop Artemis Accords. So you have to blame yourself.
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 6 May 2020 17: 46
      +3
      These are the countries that are included in the project, and will develop Artemis Accords. So you have to blame yourself.

      This article is about something else. Mr. Trump was about to mark territory. To put columns with tablets around the perimeter. I believe Russia does not care what the Americans agreed with the Japanese.
      1. cmonman Offline cmonman
        cmonman (Garik Mokin) 6 May 2020 17: 53
        -1
        Myself, dear and beloved, I quote:

        These are the countries that are included in the project, and will develop Artemis Accords.

        Google which countries are included in the construction project of Artemis (hardware). Russia and Mongolia are not there.
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 6 May 2020 18: 07
          +2
          These are the countries that are included in the project, and will develop Artemis Accords.

          Google which countries are included in the construction project of Artemis (hardware). Russia and Mongolia are not there.

          Yes, design what you want. If you fly, of course. And then who knows, maybe the elections will be held and everything will stall.
          I’m talking about something else, it’s impossible to mark the territory.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 6 May 2020 21: 37
            -1
            Sooner or later, the question of dividing the moon into property will arise.
            1. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 6 May 2020 22: 50
              +3
              Sooner or later, the question of dividing the moon into property will arise

              Naturally. yes It is not a fact that it will come to division into sectors, but at least it will be necessary to agree on the rules for joint development. This is simply the first application to establish its rules, and in a typical peremptory boorish manner. For the rules to work, their coordination with the real actors acting there is necessary. There are not so many countries capable of flying, building a base and carrying out industrial or scientific activities independently or in cooperation with other participants in the foreseeable future, about 10-15. It would be wise to discuss prospects with China, Russia, India, the EU and other possible participants, for example, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Brazil, Israel, Iran, South Africa and others that have at least some ambitions in space.
              If you expand this circle, everything will turn into a semblance of a UN assembly. The rest will declare the principles of equality and accessibility. For example, Estonia or Nicaragua are unlikely to plan something similar, but they will insist that they have the right to this, and will oppose the transfer of any areas under the control of other countries that the space is common.
              This attempt to establish its own rules programs the inevitable confrontation in the future. It will all begin with peaceful development, and end with an arms race. As soon as the moon exploration project begins to be implemented, there will be a threat of a possible deployment of weapons. China and Russia will be forced to step up their similar projects. India will reach for them.
              And all because some people consider themselves exceptional. This boorish immediacy of the herdsmen and bloated conceit is somewhat annoying. hi
              1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                Cyril (Kirill) 7 May 2020 16: 28
                -1
                Insolence is a loose concept. Besides - the second happiness. Let's be honest and not hypocritical - it is impudence that makes some countries more successful and influential, others less. Insolence in its time made Britain the greatest and most powerful empire on Earth, and the USA and the USSR - superpowers. Yes, the USSR was also arrogant, no matter who said anything about it. And Russia, that in the Crimea, that in Syria, is also impudent, which caused its certain success in this regard.

                and bloated conceit

                Yes, all countries have inflated conceit. The Americans call themselves exceptional, the Russians call themselves the saviors of the world, Ukraine the savior of Europe from "Russian barbarians", etc., etc.
                1. 123 Offline 123
                  123 (123) 7 May 2020 16: 59
                  +3
                  Insolence is a loose concept. Besides - the second happiness. Let's be honest and not hypocritical - it is impudence that makes some countries more successful and influential, others less.

                  Forced to disagree. In order to be successful, a country must have a competitive scientific and technological potential, have an educated population, access to resources, and so on. I’m afraid that arrogance alone is not enough to create an empire. No. If she is not supported by weighty arguments, all she can do is get an oar in the face.

                  Insolence in its time made Britain the greatest and most powerful empire on Earth, and the USA and the USSR - superpowers.

                  At a minimum, they had tremendous economic, scientific, and military potential. As an example of unsubstantiated arrogance, Georgia can probably be brought under Saakashvili, there were plenty of arrogance, the result is known.

                  Yes, the USSR was also arrogant, no matter who said anything about it.

                  I do not agree, but the topic is complex. I think it’s not worth going deeper.

                  And Russia, that in the Crimea, that in Syria, is also impudent, which caused its certain success in this regard.

                  Our opinions are different, but in the Crimea, I at least understand what you mean. What is the impudence of Russia in Syria, I just do not understand. request

                  Yes, all countries have inflated conceit. The Americans call themselves exceptional, the Russians call themselves the saviors of the world, Ukraine the savior of Europe from "Russian barbarians", etc., etc.

                  Perhaps there is some truth here, but Russia is my country, I will not defend the interests or justify the actions of the United States or Ukraine under any circumstances. At least because the US exclusivity is justified by its superiority over the rest. If you agree to consider yourself a second-class person, hold the flag. Ukrainian (meaning the current statehood) "model" justifies its existence by difference, of course, for the better from us, as you have deigned to say - "Russian barbarians." I also cannot agree with such a setting. No. In both cases, the common origins of ideology are Nazism. I don’t know how for you, for me it’s unacceptable in principle. As for Russia, first of all, the "saviors of the world" is not a state ideology, if you remember, we do not have it at all now. Secondly, such an ideology is not based on the idea of ​​superiority over other peoples, the difference is obvious.
                  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 7 May 2020 18: 08
                    -1
                    Forced to disagree. In order to be successful, a country must have a competitive scientific and technological potential, have an educated population, access to resources, and so on. I’m afraid that arrogance is not enough to create an empire.

                    Of course. However, all of the above, without a certain share of arrogance, will not make the country leading. By the way, arrogance is also needed to access resources.)

                    At a minimum, they had tremendous economic, scientific, and military potential. As an example of unsubstantiated arrogance, Georgia can probably be brought under Saakashvili, there were plenty of arrogance, the result is known.

                    Again, definitely. And there won't even be any "but" and "however". Absolutely agree.

                    I do not agree, but the topic is complex. I think it’s not worth going deeper.

                    Yes, he was arrogant, he was)) In the same way, he expanded his influence to other countries. Where by cunning and bribery, where by the support of "socialist forces", where directly by military force and threats. It's okay, in general.)

                    What is the impudence of Russia in Syria, I just do not understand.

                    Agree. We are clearly not there just to "fight terrorism."

                    I will not defend the interests or justify the actions of the United States or Ukraine under any circumstances.

                    So I also do not justify and do not uphold)) I just perceive this, let’s say, philosophically.)

                    If you agree to consider yourself a second-class person, hold the flag.

                    Well, I have not seen, for example, that the United States calls Russians "second class" people. Enemies, yes. Rivals - yes, opponents - yes. "Second-class people" - I have not seen. At least in their national ideology. Some politicians expressed this opinion, but these are separate politicians.

                    I also cannot agree with such a statement

                    And I do not urge to agree with her. Moreover, I myself do not agree with her. I am simply saying that this is characteristic to one degree or another of all countries. Even in some seedy African "banana republic" this will also happen.

                    As for Russia, firstly, the "saviors of the world" are not a state ideology, if you remember, we do not have it at all now.

                    The fact that our ideology is not spelled out in the Constitution does not mean that it does not exist) It clearly shows through in the statements of high-ranking officials (including the president), in the programs of the ruling parties, etc., etc.

                    Secondly, such an ideology is not based on the idea of ​​superiority over other peoples, the difference is obvious.

                    During the times of the Russian Empire, the idea of ​​Pan-Slavism was widespread, considering RI as the "elder brother" of all Slavic peoples (and there was also the idea of ​​"Moscow - the Third Rome", which is also quite "exclusive"). During the Soviet era, the Soviet people were proclaimed the most advanced and just, bringing the "light of socialism to the oppressed peoples" (similar to the "light of democracy" that the United States now carries or), now it is the "stronghold of traditional Christian values", "the stronghold of true spirituality" plus "the savior of the world from fascism ". So, the same nationalism, only seasoned differently.

                    As for nationalism and ideas of superiority, I remember very well how in the state media in 2014-2015 (now less often, but also found) they directly spoke about the fact that without Russia (or the USSR) there would be no current post-Soviet republics (in in particular, Ukraine) that we pulled them out almost from the Stone Age, etc., etc. In the same way, the British Empire proclaimed the "burden of the whites" - they say, we nobly bring the Enlightenment and the benefits of civilization to the dark peoples.

                    What is most interesting, in the case of the United States, and in the case of the USSR, and in the case of the British (or other "white" empire), there were real reasons for all this. It is difficult to deny that the United States contributed to the prosperity of Japan or South Korea, the British Empire - India and Hong Kong, the USSR - the Soviet republics, etc. Another point is that the prosperity of these countries is justified not only (and perhaps not so much) by the foreign influence of the great powers , but also by their own labor.
                    1. 123 Offline 123
                      123 (123) 7 May 2020 20: 51
                      +3
                      Of course. However, all of the above, without a certain amount of arrogance, will not make the country leading. By the way, arrogance is also needed to access resources)

                      Not necessarily, or the use of resources located on its own territory, arrogance?

                      Agree. we are clearly not there just to "fight terrorism."

                      Not only. But what is the essence of the claims - it is not clear. They came to help when the state almost ceased to exist, and by invitation. It is not clear who called the Turks with the Americans there. The military presence there since Soviet times, it only expanded. It helps to defend its geopolitical and economic interests, but is this arrogance?

                      So I also do not justify and do not uphold)) I just perceive it, let's say, philosophically)

                      Rather cynical.

                      Well, I have not seen, for example, that the United States calls Russians "second class" people. Enemies, yes. rivals - yes, opponents - yes. "Second-class people" - I have not seen. At least in their national ideology. Some politicians expressed this opinion, but these are separate politicians.

                      Why only Russians? This applies to absolutely everyone. If you are exceptional, America is above all, this is the division into grades. There is you - the highest American and everyone else. This is it. yes
                      Separate politicians, including the president and close circle - this is the country's leadership. Try, for example, to name Putin, Matvienko, a dozen senators, leaders of political parties as individual politicians, and their opinion does not coincide with the state. In addition, words do not differ with deeds. They consider it possible to extend their jurisdiction to the whole world and so on.

                      The fact that our ideology is not spelled out in the Constitution does not mean that it does not exist) It clearly shows through in the statements of high-ranking officials (including the president), in the programs of the ruling parties, etc., etc.

                      Can you formulate? By the way, the ruling party is one.

                      During the times of the Russian Empire, the idea of ​​Pan-Slavism was widespread, considering RI as the "elder brother" of all Slavic peoples (and there was also the idea of ​​"Moscow - the Third Rome", which is also quite "exclusive").

                      Firstly, I was talking about Nazism, not nationalism, this is not the same thing. Secondly, there is no smell of nationalism here. "Big Brother" helped rather than subordinate. Slavic peoples, and not only those who fell within the borders of the empire, enjoyed the same rights. There was almost no Russian blood in the veins of the tsars, anyone in the nobility, from Tatars to Scots. What nationalism can we talk about? But no one shared nationality, religion was the determining factor. There are, of course, exceptions, but they rather confirm the rule. If we talk about states - Poland, but this is a separate story, it is difficult to call it an innocent victim of Russian expansion. If we talk about peoples - they were Jews, a separate and complex issue, I doubt that this format can be discussed in detail.
                      Third Rome - a popular idea and not only with us. I believe that it arose not from scratch, what is the impudence, it is not clear.

                      During the Soviet era, the Soviet people were proclaimed the most advanced and just, bringing the "light of socialism to the oppressed peoples" (similar to the "light of democracy" that the United States now carries or), now it is the "stronghold of traditional Christian values", "the stronghold of true spirituality" plus "the savior of the world from fascism ". So it's the same nationalism, only seasoned differently.

                      I believe that the Soviet people, not without reason, called themselves advanced, while, mind you, Soviet people, that is, all citizens, regardless of faith, nationality, gender, and so on. Moreover, the idea of ​​equality, fraternity was proclaimed. It is rather the antipode of Nazism.
                      As for the actual

                      "stronghold of traditional Christian values", "stronghold of true spirituality"

                      Proclaimed not only adherence to Christian values, other religions are also not in disgrace. Spirituality? Why not? If overseas decided that they need other values, this is their problem. We do not impose our own on anyone.

                      plus "savior of the world from fascism"

                      Is that not so?

                      As for nationalism and the ideas of superiority, I remember very well how in the state media in 2014-2015 (now less common, but also found) they directly spoke of the fact that without Russia (or the USSR) the present post-Soviet republics (in in particular, Ukraine) that we pulled them almost from the Stone Age, etc., etc.

                      Isn’t that so? Many republics simply would not exist. Look at the borders of Ukraine, who were the Ukrainians in Poland, who they were for the Turks, what would happen to Armenia and Georgia.

                      that we pulled them out almost from the Stone Age, etc., etc. In the same way, the British Empire proclaimed the "burden of the whites" - they say, we nobly bring the Enlightenment and the benefits of civilization to the dark peoples.

                      Are you seriously? In the traditional sense, we practically did not have colonies, even the conquered peoples (for example, Central Asia) can hardly be called oppressed. And economic resources, like the British, were not concentrated in the metropolis, but rather the opposite.

                      What is most interesting, in the case of the United States, and in the case of the USSR, and in the case of the British (or other "white" empire), there were real reasons for all this. It is difficult to deny that the United States contributed to the prosperity of Japan or South Korea, the British Empire - India and Hong Kong, the USSR - the Soviet republics, etc. Another point is that the prosperity of these countries is justified not only (and perhaps not so much) by the foreign influence of the great powers , but also by their own labor.

                      This is already too far from the topic. Let's get stuck in the debate. laughing hi
                      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 8 May 2020 00: 27
                        -1
                        or use of resources located in one's own territory, arrogance

                        How did the countries get their "territories"?)

                        It helps to defend its geopolitical and economic interests, but is this arrogance?

                        So the Americans with the Turks do the same)

                        If you are exceptionalAmerica above all this is the division into grades. There is you - the highest American and everyone else. This is it. yes

                        Now let's look at the meaning of the word "exclusivity" (Russian first):

                        1. feature, originality inherent only to a given person, object, phenomenon;
                        2. the possession of advantages over others; superiority;
                        3. out of date. one-sidedness, limitation.

                        And now the meaning of the word "exceptionalism" (according to the Oxford Dictionary):

                        the idea that a person, country or political system can be allowed to be different from, and Perhaps better than, others:
                        the popular belief in American exceptionalism

                        So, we see that in both Russian and English, these words denote both a simple difference, a feature inherent in a nation, and its superiority.

                        Now the question. What official document or speech by the top US leadership speaks of "superiority" and "second class people"? Because, as we can see, the phrase "American exceptionalism" can be interpreted in two ways. If it is interpreted as simply a "national peculiarity", then there should be no complaints at all. Each nation is exceptional from this point of view. Something else is needed to interpret the phrase as "American superiority."

                        Can you formulate?

                        Messianism, opposition to "moral decay", "special way", "true stronghold of spirituality."

                        Firstly, I talked about Nazism, and not about nationalism, this is not the same thing.

                        And does the USA (as a country, not individual individuals — and we have plenty of such) call for the extermination of a nation or race? Where?

                        "Big Brother" helped rather than subordinate.

                        Where he helped, and where - he subordinated. And where and then, and then together. The entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia and forcing it to abandon reforms is somehow not particularly like help, more like forcing and interfering in the affairs of a sovereign country (which Americans are so fond of blaming now). And Poland’s accession to the Republic of Ingushetia would also not say that it was directly voluntary. This is if the Slavs. If we talk about other nations, then, excuse me, the Chukchi, Caucasians, and Russia won a bunch of other nations. Some tribes and peoples - yes, have entered into it themselves. Well, some Indian tribes also quite cooperated with future Americans and famously slaughtered other Indians.

                        Slavic peoples, and not only that fell within the borders of the empire, enjoyed the same rights.

                        And no, other nations did not enjoy the same rights. There was no direct outright oppression, of course, but these peoples were not equal in rights.
                        As for the presence of foreigners among the nobility, this is not an indicator. The nobility was consolidated more on the basis of class, rather than geographic or nationality. And so it was in all, absolutely in all countries. For "ordinary" people (from peasants to well-to-do people), national division was, as well as inequality.

                        Speaking of states - Poland, but this is a different story, it is difficult to call it an innocent victim of Russian expansion. If we talk about nations - these were Jews, the issue is separate and complex, I doubt that in this format it is possible to discuss this in detail.

                        But Poland was subjugated? Subdued. Note - not just "put in place". Subdued. Did the Jews get it? I got it.

                        But no one shared nationality; religion was decisive.

                        Religion is largely correlated with nationality even today. At that time - even more so. Moreover, to divide and / or infringe on people by religion is no better than on a national basis.
                        Regarding "Moscow - the Third Rome" - this is the idea of ​​exclusivity. It lies in the fact that it is Moscow (that is, the Russian state) that is the true stronghold of the true Christian faithinherited from Byzantium. Well, at the same time they called themselves the name of the greatest empire of the Ancient World.

                        I believe that the Soviet people, not without reason, called themselves advanced

                        So the Americans themselves are not without reason called as such. Both the British and the French at one time, too. Is not it so?

                        at the same time, note Soviet people, that is, all citizens, regardless of faith, nationality, gender, and so on. Moreover, the idea of ​​equality, fraternity was proclaimed.

                        Well, first of all, let's be honest - the deportations of national minorities are not very similar to "friendship of peoples". There were national contradictions, and quite serious ones. Secondly, replacing "Russian people" with "Soviet people", only the wrapper was changed - the meaning remained the same. Thirdly, the USA also formed as a confederation of free peoples from all over the world. And, in general, for the entire population, except for blacks and Indians (and then for the time being), the principle of "freedom and equality" also operated. Moreover, in fact, the concept of "American nation" is tantamount to the concept of "Soviet people" and also meant a community, including people of different ethnic origins and religions.

                        Proclaimed not only adherence to Christian values, other religions are also not in disgrace.

                        Here, yes, he started talking. I simply meant "traditional values" such as religiosity, patriarchy, "traditional family", etc. etc. However, for the leading religions of Russia (Orthodoxy and Christianity), these values ​​are the same.

                        Spirituality? Why not? If overseas decided that they need other values, this is their problem.

                        Uh, nooo. And why did you decide that our values ​​are "spiritual" and the Western ones are not?

                        Is that not so?

                        Fair? No. The winners of fascism - yes, this is true. The saviors of the world from fascism - no. The world (with the exception of the USSR and some European countries and peoples), to be honest, did not care. The USSR (like other countries) saved itself, first of all. And he did it right.

                        Isn’t that so? Many republics simply would not exist. Look at the borders of Ukraine, who were the Ukrainians in Poland, who they were for the Turks, what would happen to Armenia and Georgia.

                        It's not just about the statehood of these republics. Some (including very public people and even some politicians) directly denied the same Ukrainians and Belarusians, for example, in ethnic self-identification as such. For example, they called (and are still calling) the Ukrainian language a fiction or "a dialect of Russian". Although this is not the case, and this is a scientific fact.

                        Are you seriously? In the traditional sense, we practically did not have colonies, even the conquered peoples (for example, Central Asia) can hardly be called oppressed.

                        There were actually colonies. The distribution of powers between the center and the national regions of the Russian Empire was exactly the same as in India under the rule of the British Empire. And resources in the same way were exported from them to the center. And many indigenous peoples Russified, and were engaged in universal baptism. And the British, too, not only did that "plundered the unfortunate oppressed peoples." The same India, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Africa built their modern development on the basis of the infrastructure, the system of economic and political structure, education, health, which the white colonists brought them. At the same time, both the Indians and the Hong Kongers were fully allowed to profess their religion and customs.
                      2. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 8 May 2020 00: 51
                        +2
                        123, in mathematics create formal languages. Their feature is that all the rules are set explicitly. This ensures the unambiguous recording and perception of messages in these languages.
                        It seems to me that your protracted argument in natural language will not work!
                        Moreover, your opponent does not strive for the truth.
                      3. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 8 May 2020 14: 48
                        +2
                        123, in mathematics create formal languages. Their feature is that all the rules are set explicitly. This provides unambiguous recording and perception of messages in these languages.
                        It seems to me that your protracted argument in natural language will not work!
                        Moreover, your opponent does not strive for the truth.

                        I believe you are right, it will not work in natural language. No. I am far from mathematics, but I like the idea of ​​explicitly defined rules. good I believe that in this correspondence it is absent. In this case, we will not come to a common denominator. My confidence was strengthened by a technical failure, appended the answer to the penultimate paragraph, an accidental keystroke and ...... everything disappeared - belay text, links, videos, there is nothing. request
                      4. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 8 May 2020 15: 04
                        0
                        Moreover, your opponent does not strive for the truth.

                        Because there is no "truth" in this matter.
                      5. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 8 May 2020 15: 37
                        0
                        Cyril, I will teach you a little more logic.

                        Quote: Cyril
                        Because there is no "truth" in this matter.

                        There should be no "truth" in the question. smile
                      6. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 8 May 2020 16: 12
                        0
                        I will teach you a little more logic.

                        You first deal with the analogies, then you are going to teach someone else.

                        There should be no "truth" in the question.

                        Good. The answer to the question in question does not imply "truth." Is that clearer?
                      7. isofat Offline isofat
                        isofat (isofat) 8 May 2020 16: 16
                        0
                        Cyril, well done. smile
  • 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 6 May 2020 17: 42
    +2
    Washington plans to begin formal negotiations with Canada, Japan, the UAE and EU states.

    Why didn’t they call Mongolia? Is their contribution to space exploration less than that of Canada or the UAE? In my opinion, they have equal chances to open a quarry on the moon.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 7 May 2020 18: 56
      -1
      As for the UAE, I agree, but Canada has been conducting its space program since 1962. She became the third country in the world whose spacecraft was put into orbit. In addition to satellites and space telescopes, she made manipulators for the ISS.
  • andrew42 Offline andrew42
    andrew42 (Andrei) 6 May 2020 17: 42
    -1
    There are great doubts that the satellite is "natural". But doubts that the American leg never jumped on the lunar surface - these doubts have practically disappeared for today. Drill, gentlemen, drill! She's golden!
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 6 May 2020 18: 13
      +2
      There are great doubts that the satellite is "natural". But doubts that the American leg never jumped on the lunar surface - these doubts have practically disappeared for today.

      Doubts, of course, are your own business, I do not see anything really terrible in this, some people generally consider the earth flat. It is not clear another. What doubts did you have about the flight of the Americans to the moon and why did they disappear today? What happened so milestone?
      1. andrew42 Offline andrew42
        andrew42 (Andrei) 7 May 2020 11: 49
        +1
        Epoch-making? “It's that NOTHING has happened since the American Lunar Scam. Nothing, not a single step from the landing of machine guns on the lunar soil. This is truly EPOCHAL.
        1. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 7 May 2020 16: 31
          -2
          Nothing, not a single step from the landing of machines on the lunar soil.

          And Russia still cannot send an AMS to the Moon, similar to the one sent by the USSR in 1959-60. So what? Does this mean that the USSR did not send anything to the moon and all these missions with the Lunokhod were "Mosfilm"?
  • shadow Offline shadow
    shadow 6 May 2020 18: 08
    0
    Another crazy story from a hangover.
  • boriz Offline boriz
    boriz (boriz) 6 May 2020 19: 45
    +6
    That's fine. The Russian Federation, not bound by any agreements, will dig where it can and wants.
    1. cmonman Offline cmonman
      cmonman (Garik Mokin) 7 May 2020 02: 29
      -2
      That Russia wants to dig, no one has any doubt. But can it?
      Here's an interview with NASA CEO about the Moon (in Russian). It will be interesting to listen ...

      The head of NASA: the United States is interested in partnership with Russia in the exploration of the moon.

      https://www.golos-ameriki.ru/
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 7 May 2020 10: 31
        +4
        Here's an interview with NASA CEO about the Moon (in Russian). It will be interesting to listen ...

        Thank you hi I listened .....

        We are going to send astronauts to the moon and we have a program to ensure a permanent presence on the moon

        That's all. Ambitious plans. And already divide the skin of "not mined minerals". In fact, there is no station, no rocket, and you are trying to mark the territory.
        That American look is not equitable cooperation.

        We would definitely like to see continued cooperation. Even after we resume the launch of American astronauts on American rockets, we should not forget that half of the ISS belongs to Russia.

        Since 2011, we have been in a situation where we are completely dependent on the Russian Unions, we give them cash, they launch our astronauts, this is not the kind of cooperation we would like. We strive for equal cooperation, when both countries can use each other's missiles.

        Naturally, such cooperation of the USA is not satisfactory, it is understandable and understandable. And so it looks equitable cooperation in the new lunar program is a docking station, not already developed by Russia, but manufactured according to the American standard. This is an ordinary contractor order - do it to us like we want. That's all the collaboration. As far as I understand, delivery is also supposed to be exclusively American transport. That is, the United States was not initially interested in any cooperation. request A foundation is being laid right now for rivalry and confrontation in the future.

        That Russia wants to dig, no one has any doubt. But can it?

        Indeed, there are doubts, however, as in the capabilities of the United States. While I see exorbitantly hyped ambitions. They would wait at least for decency for another 20 days. Indeed, on May 27 an important event is planned, the Falcon 9 rocket should deliver the Crew Dragon to the ISS with astronauts on board.
        In fact, today we have a situation - you can get into space only on the Unions, but at the same time shout loudly "We can repeat".
        1. cmonman Offline cmonman
          cmonman (Garik Mokin) 7 May 2020 17: 20
          -1
          123,
          in your last answer you switched to my personality and even mentioned parts of my body. Either apologize now, here, or don’t bother commenting — I won’t answer you.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 7 May 2020 17: 34
            0
            in your last answer you switched to my personality and even mentioned parts of my body. Either apologize now, here, or don’t bother commenting — I won’t answer you.

            It is regrettable that they accepted on my personal account, I had in mind a few other things. After all, you did not write this law.
            Since they thought that what was written refers to you personally, then accept my apologies. hi
            1. cmonman Offline cmonman
              cmonman (Garik Mokin) 7 May 2020 17: 39
              -1
              apology accepted drinks
            2. isofat Offline isofat
              isofat (isofat) 7 May 2020 19: 11
              +1
              I am quite happy that Garik is silent in a rag when I explain his mistakes to him.
              As Sergey Marzhetsky says:

              Quote: Marzhetsky
              It is your choice to hide your head in the sand. Just remember that everything else sticks out of the sand and is fixed.

              123, carry offended water. smile
              1. cmonman Offline cmonman
                cmonman (Garik Mokin) 7 May 2020 20: 14
                -1
                isofat, you said:

                I am quite happy that Garik is silent in a rag when I explain his mistakes to him.

                I am “silent in a rag” to your comments for the reason that I do not want to communicate with you.
                And with Sergei Marzhetsky, although we disagree in many respects, we understand that everyone has the right to have an opinion and to express.
                1. isofat Offline isofat
                  isofat (isofat) 7 May 2020 21: 17
                  +1
                  Quote: cmonman
                  I am “silent in a rag” to your comments for the reason that I do not want to communicate with you.

                  Garik, don’t explain, I understand everything. This is your choice... smile
                2. isofat Offline isofat
                  isofat (isofat) 7 May 2020 21: 29
                  +1
                  Garik, taking this opportunity ... What is there on Texas that is exciting? Arrangements as always bye-bye? Be silent, be silent ... smile
              2. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 7 May 2020 20: 59
                +3
                carry offended water

                I re-read my commentary, it really turned out ambiguous, rather rude and, in my opinion, undeservedly, especially addressed to the state, and not to the person. Since it happened, I'm not ashamed to apologize. Moreover, a person defends the position of his country, which is clear to me and deserves respect, even if the opinions are directly opposite, in contrast to the position of the "classic" whose quote you quoted. laughing
          2. cmonman Offline cmonman
            cmonman (Garik Mokin) 7 May 2020 18: 13
            -1
            And this is how equal cooperation in the new lunar program looks like - a docking unit, not already developed by Russia, but manufactured according to the American standard. This is a regular contractor order - do it to us like we want. That's all the collaboration.

            Canada was instructed to make a robot arm, TK was set by amers, and they do it. Silently. Australia and Japan agreed to work with NASA as “projectile carriers”. Silently. The docking unit should be one company - the company customer. Everyone knows the case of the loss of an expensive satellite by the SpaceX rocket - the docking unit was not from SpaceX.
            There is nothing to poke your I in an interstate project. Or or.
            Russia decided to go out, by itself. Now claps his teeth. But the size of the pug does not allow to stop the process - “the process has started” (s).
            1. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 7 May 2020 21: 14
              +3
              Canada was instructed to make a robot arm, TK was set by amers, and they do it. Silently. Australia and Japan agreed to work with NASA as “projectile carriers”. Silently. The docking unit should be one company - the company customer.

              That's what I'm talking about. yes Here it is, an understanding of American cooperation.

              We speak and point the finger, you silently do what you said.

              The docking unit should be one company - the company customer.

              Well, let the company the customer do it himself. hi

              Everyone knows the case of the loss of an expensive satellite by the SpaceX rocket - the docking unit was not from SpaceX.

              May I have more details? I did not understand what it was about.

              There is nothing to poke your I in an interstate project. Or or.

              If the project is interstate, why not?

              Russia decided to go out, by itself. Now claps his teeth. But the size of the pug does not allow to stop the process - “the process has started” (s).

              And who was going to stop the process? belay By the way, where and how did the process go - to speak prematurely. yes As for the pug, the apparent dimensions do not always correspond to the content; upon closer inspection, the elephant may turn out to be a toad, puffed through a straw. winked
              1. cmonman Offline cmonman
                cmonman (Garik Mokin) 7 May 2020 23: 02
                -1
                May I have more details? I did not understand what I mean.

                I mean the expensive (about $ 3 billion) Zuma of Northrop Grumman, which has not moved away from the last stage (2018).

                In its report, the government points to the reason many in the aerospace industry suspected back in January: a failed payload adapter. Like the satellite, this adapter was designed and manufactured by Northrop Grumman. The adapter was mounted on top of the SpaceX rocket and was supposed to release Zuma into space as soon as it reached the correct location. Apparently, this did not happen.

                The satellite was so secret that Northrop Grumman installed the adapter and satellite themselves, without SpaceX specialists. What they screwed up there is unknown, but the result is known.
                I want to say - so that there are no unfounded accusations, you must have one responsible. A recent example is holes on ISS. Russia said “not us”, the Americans shrugged “but what have we got to do with it - you flew on it”, well, etc. It turns out so far. And the thing is not even where-and-how these holes were made, but the fact is that without knowing, it is impossible to prevent repetition.
                From my experience here, I found out (and immediately) for myself one truth - Americans are not afraid to allow marriage (even if it is impossible to remake or remodeling is expensive). They are afraid that the marriage will go to the customer.
                That is why the worker who committed the marriage immediately runs-and-for-himself-reports. There was NEVER punishment ...
                1. isofat Offline isofat
                  isofat (isofat) 7 May 2020 23: 52
                  +1
                  Quote: cmonman
                  Question to the forum - can someone explain the phrase “mass excellence”?

                  cmonman, “Mass excellence” is what you talk about the United States by advertising this spoiled product. smile
                2. 123 Offline 123
                  123 (123) 8 May 2020 12: 52
                  +2
                  The satellite was so secret that Northrop Grumman installed the adapter and satellite themselves, without SpaceX specialists. What they screwed up there is unknown, but the result is known.

                  Thank you. hi Now it’s clear what the conversation is about. yes But the docking port has absolutely nothing to do with it, I doubt it was there at all. They launched a satellite, not an ISS segment, why do they need a docking? As far as I understand, the satellite did not separate from the stage; Russia and Roskosmos in particular have nothing to do with this "triumphant" episode.

                  https://russian.rt.com/science/article/468422-ssha-sputnik-zuma-spacex

                  I want to say - so that there are no unfounded accusations, you must have one responsible. A recent example is holes on ISS. Russia said “not us,” the Americans shrugged - “and what do we have to do with it - you flew on it,” etc. It turns out so far. And the point is not even where and how these holes were made, but the fact is that without knowing, it is impossible to prevent repetition.

                  And this one responsibleOf course, will be the USA? Other candidates considered?

                  From my experience working here, I found out (and immediately) for myself one truth - Americans are not afraid to allow marriage (even if it is impossible to remake or remodeling is expensive). They are afraid that the marriage will go to the customer.
                  That is why a worker who has committed a marriage immediately runs away and reports to himself. There was NEVER punishment ...

                  Apparently, not everyone reaches, in Northrop Grumman and SpaceX did not reach, and they killed the satellite. yes Probably, it was far to run, just did not have time. request Maybe it’s time to learn from the experience of Rogozin, who personally shoots everyone who confesses marriage from the Mauser personally? sad Can you imagine that? winked
                  1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                    Cyril (Kirill) 8 May 2020 13: 13
                    +1
                    But the docking station has nothing to do with it, I doubt that he was there at all. Launched a satellite. and not the ISS segment, why do they need a dock?

                    In this case, by "docking station" your opponent meant the adapter with which the satellite was attached to the second stage of the launch vehicle. And yes, it was made without SpaceX's involvement (it was a really secret program) and caused the satellite to fail to enter its intended orbit.

                    As far as I understand, the satellite did not separate from the stage; Russia and Roscosmos in particular have nothing to do with this "triumphant" episode.

                    Your opponent gave you this case as an example of what the lack of unification leads to. A correct example, by the way. He did not say that Russia and Roscosmos had anything to do with this case.
                    1. 123 Offline 123
                      123 (123) 8 May 2020 15: 54
                      +2
                      In this case, by "docking station" your opponent meant the adapter with which the satellite was attached to the second stage of the launch vehicle. And yes, it was made without SpaceX's involvement (it was a really secret program) and caused the satellite to fail to enter its intended orbit.

                      And what have we got to do with it? Now, if they had entrusted this to "Krivoruky" Rogozin, there would be a reason to talk. Moreover, the "adept" and the docking station are not the same thing.

                      Your opponent gave you this case as an example of what the lack of unification leads to. A correct example, by the way. He did not say that Russia and Roscosmos had anything to do with this case.

                      Let me ask you a curiosity, but how did you manage this before? Or are the docking nodes on the ISS not unified? There is a reliable, time-tested design, what justifies the new standard?
                      I do not see anything here except the desire to "kick" Russia away from the project. Extra eyes, and even with their own opinion, they do not need.
                      There were only those who were ready to silently bring money in the beak and look faithfully into the eyes.
                      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 8 May 2020 16: 09
                        0
                        Moreover, the "adept" and the docking station are not the same thing.

                        Your opponent simply made a mistake in the term, not so fundamentally.

                        Let me ask you a curiosity, but how did you manage this before? Or are the docking nodes on the ISS not unified? There is a reliable, time-tested design, what is the basis for the new standard?

                        And everything is extremely simple. When the United States proposed to Russia to build a joint station, Russia already had both supply ships and modules for this station. Manufactured according to Russian standards. Therefore, the Americans did not mind at all when these standards were applied in the ISS. They even adapted their "Shuttles" for it.

                        The ISS uses several docking standards - Russian (for Russian modules and Soyuz spacecraft), American (for American modules and American ships), and two international standards that everyone can use (thanks to the adapter).

                        International Standard Docking System, abbr. MSSS (International Docking System Standard, abbreviated IDSS) is the international standard for the docking nodes of spacecraft. It was created by the Multilateral Coordinating Council of the International Space Station, under the auspices of partner organizations of the International Space Station; NASA, Roscosmos, JAX, ESA and the Canadian Space Agency.

                        That's what it was about. In the case of the ISS, the two main partners already had their own ships and modules, and therefore the standards were used from both countries. And the Americans quite themselves went to cooperation and the use of Russian standards. Because it was easier than reinventing what was already invented.

                        In the case of the Lunar Station, the situation is different. Of all the prospective partners, only the United States has at least some kind of technical basis - namely the Orion spacecraft, which uses the American docking standard. It is logical that it is easier to make the whole station on its basis? It is logical.
                      2. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 8 May 2020 17: 06
                        +2
                        And everything is extremely simple. When the United States proposed to Russia to build a joint station, Russia already had both supply ships and modules for this station. Manufactured according to Russian standards. Therefore, the Americans did not mind at all when these standards were applied in the ISS. They even adapted their "Shuttles" for it.
                        The ISS uses several docking standards - Russian (for Russian modules and Soyuz spacecraft), American (for American modules and American ships), and two international standards that everyone can use (thanks to the adapter).

                        If I am not mistaken, the standard provides for three options for the execution of docking nodes, American, Russian and European, and a system of adapters for their compatibility. Now, Americans are pushing for the transition from standard.

                        That's what it was about. In the case of the ISS, the two main partners already had their own ships and modules, and therefore the standards were used from both countries. And the Americans quite themselves went to cooperation and the use of Russian standards. Because it was easier than reinventing what was already invented.
                        In the case of the Lunar Station, the situation is different. Of all the prospective partners, only the United States has at least some kind of technical basis - namely the Orion spacecraft, which uses the American docking standard. It is logical that it is easier to make the whole station on its basis? It is logical.

                        For Americans, it is logical and simpler. For Russia - I doubt it. For example, if they later make the same Federation for flying to the moon, using it on their own modules will be difficult. This is about how to change the track on the railway. Americans are not going to reckon with anyone's opinion.
                        All these are minor technical details.
                        I say that they initially did not intend to coordinate their actions with anyone. Initially, the desire for cooperation is minimal, Americans do not intend to reckon with other people's interests. I repeat.

                        There were only those who were ready to silently bring money in the beak and look faithfully into the eyes.

                        Initially, cooperation with Russia was not planned, they are not ready for any dialogue. This lays the foundation for future confrontation.

                        If you think differently, I'm waiting for arguments. So far I see only an explanation of why you think their actions are correct.
                      3. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 8 May 2020 17: 47
                        +1
                        If I am not mistaken, the standard provides for three options for the execution of docking nodes, American, Russian and European, and a system of adapters for their compatibility. Now, Americans are pushing for the transition from standard.

                        Orion's American docking standard has been developed by an international group including NASA, Roscosmos, Jax, ESA, and the Canadian Space Agency.

                        In fact, it is unified. One.

                        For Americans, it is logical and simpler. I doubt it for Russia. For example, if they later make the same Federation for flying to the moon, using it on their own modules will be difficult. This is about how to change the track on the railway.

                        So if we don’t have a Federation or modules yet, then why not develop them taking into account this single standard, in the development of which Roscosmos also took part? And then there will be no difficulties using the Federation on Russian or foreign modules.
                        This is just a rational option for unification. And that’s all. There is no politics or imposition.

                        I say that they initially do not intend to coordinate their actions with anyone. Initially, the desire for cooperation is minimal, the Americans do not intend to reckon with other people's interests "

                        Initially, cooperation with Russia was not planned, they are not ready for any dialogue.

                        Okay, look:

                        October 2016: At a private meeting of the International Spacecraft Working Group abbr. ISCWG in Houston

                        representatives from the USA, Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada discussed changes in the concept of a station in orbit of the moon

                        Also at the meeting, the launch of the first module was postponed for one year - until about 2023.

                        September 27, 2017: Roskosmos and NASA at the 68th International Congress on Astronautics held in Adelaide (Australia) signed a joint statement on cooperation in the field of research and exploration of deep space. In a statement, they confirmed the interaction in the research of the international lunar program: the creation of the visited moon platform Deep Space Gateway, standardization of standards, scientific missions in the lunar orbit and on the lunar surface A joint statement of intent was signed on intentions to work on the project of the lunar station, but the contract itself requires serious study already at the state level.

                        October 2017 year. The head of Roskosmos Igor Komarov said that working groups have been set up in Russia and the USA to discuss the configuration of the near-moon station Deep Space Gateway, the docking centers and gateways will be made according to Russian standards. Russian experts will create a gateway module designed for spacewalks; module launch is scheduled for 2026.

                        January 2018 of the year: Outer Space Coordination Group ISECG, which includes 14 space agencies, the third edition of the Global Exploration Roadmap abbreviated GER was issued, which discusses the creation of an orbiting lunar station. In addition to creating an orbital station, it also considers international manned missions to the lunar surface.

                        As we can see, the Americans immediately embarked on a course of cooperation and joint development. Roscosmos has been participating in the discussion of the future lunar station since 2016 (in fact, even earlier). Relevant agreements were signed.

                        There was no such thing that NASA came to Roscosmos with a ready-made project and said - do it. Russia took part in the discussion of this program from the very beginning. And until 2019, everything suited her.

                        And then - bam. Rein under the tail. We do not want to participate on unequal conditions! But how this "inequality" manifested itself, neither Rogozin nor anyone else from Roscosmos gave a clear answer.
                      4. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 8 May 2020 17: 58
                        +1
                        Do you yourself read what you submit as arguments?

                        October 2017 The head of Roskosmos Igor Komarov said that working groups have been created in Russia and the USA. who are discussing the configuration of the Deep Space Gateway near-moon station, docking nodes and locks will be made according to Russian standards. Russian experts will create a gateway module designed for spacewalks; module launch is scheduled for 2026.

                        So where are the docking nodes in accordance with Russian standards?
                        And how does this fit with the statement:

                        There was no such thing that NASA came to Roscosmos with a ready-made project and said - do it. Russia took part in the discussion of this program from the very beginning. And until 2019, everything suited her.

                        So if we don’t have a Federation or modules yet, then why not develop them taking into account this single standard, in the development of which Roscosmos also took part? And then there will be no difficulties using the Federation on Russian or foreign modules.

                        You do not read what I am writing to you or do not understand the meaning of what is written? To make the Federation means to remake the rest of the equipment to the American standard or to operate simultaneously the equipment made according to two standards.
                        You there still gave me a link to Wikipedia, there, too, nothing but "held a discussion of this" and "discussed the creation of this", there is nothing. How far have you been able to agree? What's the trade-off?
                      5. Cyril Offline Cyril
                        Cyril (Kirill) 8 May 2020 18: 13
                        0
                        Do you yourself read what you submit as arguments?

                        Of course I read.

                        So where are the docking nodes in accordance with Russian standards?

                        Has Russia already begun to make gateways?

                        To make the Federation means to remake the rest of the equipment to the American standard or to operate simultaneously the equipment made according to two standards.

                        To remake it to the standard developed by Roskosmos too. It is called "American" simply because NASA first decided to implement it.

                        And it will not be necessary to do the technique according to two standards when there is one unified one.
                      6. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 8 May 2020 18: 30
                        +1
                        Has Russia already begun to make gateways?

                        Have you agreed on this? I don’t see the difficulties in creating a product for years.

                        To remake it to the standard developed by Roskosmos too. It is called "American" simply because NASA first decided to implement it.

                        I'm happy for NASA, but aren't there 3 options for it? Ours, American and European?

                        And it will not be necessary to do the technique according to two standards when there is one unified one.

                        Wonderful. good And redo the rest of the technique. It is certainly inexpensive and not expensive. winked Moreover, it is not a fact that the American standard is better.
            2. cmonman Offline cmonman
              cmonman (Garik Mokin) 8 May 2020 16: 46
              0
              Or are the docking nodes on the ISS not unified? There is a reliable, time-tested design, what is the basis for the new standard?

              No, not unified. Russian ships can only dock with the Russian segment of the station, Amer ships - with the American segment.
              And besides the docking station itself, the complex includes a rapprochement system. And NASA wants to have its own.

              The Automated / Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking Machine (ARDV) is NASA's proposed flagship technology demonstration (FTD) mission for flight as early as 2014/2015. An important goal of NASA on the proposed mission is to promote technology and demonstrate automated rendezvous and docking. One element of the mission identified in the 2010 analysis was the development of a laser proximity sensor that could be used for vehicles without auto-proximity at distances from 1 meter (3 feet 3 inches) to 3 kilometers (2 miles).

              In 1985, Dzhanibekov (Salyut-7) showed virtuosity and was able to dock to the ISS, but the problem was remembered.
              NASA has more positive experience of rapprochement and docking, so it will not change this system.
            3. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 8 May 2020 17: 23
              +2
              In 1985, Dzhanibekov (Salyut-7) showed virtuosity and was able to dock to the ISS, but the problem was remembered.

              - their memory is quite selective, 45 years have passed, but how crumpled. Your problems do not exist?

              NASA has more positive experience of rapprochement and docking, so it will not change this system.

              That's what I’m talking about. They do not intend to change anything, they are not set to cooperate. Read how it was before and compare with what we see now:

              https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2015/07/09_a_7632053.shtml

              https://biography.wikireading.ru/200872

              There used to be real cooperation, compromises were made, now this is not even mentioned. This is the way to confront. There is only a desire to subjugate yourself. This, perhaps, is all I want to say on this subject. You take turns with Kirill throwing me technical details, trying to explain the correctness of their actions. This is useless. I specifically highlighted in bold text. If there is anything to object to on this issue, you are welcome, come in and discuss. hi
            4. cmonman Offline cmonman
              cmonman (Garik Mokin) 8 May 2020 17: 50
              0
              There used to be real cooperation, compromises were made, now this is not even mentioned. This is the path to confrontation.

              According to Putin, “a special Russian genome” says in you - “if you are with us SO, then confrontation”. I would call it not confrontation (“confrontation, confrontation” is a very strong word for space), but ignoring it. It's a shame, but you have to eat. They gave you the opportunity. By the way, on a personal example - I have no confrontation with isofat, I just ignore it. He had the opportunity to communicate with me politely, in a gentlemanly way, he did not take advantage.
              What are your plans for the weekend? We did not forbid trips to cars, but shopping trips were masked, without gloves. We observe a distance of 3-4 meters. I bought a steak, the grandchildren will come on Saturday, we will sit on the deck and outstretched arms will pass the general trays ... hi
            5. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 8 May 2020 18: 24
              +2
              There used to be real cooperation, compromises were made, now this is not even mentioned. This is the path to confrontation.
              According to Putin, “a special Russian genome” says in you - “if you are with us SO, then confrontation”. I would call it not confrontation (“confrontation, confrontation” is a very strong word for space), but ignoring it. It's a shame, but you have to eat.
              They gave you the opportunity.

              Why is it a shame? They didn’t agree, and figs with him. We survive. How far-sighted such a decision was, life will show. Ignoring?
              A gentleman needs two clubs, the first groom, the second ignores? laughing

              What are your plans for the weekend? We did not forbid trips to cars, but shopping trips were masked, without gloves. We observe a distance of 3-4 meters. I bought a steak, the grandchildren will come on Saturday, we will sit on the deck and outstretched arms will pass the general trays ...

              What could be the plans. Just sitting at home. The street finally got warmer, in three days the grass turned green. People flooded into the street. The yard is full of children. The isolation index is less than three points. Although the spread is not so large, 583 patients (+32) per day died - 4. Cars in the loudspeaker do not explain anything to people more along the street, in general they felt a weakness. Common trays, of course, yes. laughing Small shops work for us, where it is simply physically impossible to disperse at the required distance in places, and it is not known who touched the products before you or sneezed there. winked
              I believe that warm weather will do its job, as a result, the nuts will be tightened. And I really would not want grace on the street. good
          3. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 8 May 2020 17: 55
            0
            There used to be real cooperation, compromises were made, now this is not even mentioned. This is the way to confront

            So this standard, which the Americans offer, is the result of a compromise. This is the result of international development, in which Russia took part.

            Whoever does not make any compromises here (more precisely, who got the reins after 3 years of joint work) is just Roscosmos. There is no desire for the United States to subordinate the entire project to itself. There is a desire of "Roskosmos" to show off from scratch.
  • cmonman Offline cmonman
    cmonman (Garik Mokin) 8 May 2020 00: 24
    -1
    By the way, 123, on an adjacent branch the article:
    “Destruction of satellites from an airplane: Russia has implemented the long-standing idea of ​​the USSR.”
    From the article:

    ... with the possibility of intercepting space objects at an altitude of up to 600 km by means of a three-stage 79M6 Contact rocket.

    And I have a purely philosophical question - why the project is military, not civilian? Why was the “on-to-launch” rocket developed, and not on-to-launch-satellite rocket?
    The altitude is decent, 600 km, there are plenty of countries / organizations wishing to launch something at such an altitude, especially since microsatellites are now held in high esteem. Is it a “militaristic itch” (as they say about us), or just an inferior “thinking”?
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 8 May 2020 13: 19
      +2
      And I have a purely philosophical question - why the project is military, not civilian? Why was the “on-to-launch” rocket developed, and not on-to-launch-satellite rocket?
      The altitude is decent, 600 km, there are plenty of countries / organizations wishing to launch something at such an altitude, especially since microsatellites are now held in high esteem. Is it a “militaristic itch” (as they say about us), or just an inferior “thinking”?

      It is not difficult and philosophy has nothing to do with it. "Airplane launch" is not a new idea, there have been many similar projects. If the method were more cost-effective, everyone would have switched to it long ago, but for some reason satellites are still launched with rockets from cosmodromes. If we talk about a specific development, its advantage is in portability. At the right time, they hook the rocket to the plane and deliver it to the desired point. Fast and efficient. It is far from the fact that the rocket will be in demand on the civilian market, but judging by the photograph, the payload is not so great, at least the volume. Look at the photo:

      http://avia.pro/news/v-rossii-ispytana-unikalnaya-raketa-dlya-unichtozheniya-amerikanskih-sputnikov

      About the "militaristic itch", who would say. laughing First, look at your military budget. winked
      As for thinking, such a pronunciation was not popular even when the unforgettable Stavropol combiner was. Farmers at the helm of the country are considered bad form since the time of Khrushchev. Nothing good comes of this. By the way, Lukashenko is also an agrarian. winked
  • Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 7 May 2020 18: 27
    -2
    And this is how equal cooperation in the new lunar program looks like - a docking unit, not already developed by Russia, but made according to american standard. This is a regular contractor order - do it to us like we want. That's all the collaboration. As far as I understand, delivery is also supposed to be exclusively American transport. That is, the United States was not initially interested in any cooperation.

    Sorry, but this is only due to the fact that the spaceships intended for this station (Orion) are already ready, but the Russian ones are not. The "Unions" are clearly no longer suitable for the Moon, the "Federation" is in such a limbo that there are serious doubts that it will be ready at all. The Americans have Orion, ready-made, made to American standards. Naturally, the docking station must match it. Can Russia guarantee that it will be able to develop a "Federation" by the indicated dates for the implementation of the Lunar Station? No, he can not.
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 7 May 2020 21: 36
      +3
      Sorry, but this is only due to the fact that the spaceships intended for this station (Orion) are already ready, but the Russian ones are not. The "Unions" are clearly no longer suitable for the Moon, the "Federation" is in such a limbo that there are serious doubts that it will be ready at all. The Americans have Orion, ready-made, made to American standards. Naturally, the docking station must match it. Can Russia guarantee that it will be able to develop a "Federation" by the indicated dates for the implementation of the Lunar Station? No, he can not.

      If everything is done according to the American plan, according to American standards, the project can hardly be called international. This only clearly shows that the level of cooperation was initially minimal. No plans were discussed, it was not even envisaged. The role of the performer was proposed. "Silently do as the elder said." As for readiness, I suppose we will find out soon, if I am not mistaken, was the flight planned for June this year? What does the Federation have to do with it? Why was it necessary to force its creation? Was it planned to be included in this program? The Americans decided everything themselves long ago. Accordingly, the flag in their hands and a happy flight. yes I have no complaints about this, and it cannot be. They decided to do it themselves, more precisely with the participation of wordless performers, let them do it. I just say that Russia was initially offered unacceptable conditions. Saying that Russia, it’s supposed, is itself to blame, and now it is grumbling displeasedly, not correctly. Sometimes it’s better to refuse the offer yes
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 8 May 2020 11: 27
        -2
        If everything is done according to the American plan, according to American standards, the project can hardly be called international.

        Why? The internationality of the project is determined by the contribution of the participants of their forces, intellect and means to the project, and not in what technical standards were used.

        No plans were discussed, it was not even envisaged.

        Who said they were not discussed?

        As for the readiness, I think we will soon find out, if I am not mistaken, the flight was planned for June of this year?

        Federation? For June this year? What do you mean, "Roscosmos" officially announced that the first unmanned flight of the "Federation" will only be in 2023. And given the trend with the constant postponement of the dates and the not too happy state of our cosmonautics - even this period raises doubts.

        What does the Federation have to do with it?

        Because for missions to the Moon, two ships are being developed - the American Orion and the Russian Federation. The first is almost ready, the second is at the stage of mockups (and it is not known whether it will go further).
        The space station needs ships. Orion will be ready, Federation is in question. Since only the American ship is ready, then the station is made taking into account this ship.

        They decided to do it themselves, more precisely with the participation of wordless performers, let them do it.

        Is the use of the American (and in fact - the international) standard "wordless"?

        Saying that Russia, it’s supposed, is itself to blame, and now it is grumbling displeasedly, not correctly.

        Russia was invited to participate - she stood in a pose. Like, we want it to be in our own way, in Russian. At the same time, there is no Russian ship for the station, nor ready-made Russian modules. And we cannot manufacture the modules now. This is an objective fact. Therefore, yes - it’s to blame.
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 8 May 2020 16: 14
          +2
          Why? The internationality of the project is determined by the contribution of the participants of their forces, intellect and means to the project, and not in what technical standards were used.

          Of course. From a formal point of view, this is so. I did not mean the form, but the content. NATO, for example, is also an international organization, do you have doubts about the role of the United States in this organization and, for example, Estonia and Montenegro?

          Who said they were not discussed?

          You just cling to the terms. The discussion is held to make a decision, taking into account the opinion of the participants. If they announce to you that there are two opinions on this issue, one of mine, the second wrong, it’s just a formality, so to speak, the appearance of respecting decency and no more.

          Federation? For June this year? What do you mean, "Roscosmos" officially announced that the first unmanned flight of the "Federation" will only be in 2023. And given the trend with the constant postponement of the dates and the not too happy state of our cosmonautics - even this period raises doubts.

          What does the Federation have to do with it? I'm talking about Orion. The first flight took place in 2014. With their own ship, it is ridiculous to believe that the Americans would agree to use the Russian one. It is they who will "bring it up to standard", the launch is scheduled for the end of June, so let's see how ready it is.

          Because for missions to the Moon, two ships are being developed - the American Orion and the Russian Federation. The first is almost ready, the second is at the stage of mockups (and it is not known whether it will go further).
          The space station needs ships. Orion will be ready, Federation is in question. Since only the American ship is ready, then the station is made taking into account this ship.

          And what's the point of boosting its creation? It will not be involved in the American program; not everything is ready to use it on its own.

          Is the use of the American (and in fact - the international) standard "wordless"?

          Who developed this "international" standard and when?

          Russia was invited to participate - she stood in a pose. Like, we want it to be in our own way, in Russian. At the same time, there is no Russian ship for the station, nor ready-made Russian modules. And we cannot manufacture the modules now. This is an objective fact. Therefore, yes - it’s to blame.

          Not all offers should be accepted. If you make an offer, it is worth considering whether it will be acceptable, if, of course, you are interested in cooperation.
          I’m not talking about who is to blame, this is a subjective opinion. You think that Russia is to blame, I - that the United States, the conversation that it was originally an imitation of cooperation.
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 8 May 2020 17: 15
            +1
            Of course. From a formal point of view, this is so. I did not mean the form, but the content. NATO, for example, is also an international organization, do you have doubts about the role of the United States in this organization and, for example, Estonia and Montenegro?

            The analogy is incorrect. The lunar station is a technological project where the technological level of the participating countries is of primary importance. They have it about the same. Japan, Canada, ESA can produce space technology no worse than the United States.

            NATO is a military-political organization where military and political weight is of primary importance. Therefore, here, of course, the United States will dominate.

            You have compared two phenomena that are very different in nature, which makes the analogy incorrect in terms of logic.

            If they announce to you that there are two opinions on this issue, one of mine, the second is wrong, then this is just a formality, so to speak, the appearance of respecting decency and no more.

            Read:

            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbital_Platform-Gateway

            Where in all this Rogozin and the company saw their "secondary roles" - only God knows.

            Having your own ship, it’s ridiculous to think that the Americans would agree to use Russian.

            The Americans quite normally used the Russian Soyuz when they had the Shuttles. As well as ours used their Shuttles, having the Soyuz.

            And what's the point of boosting its creation? It will not be involved in the American program; not everything is ready to use it on its own.

            You are confusing cause and effect. The "Federation" is not involved in the Lunar Station program, not because the Americans so wanted, but because it simply does not exist. Moreover, according to Rogozin, NASA has asked Roscosmos to develop a backup transport system based on Soyuz.

            Who developed this "international" standard and when?

            The Orion ship uses:

            NASA Docking System (abbreviated as NDS) - international passive active docking mechanism, which is being developed for the future manned space flight on the Orion multi-purpose manned spacecraft and for commercial manned spacecraft. This is the first attempt International Space Station Multilateral Coordinating Council on the practical implementation of the International Docking System Standard. NASA's docking system is also known as the international Low Impact Docking System (iLIDS). [1]

            The International Space Station Multilateral Coordination Board (abbreviated MCB) is the highest level of joint body in the International Space Station (ISS) program. It was created as part of the ISS Memorandum of Understanding [1]. It was originally signed in 1998. [2]

            The Council consists of representatives of each of the cooperating partner organizations for the ISS: NASA, Roscosmos, JAXA, the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency.

            Not all offers should be accepted. If you make an offer, it is worth considering whether it will be acceptable, if, of course, you are interested in cooperation.

            The funniest thing is you know what? Roscosmos later took back its words. Rogozin said that, they say, we did not refuse anything.

            talk about what it was originally an imitation of cooperation.

            No, this is absolutely normal cooperation. Let me give you the words of Dmitry Olegovich:

            "Russia cannot afford to participate in this project in its current form in a secondary role. We are creating our own transport system," Rogozin said at a conference in Korolev, Interfax reports.

            As they say - with preference and courtesans. There are no modules, no ready-made or at least at the stage of pre-flight tests of the spacecraft, no suitable carrier - there is nothing. But the main thing is to stand in a proudly offended position and say that "we will go our own way."
      2. isofat Offline isofat
        isofat (isofat) 8 May 2020 11: 58
        0
        123, explain to me, please, what will the cost of the US exported from the moon be, until I know what they are going to export? I worry if Russia will withstand such competition?
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 8 May 2020 15: 40
          +2
          123, explain to me, please, what will the cost of the US exported from the moon be, until I know what they are going to export? I worry if Russia will withstand such competition?

          The "explainer" from me is still the one laughing but I can share my thoughts. yes
          As far as I understand, this is primarily about Helium-3, this isotope is quite rare on earth. It is believed that this is the "energy of the future", however, little is known about the development of a thermonuclear reactor operating on this fuel. The rest is not yet discussed. It is not efficient to haul ore from the moon, and it is difficult and costly to build concentration plants.
          It is difficult to judge the cost price, not a fact. that they expect to reach a payback, at least in the foreseeable future. An energy crisis on Earth is not yet in sight; it’s more likely for the future. I don’t see a real need for this right now.
          Russia, of course, cannot withstand such competition, the financial costs are colossal, and the economic feasibility is doubtful.
          But I suppose there will be a lunar program of its own. Although not so "chic", so to speak, the economy option. The prospect of having an uncontrolled base permanently hanging overhead, on which, taking into account the habits and train of thought of the "partners," a military infrastructure will surely appear will not please anyone. And you can place a lot of interesting things there, this is not a satellite that is always in sight and that can be shot down. It will be difficult to determine how much and what is buried there, and no one will shoot down the moon. laughing Therefore, the desire to look up close "what they are digging there" will be quite great and not only here. The Chinese comrades are also not without curiosity.
          But this is still very far away, work in this direction is progressing slowly with us, decent financing is not observed. Obviously, they are being cautious, because this may also be an attempt to drag them into the space arms race.
          Let's see how things go. While all this has been heard, ahead of the elections, and the .... negative something needs to be presented to the voters, and here it is - we are the most presamous, fellow Captain America and Spider-Man are with us, yes we will defeat all. angry
          Next year, the future of the program is far from cloudless. It remains to be seen how things will be with the world economy, the elections will be held by that time and perhaps the idea of ​​throwing 100 5000 Docrellions on flights to the moon will not look so attractive. After all, a "support group" also participates in the program, it is quite possible that the Europeans will want to "hold their horses", they also have decent problems with the economy, and the Canadians do not have a Fed printing press.
          In general, let's wait and see. hi
          1. isofat Offline isofat
            isofat (isofat) 8 May 2020 16: 08
            +1
            123, from your answer, I realized that the activity practical Americans are not in the Moon’s minerals. Why else could these movers need the moon? Missiles from there will arrive later than from Earth. The laser doesn't seem to roll either ...

            I noticed that when I read about the actions of the Americans in relation to the Moon, I have a feeling that, as if not to miss, it would go into the wrong hands.

            So the idea arose that all this is an advertising company and another swindle. I won’t be surprised if they then start selling it to the moon. In parts, it’s more profitable. smile

            Behind them is a big debt. A crisis. They wouldn’t do anything with a fright.
            1. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 8 May 2020 16: 29
              +2
              123, from your answer, I realized that the activities of practical Americans are not in the minerals of the moon. Why else could these movers need the moon? Missiles from there will arrive later than from Earth. The laser doesn’t seem to roll either ...

              Not really, fossils, of course, are important, but it doesn't look like a simple business project. It is naive to count on payback in the short term. Missiles, of course, fly longer and lasers are not perfect enough. But on the moon you can place a lot of equipment, and reliably hidden from the curious. A convenient place for testing space weapons, the reverse side is almost invisible.

              I noticed that when I read about the actions of the Americans in relation to the Moon, I have a feeling that, as if not to miss, it would go into the wrong hands.

              To stake out the territory is in their traditions, though it is not a fact that the rest will not give a damn about these "marks." Here they would also call the base Spartli, in the future there would be a transfer of the tradition of "warm good-neighborly" relations from the South China Sea laughing

              So the idea arose that all this is an advertising company and another swindle. I won’t be surprised if they then start selling it to the moon. In parts, it’s more profitable.

              The idea of ​​selling land on the moon is not new, but I doubt that countries that are able to fly there recognize the moon as someone else’s property. And let the others sell candy wrappers. yes

              Behind them is a big debt. A crisis. They wouldn’t do anything with a fright.

              Let them say we are familiar yes if only they didn’t do anything. winked
  • Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 7 May 2020 18: 36
    -2
    For example, during the implementation of the Soyuz-Apollo program, a docking module developed by the USSR according to its own standards was used in the design of the American ship. The Americans took it normally. The same is true for the construction of the ISS and in the Shuttle-Mir programs. This is because at that time Russia already had the appropriate space technology, manufactured according to its own standards.
  • BMP-2 Offline BMP-2
    BMP-2 (Vladimir V.) 6 May 2020 20: 22
    +1
    Has the United States ever fulfilled the terms of the agreements it signed? Then how about "not expanding NATO eastward" :?)
    1. cmonman Offline cmonman
      cmonman (Garik Mokin) 6 May 2020 21: 43
      -2
      Has the United States ever fulfilled the terms of the agreements it signed? Then how about "not expanding NATO eastward" :?)

      Could you please quote the number of the document / contract? If the United States signed, then the USSR / Russia or someone else.
      Save you search time. From Wiki:

      The question of the existence of an agreement on the non-expansion of NATO into the East Europe, allegedly reached in some form in the form of negotiations between the USSR and the USA on the unification of Germany in 1990, is one of the conflicting moments in relations between Russia and NATO. The Russian authorities claim that such an agreement took place verbally and the alliance violated it by its expansion, but the leaders of the alliance argue that such a promise was not made and that such a decision could only be made in writing; the ex-president of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev himself spoke out against the existence of a “guarantee of non-expansion of NATO to the east” contradictory, confirming its existence in some interviews and refuting in others. In the scientific community, opinions about the existence or absence of a non-expansion agreement also differ.

      Will we continue to believe fairy tales or documents that are not?
      1. Bitter Offline Bitter
        Bitter (Gleb) 6 May 2020 22: 12
        +3
        The Russian authorities claim that such an agreement took place orally ...

        Some kind of anecdote, otherwise Mikhail Sergeyevich did not know how such things are being done and he believed the gentlemen at the round table, a word. lol This duck was invented for the people to believe in detente, disarmament (unilaterally) and sit quietly and not buzz.
        And his chosen ones at that time bargained for personal preferences, awards and prizes, selling everyone in a row - and allies, and partners, and their fellow citizens. yes
      2. isofat Offline isofat
        isofat (isofat) 6 May 2020 23: 10
        +4
        cmonman, there are many other facts that the USA is a country of crooks, if you need a piece of paper. You not only deceived Gorbachev. It is believed that:

        ... the refusal to comply with international obligations after their signing is “part of the political tradition” of American presidents, the beginning of which in the last century was laid by Woodrow Wilson.

        PS https://russian.rt.com/world/article/561021-amerika-slovo-obratno
  • Only fools share the skin of an unkilled bear!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • bonifacius Offline bonifacius
    bonifacius (Alex) 7 May 2020 01: 46
    +1
    For God's sake!!! What problems. To instruct Mr. Zhirinovsky and his party to develop and then adopt the law of the Russian Federation on the extraction of resources on all planets of the solar system (including planet satellites), as well as the aortoids and comets of the Oort cloud. To bring this to the attention of the interested world community, and to note that in Russia, domestic laws take precedence over international laws if they infringe on Russia's interests. And to warn about the confiscation of all extracted resources on other planets and their satellites if they are extracted in violation of this law. Well, so somewhere. And let the striped with the stars worry, and invite them to develop the bowels of the sun.
  • Wanderer039 Offline Wanderer039
    Wanderer039 7 May 2020 02: 11
    +4
    Something tells me that by signing such an agreement without the participation of the Russian Federation, China, India and a number of other countries, the United States will be sent away, along with Canada and its other sixes!
  • Serge Tixiy Offline Serge Tixiy
    Serge Tixiy (Serge Tixiy) 7 May 2020 12: 58
    +2
    How much pathos. We must start with the fact that "international" and the United States are about nothing. The USA abolished international law long ago. There is also a "wrong" opinion of the United States. They may be making a treaty, but only the United States has no "allies", there are only puppets that are completely dependent on them, or even controlled. So the international part in this treaty will be represented by such an empty space as, for example, Ukraine. Which "puffs out the cheeks" only in the sizes indicated by the owner. As there President Zelensky replied to Trump - "... You are absolutely right, I completely agree with you .." and so on in everything.