Thread: Russia in EU

Originally Posted by bad manners

Is that you way of admitting that without having the US govt spending billions on dollars on space these private companies would be nowhere? I am glad that you agree.

Last year I worked as an intern at a local Emergency Management Agency (Owned and Operated by the County Government). We bought office supplies from a local dollar store. Do you also consider this government subsidizing?

Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago. With this consumer, they have been able to put some money aside to have fun with "private" space. Without the personnel who have learned their stuff working on the US taxpayers' money, they would not have been able to do anything just the same. This is in sharp contrast with, say, automotive industry, who do not depend on the US govt in any way. The latter represents truly private and state-independent business, the former does not. I do not mean to say it is bad, it simply cannot be the other way around.

The United States government buys alot of vehicles from various automobile manufacturers and dealers. (Have you ever heard the cliche about all Federal Employs getting 40,000 dollars a year and a 'Buick'?) Why do you consider this a normal producer-consumer relationship and not private space flight?

I have explained. Its capabilities are nowhere near close the real number one space ship.

I never said the capabilities were as close. I'm saying that privatized space flight is a good thing.

Which decades? Two decades ago all these guys were occupied full time in Cold War's activities. Now that Cold War is over many find themselves with too much free time on their hands and too little money to spend. And free time alone will not get you a spacecraft.

If NASA is doing so good of a job, and their so much more useful than these 'garage hobbyists', why would the government (the same government that funds NASA) also fund (subsidize) these hobbyists? The answer? They don't. They have no reason to.
It's not government subsidizing whenever the government is a consumer.

Refer to the above. If the only means for a company to sustain itself is through sales to the government, then each sale to the government is a form of state-sponsoring or subdisizing.

See, the winner of the Ansari X-Prize gets several millions of dollars, so they're not sustain themselves "only through sales to the government". They're using their own capital to win a prize in a competition.

So would you quote a document that declassifies KH-11's 4-inch resolution?

Old articles from Aviation Week and Space Technology (from early last year, if I remember correctlly). If you would prefer not believing me, then fine. It really matters little.
I'm just not going to spend hours looking through old magazines or browsing archives on the web in order to find an old article.

You could check out NASA's website, or perhaps the U.S.A.F. website (though at the latter of the two, there is probably more concentration on recruiting at the moment. You still might find some good information).

Would not that explain why the Russians never had anything like that? Or perhaps they did, the appetites of their military-industrial complex were hardly smaller.

I have no doubt that the appetites of the Russian (and former Soviet) military-industrial complex were quite large. They just couldn't afford to feed it.

False and you know it. How many 4-inch resolution US sats are in orbit today? Out of "over 200 high resolution military satellites in orbit"?

Maybe by the time SpaceShipTwentyFour Comes around, I'll be able to go up and count them myself.

Besides, some sources say that the fifth generation of the Soviet reconsats (ca 1982) had 20-centimeter resolution, which is the same as that of KH-11/12. Except that the sats are almost two times smaller and lighter.

... and the KeyHole satellites had greater mobility, and nifty little features like able to clearly peer through clouds.

Also interesting to note that American satellites did not need to return to Earth to drop off film canisters starting as early as 1976, where as it took the Soviets well into the 1980s in order to achieve the same feat.

Precisely. And that is the US govt money. Which proves my point yet again.

It's not just 'US Government' money ). You seem to think that any success of a country's economy is only because of government interest in whatever becomes a successful venture. I suppose WalMart only succeeded because the U.S. Government subsidizes them, which is undoubtedly true because one time, while at work (working for local government) I had to drive over to WalMart in order to buy printer cartridges?

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Last year I worked as an intern at a local Emergency Management Agency (Owned and Operated by the County Government). We bought office supplies from a local dollar store. Do you also consider this government subsidizing?

See below.

[quote:3swn4pry]
Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago. With this consumer, they have been able to put some money aside to have fun with "private" space. Without the personnel who have learned their stuff working on the US taxpayers' money, they would not have been able to do anything just the same. This is in sharp contrast with, say, automotive industry, who do not depend on the US govt in any way. The latter represents truly private and state-independent business, the former does not. I do not mean to say it is bad, it simply cannot be the other way around.

The United States government buys alot of vehicles from various automobile manufacturers and dealers. (Have you ever heard the cliche about all Federal Employs getting 40,000 dollars a year and a 'Buick'?) Why do you consider this a normal producer-consumer relationship and not private space flight?[/quote:3swn4pry]
Did you actually read what I wrote? I'll repeat it again here: "Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago." Would you name an automotive company that would go out of business of not for the US govt?

I never said the capabilities were as close. I'm saying that privatized space flight is a good thing.

It's good for your ego, but it is completely irrelevant in terms of technology.

If NASA is doing so good of a job, and their so much more useful than these 'garage hobbyists', why would the government (the same government that funds NASA) also fund (subsidize) these hobbyists? The answer? They don't. They have no reason to.
It's not government subsidizing whenever the government is a consumer.

How can you be so dense? I have said many times that the govt is not subsidizing the hobbyists. However, the companies which are getting somewhere are the companies that depend on the US govt in a significant way. For the simple reason that the govt gives them so much that they can have a little fun on the side. It is equally important that these companies have been doing this stuff on the US taxpayers’ money for decades. Look at the top guys at these competitions. They are not newcomers. They have been in aerospace for decades.

See, the winner of the Ansari X-Prize gets several millions of dollars, so they're not sustain themselves "only through sales to the government". They're using their own capital to win a prize in a competition.

They spent more than they win.

Old articles from Aviation Week and Space Technology (from early last year, if I remember correctlly). If you would prefer not believing me, then fine. It really matters little.
I'm just not going to spend hours looking through old magazines or browsing archives on the web in order to find an old article.

Thought so. Nothing but rumours.

Maybe by the time SpaceShipTwentyFour Comes around, I'll be able to go up and count them myself.

Translation: "yes, only a few US reconsats have 4-inch resolution. The bulk has 12-inch or something."

... and the KeyHole satellites had greater mobility, and nifty little features like able to clearly peer through clouds.

Did the Russians tell you "sh*t, it's too bad our babies cannot see through clouds"? Did they?

Also interesting to note that American satellites did not need to return to Earth to drop off film canisters starting as early as 1976, where as it took the Soviets well into the 1980s in order to achieve the same feat.

The fifth generation (ca 1982) does not depend on that. They still might, though, because it makes a lot of sense security-wise. Radiolinks can be jammed, while it is very difficult to intercept a film canister dropped over the Russian territory.

It's not just 'US Government' money ). You seem to think that any success of a country's economy is only because of government interest in whatever becomes a successful venture. I suppose WalMart only succeeded because the U.S. Government subsidizes them, which is undoubtedly true because one time, while at work (working for local government) I had to drive over to WalMart in order to buy printer cartridges?

"Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago." See for yourself if that applies to WalMart.

Originally Posted by bad_manners

Did you actually read what I wrote? I'll repeat it again here: "Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago."

Saying that they would go out of business without the US Government is something that cannot really be said for certainty unless you maintain the fact that the US government makes selling /alot of things/ illegal to anyone who isn't the US Government (or Intelligence, or Military, etc). If even selling alot of technology to private companies was easier to do (by law), the company might be able to do just fine without the US Government as a consumer.

Would you name an automotive company that would go out of business of not for the US govt?

Would like to name one that would? Do you think the US government buys more cars, per year, than the rest of the population of the United States?

It's good for your ego, but it is completely irrelevant in terms of technology.

I think it's good for more than 'my ego', but whatever.

How can you be so dense? I have said many times that the govt is not subsidizing the hobbyists. However, the companies which are getting somewhere are the companies that depend on the US govt in a significant way. For the simple reason that the govt gives them so much that they can have a little fun on the side. It is equally important that these companies have been doing this stuff on the US taxpayers’ money for decades. Look at the top guys at these competitions. They are not newcomers. They have been in aerospace for decades.

I thought you were trying to say that the US Government was subsidizing the hobbyists. My apologies for the mix up.

They spent more than they win.

I was actually shocked to learn that fact as well.

To be completely honest, I don't believe space flight has really been all that useful to us.
For instance, I formerly knew a gentleman who used to work at NASA, and he stated that alot of the information about near Earth asteroids that could collide with the Earth, as well as information about weather phenomena like El Nino, has been fabricated in order to keep receiving more and more money from the US Government.

Alot of the things that NASA does are counter-productive -- or at least a waiste of money.
(Not that this was relevant to the current conversation...)

Thought so. Nothing but rumours.

A tiny bit of information for you to start with if you'd like to dig up the articles yourself.

Translation: "yes, only a few US reconsats have 4-inch resolution. The bulk has 12-inch or something."

I don't believe I ever made the claim that most of them were 4inch resolution or better?
I'd be willing to be tthat most of the satellites are no better than 10-12inches in resolution.
It wouldn't be worth it.

Did the Russians tell you "sh*t, it's too bad our babies cannot see through clouds"? Did they?

Would it be useful for Russian to have that capability? Probably.

The fifth generation (ca 1982) does not depend on that. They still might, though, because it makes a lot of sense security-wise. Radiolinks can be jammed, while it is very difficult to intercept a film canister dropped over the Russian territory.

Actually that's a very good point. I didn't think of the radiolink jamming.

"Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago." See for yourself if that applies to WalMart.

I think WalMart could have survived and done quite well without the US Government as a customer, however, the simple fact that WalMart is a modern corporation, and the modern corporation is a purposeful government construct, means that WalMart could not have existed in its current form. :-p

Originally Posted by the_intrepid

Would you name an automotive company that would go out of business of not for the US govt?

Would like to name one that would? Do you think the US government buys more cars, per year, than the rest of the population of the United States?

That is my point exactly. The US govt does not buy more cars than the rest of the US population. It does buy infinitely more military aircraft and spacecraft (military and civil) than the rest of the US population.

Alot of the things that NASA does are counter-productive -- or at least a waiste of money.

Correct. That is how it happens in state-sponsored business. In the US, in Russia and everywhere. This is why it is always desirable to replace that with "private" business. Unfortunately, you cannot do it in the case of space.

A tiny bit of information for you to start with if you'd like to dig up the articles yourself.

I've read the articles. They are "expert opinions". KH-11/12 have never been declassified, even though the full set of KH-11 specs was leaked to the Soviets a few years after its launch. For as little as USD 3000. Good deal, eh?

I don't believe I ever made the claim that most of them were 4inch resolution or better?

When I said that the mainstream Russian reconsat were comparable to the mainstream US reconsats, you disagreed. That would imply that the mainstream US reconsats had resolutions better than 10-12 inch.

Would it be useful for Russian to have that capability? Probably.

Probably. Do you know for sure they don't have it? Do you know for sure they do have it? I don't think so. All you know is that KH-12 is said to have that cool thing, that is all the information that we have.

I think WalMart could have survived and done quite well without the US Government as a customer, however, the simple fact that WalMart is a modern corporation, and the modern corporation is a purposeful government construct, means that WalMart could not have existed in its current form. :-p

That point of view is new to me. I am not even sure I agree or disagree. The US govt has made a lot to regulate business in the last century, so there may be a measure of truth to that statement.

Unfortunately, you cannot do it in the case of space.

It has yet to be decided, though I certainly would admit that government has been better at it so far.

Probably. Do you know for sure they don't have it? Do you know for sure they do have it? I don't think so. All you know is that KH-12 is said to have that cool thing, that is all the information that we have.

I see what you're saying. I'll admit it was perhaps too ambitious of a claim to make, without having any actual physical sources available to back me up.

That point of view is new to me. I am not even sure I agree or disagree. The US govt has made a lot to regulate business in the last century, so there may be a measure of truth to that statement.

"Market Socialism". Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were major players in creating the modern corporation. They saw it as a way to nationalize industry.

If Russia enter the EU, the USA will have have not many hopes :P :P .

As for imports and exports you say I know that my country (Greece) exports many goods in Russia (mainly fabricated food).

Originally Posted by Aristodorus

If Russia enter the EU, the USA will have have not many hopes :P :P .

As for imports and exports you say I know that my country (Greece) exports many goods in Russia (mainly fabricated food).

An issue of high importance to the United States, is that Russia's economy becomes stronger and stronger, and the country become more and more stable. There seems to be alot of distrust between the two countries still, but with free trade and no conflict of interests with European and Eurasian countries, this could be reduced to bare minimum.

As I was saying...
If Russia becomes weak, then the growing European Union and China will look upon Russia's land with hungry eyes. In fact, it seems China looks upon Eastern Russia now with hungry eyes. Of course, there are a few European countries that still would like to see Russia fall. So it is both fortunate and unfortunate, that U.S. maintain friendship and trade with Russia and help Russia get sturdy legs back.

If Russia does not completely stablize... Russia will be in trouble and America will find little friendship in Europe/Eurasia. (Since the European Union is basically a union to counter American political, economic, and military power.)

Originally Posted by carlos-england

I was using the oil reference towards Hitler
more than Napoleon, however the gold standard
was brought around the time of the napoleonic wars
and with Russias vast amount of gold deposits, France
would have been the richest nation in the world so
therefore it was in Frances best intrests to get hold
of all that Russian gold.

The EEC originally was used as a club for France and Germany
to trade against Britian and the Commonwealth, when
Britian joined the EEC they lost all their trading with
the likes of Australia and New Zealand.

Now the EU has become a political entity, I have
always thought that the main role of a political EU
is to have Russia as a member as it's final destination.
With the acceptance of the likes of Latvia, Hungary,
Estonia, unthinkable 15 years ago is now reality.

It is nothing like saying Australia to join the EU,
don't be so ridiculous, Russia however far east it goes
has it's political and industrial centres in the west of
Russia, the goverment sits in European Russia
therefore I would say is a legitamte part of Europe.

I tend to agree with you.
Furthermore, I want to reply to people who question the Europeanish nature of Turkey and Russia.
Yea sure Both countries have much land outside geographic Europe. Yet do not forget The Oural is one of the geographical boundaries and therefore Moscow is inside Europe geographically.

Also historically, Russia and Turkey has been linked to Europe. Look no further than Istanbul (former Eastern Roman Empire capital city) and St Petersburg, often called the Northern Venisia. These two cities underlines the profound european nature of these two countries, both culturally and politically.

I'm also fond of the board games like "Grand Siecle", an historic simulation of Europe in the 18 century. Guess what? Turkey and Russia played a major role, influencing the politics of other European countries.

Also I'm training my Russian with a former USSR citizen living in Belgium. She is clearly culturally similar to me. From a cultural point of View I would say the biggest cultural gap to ever exist in EU would be with he South East Kurds from Turkey.

Anyway I think Russia will not join the EU anytime soon. Belarus and Ukraine have to join first. Turkey, I hope, will join the EU around 2015. At best Russia might join the EU around 2030. And it might not be relevant anymore in those times.

Based on the comments I have read here, I would say the barrier for Russia to enter the EU would be the nationalist pride of some Russians, thinking that entering the EU would be some kind of destruction/ submission of motherland Russia. I hope to be wrong.

Cheers

Mordan