The United States has lost its competence in the production of small space satellites

a reply to: RussianTroll

the newest “White Swan” Tu - 160

I've told you before RT, America from 1960's called and they want the bluieprints back for the B1b!

So, Putin copied Americas 90's cubesat design and added some sputnik bling to fool you guys and you've fallen for it.....

a reply to: RussianTroll
That aircraft is just a patched up TU-160 from the 1980s. No stealth. The faster it goes, the brighter it glows. Easy target. Contracts suggest maybe 25 of them will be built, if russia finds the money.

You really should compare your 1980s TU-160M to the US B-21 Stealth bomber.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Well, not when Putin's driving thats for sure.

Some people just think he's an ars@hole.

And is you right parenthesis key stuck again big fella?

a reply to: RussianTroll

duckduckgo.com... pg

Please explain how it was physically impossible for it to house astronauts.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
NATO has not been able to destroy the Crimean Bridge for many years, but it is puffing out its cheeks all over Russia))))

When did NATO try to destroy the Crimean Bridge, do you have any links for that news?? Maybe you're thinking about the times Ukraine has disrupted it (to much Vodka I think!!)? It doesn't really have anything to do with space tech though does it?

Maybe Russia can advance to monkeys to control their little satelites??
You should give up the Vodka, I'm sure that would help launch a dozen or more of these monkey sats and Putin would see you for the hero you think you are!!

a reply to: Kurokage

Do these little satellites go "Bleep. Bleep"?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2



Canny wait to see how they remove the CMOS battery from low orbit.

a reply to: RussianTroll

I found a video of a test launch and the machinery used to control the launch...

originally posted by: RussianTroll
Okay, I see no one here understands what we are talking about. I'm not talking about Starlink satellites measuring 10x10 cm, which can only relay the Internet signal. We are talking about reconnaissance satellites of small size, but with a full range of functions.
An example from the recent past. Recently there was an international scandal at the diplomatic level that Russian inspector satellites were approaching American reconnaissance satellites, and they allegedly did something with them. The American reconnaissance satellite is three times the size of the Russian one, and in addition to reconnaissance equipment, it has an autonomous engine that can change its orbit. But the amount of fuel is limited. Russian satellites, in addition to a set of equipment and engines, have a much smaller size and a much larger fuel volume.
A Russian inspector satellite approaches an American satellite. The latter runs away from him, changing his orbit. The Russian catches up with him. The American runs away again. And so on until the American runs out of fuel, loses functionality, enters the upper atmosphere and burns up. The Russian flies further and performs his functions.
Now it is clear?

I'm coming in a little late to this conversation, I know, but thought a little history might be of interest.


Years prior to the development of CubeSat (and Russia's "inspector" satellite), a small US aerospace R&D firm proposed a multi-modal orbital system called the "Eohippus".

Eohippus was conceived as a satellite "bus", a basic modular platform providing on-orbit power, control, and communications, which could be "customized" to serve a multitude of purposes...including inspection of other orbital assets. Eohippus was designed to "piggy-back" to orbit aboard the US STS (Shuttle) as "Get-Away-Special" (G.A.S.) payload, and, in its most basic configuration, was a cylinder measuring approximately 10 inches in diameter and 18 inches tall (I may be off on those dimensions, it's been decades since I reviewed the specs).

The project reached the basic prototyping stage, and venture capital was being organized, when the shuttle Challenger tragically exploded on launch, which ended, for years, any commercial, non-contract, participation in the US Space program.

I believe an article about the Eohippus project was published by an industry newsletter called (at one time) "Space Daily, Vol 6, No 25, for Tuesday May 06, 1986, page 187 which has long since gone out of print (Yes, they used to actually print things, on actual paper!)



ETA:

Details of the project (with illustrations) were published in "Space Caledar", Vol 5, No 20, May 19-25, 1986

a reply to: RussianTroll

I think your evening was done when you opened that 2nd bottle of Vodka and started posting tonight!!

So are you actually going to show real evidence of how America is failing in dominating space, and that Russia with it's 60's to 80's design and technology is really in control?
Other than trying to be smug about your 60's B1b rip off, I don't see any actual evidence of Russian advancements from you to show your superior space technology.

originally posted by: RussianTroll

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ok. Well, since you can't provide a link to a Russian built launched and operated constellation of small satellites, I'm going to assume you don't have one.

I only brought up starlink to show that yes we can mass produce these things. You say they can only transmit the Internet ? Yeah, that's what they're selling but you can use it to transmit whatever data you want. Plus, spacex is working on star shield. It's the military version.

If Russia is so far ahead then why do I keep hearing stories about the Russians using starlink in Ukraine? Where are your sats?

Also we have x37b. Russia ain't got jack. So don't give me this garbage about Russian satellites chasing us satellites till they run out of fuel. Link or it didn't happen.

Also you guys sold you designs to the Chinese and now your number 4 in the space world. Yeah, behind Elon.