News: Space station`s future hinges on shuttle

03 August 2003 00:10

Space station`s future hinges on shuttle

The 16-nation International Space Station (ISS) may have to be
abandoned unless the US soon clears its grounded space shuttle fleet
to restart supply flights, or comes up with significant extra funds to
help Russia's strained space programme to do the job, experts say. "If
Russia's space funding remains at its current level for the next
couple years and shuttle flights are not resumed, the ISS programme
will die," said Igor Lisov, an independent Russian space expert.
"Russia's resources are strained to the breaking point. We would have
to double our budgets to keep the ISS properly manned, fuelled and
supplied, and there seems no chance of that happening." Heads of the
world's major space organisations met last week in California to
consider the fate of the US$100 billion initiative, and agreed among
themselves that the programme must be kept going somehow. But no one
offered to increase funding to Russia's cash-strapped space agency,
Rosaviakosmos, which insists it is already running on empty. "We are
urgently raising the issue of additional funding with our American,
Japanese and European partners, but so far there is no news," said
Konstantin Krejdenko, spokesman for Rosaviakosmos. The US space agency
Nasa's surviving space shuttles were grounded after the Columbia
exploded and crashed while returning from the space station last
February, and they are unlikely to fly again until next year at the
earliest. Even then, crippling restrictions might be in place once the
preliminary report on the disaster is completed. The space station's
permanent crew has been reduced from three to two, with US astronaut
Ed Lu and Russian cosmonaut Yury Malenchenko currently manning the
station. Some experts say that if the space chiefs decide to
completely de-man the station to save resources in the present crisis,
it may never be restarted. "The key objective now is to preserve the
ISS in working order, and this will be impossible without astronaut
crews staying on board," said Mr Krejdenko. Russia, the only remaining
space power with the capability to reach the ISS, has so far filled
the gap by ferrying personnel and provisions aboard its vintage Soyuz
and Progress single-use spacecraft. But experts say Russia can only
afford two manned Soyuz and four robot Progress flights annually, and
the shuttle's power is badly needed for hauling tasks. "It takes at
least two years to build a Soyuz capsule, so if we are to plan an
increase in flights, the funding must be made available now," said an
engineer with the aerospace firm which manufactures space vehicles.
Russian spacecraft may supply the ISS, but only space shuttles can
deliver the bulky modules and other materials needed to continue
construction of the station which, though less than half finished, is
already as big as a football field. The ISS also needs to be regularly
"boosted" into higher orbit, an easy task for a shuttle, but requiring
the power of several Russian craft.
[AIW [Asia Africa Intelligence Wire]]

http://www.gateway2russia.com/artf.p...id=&query=nasa

Nasa's surviving space shuttles were grounded after the Columbia
exploded and crashed while returning from the space station last
February,

I am really getting sick of seeing this phrase "exploded" in nearly every media
outlet talking about the loss of Columbia, as it seems everyone I run into
these days says Columbia "exploded"...even people who really should know
better.

-A.L.

(MasterShrink) wrote

I am really getting sick of seeing this phrase "exploded" in nearly
every media outlet talking about the loss of Columbia, as it seems
everyone I run into these days says Columbia "exploded"...even people
who really should know better.

It was the same way with Challenger, which didn't strictly "explode."
"Violently broke apart" or "disintegrated" seems about the best way
to say it without going into an excessively long explanation of what
actually happened. All in all, I'm willing to give "exploded" a pass,
though I also wince on seeing it.

Allen Thomson wrote:
(MasterShrink) wrote


I am really getting sick of seeing this phrase "exploded" in nearly
every media outlet talking about the loss of Columbia, as it seems
everyone I run into these days says Columbia "exploded"...even people
who really should know better.


It was the same way with Challenger, which didn't strictly "explode."

Yeah, but at least with Challenger, when the accident occurred, they had
actually announced it at Cape Canaveral: "Obviously a major
malfunction....We have no downlink....The Flight Dynamics Officer has
confirmed that the vehicle has exploded." Remember? Everybody watching
the accident on TV heard that announcement--even though the word
"exploded" turned out to be not entirely accurate.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.