Russia and US space cooperation: Who pays the bill?

Russia and US space cooperation: Who pays the bill?

04/14/2005 15:23
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/...288_space.html

Space has no frontiers. Its distances and resources are boundless.
In actuality, space should belong to all humankind. Theoretically, space
exploration should be a combined effort of all nations. At least those
nations that meet the requirements in terms of economy and technology should
join forces. The International Space Station (ISS) is an embodiment of
international cooperation in space. The station has been operational for
nearly 4.5 years. It seems a fair amount of time to evaluate the
feasibility of a space exploration project based on paid-up capital.

The economic rules of our world also apply to space exploration
activities. A main shareholder calls the tune. As for the ISS, the United
States is the main shareholder. The Americans foot the bill for two-thirds
of the equipment and operating costs of the complex. Aside from the
financial reasons, Americans use other effective means of justifying their
leading role in the project. They provided technological and scientific
support to develop space programs in Europe, Canada, and Japan in the 1960s
and 1970s. The USA also started large-scale cooperation in space exploration
with Russia in 1990s. In fact, Americans helped to keep alive the Russian
manned space exploration program in times of political and economic turmoil.

The 1998 intergovernmental agreement stipulates the leading role
of the U.S.A. Americans supervise construction and operations of the
complex, they are in charge of planning activity with regard to the delivery
of payloads and crews, they also enforce safety standards. There are two
reasons behind America"s determination to dominate the international
projects. Firstly, the USA wants to control the development of high
technologies. Secondly, they aim to collect of "the cream" of the world
design. The presidential commission headed by Peter Oldrich, a veteran of
the U.S. aerospace industry, issued a report in June 2004. The report
specifically points to the above goals. In line with some of the objectives
of the national space program unveiled by President Bush in January 2004,
Oldrich commission was set up to consider issues relating to the purpose and
technical realization of America"s future missions to the Moon and Mars. The
commission called for taking "steps aimed at protecting technological
leadership, economic endurance and security of the U.S.A." As for the ways
and approaches to carry out the plan, the commission recommended that "NASA
should develop international cooperation on the basis of a structure that
will encourage the global-scale investing of talents and technologies in
order to fulfil this envisagement."

The concrete plans of the Pentagon mirror the intentions of Bush
administration to accelerate space exploration for the benefit of the
national security. On March 1st, 2005, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld signed a directive "The National Defense Strategy." The directive
aims to "ensure that the USA has access to space so that the enemy may never
use it for hostile purposes."

Meanwhile, the future of the ISS seems to be a bigger concern to
Russia than the protection of its own interests that may be jeopardized by
bilateral space projects.
Russia"s contractual obligations to accommodate American astronauts on
board of the Russian service module will expire in January 2006. The
obligations to launch American crews into orbit by using Soyuz booster
rockets will expire in April next year. Unlike the Russian service module
the Americans can lease in part from the Russians, the Soyuz boosters are
strictly from sale. But sale is out of the question at the moment since NASA
can not purchase any space equipment from Russia pursuant to U.S. law
banning strategic arms sales to Iran that came into effect in 2000. Only
U.S. President can "bypass" the legislation and approve the purchase of the
Russian equipment in case of an emergency deemed a clear and present danger
to the ISS crew. But what shall be done if the space shuttle goes out of
order after docking to the station? Academician Roald Sagdeev, former
director of the Institute of Space Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences,
who is currently a professor with the University of Maryland, suggested that
NASA lend Russia a sum of money for building two Soyuz booster rockets. But
the rockets should not be operated. Instead, they should be kept on a launch
pad in standby for emergency use. According to Mr. Sagdeev, if everything
goes well, Russia will later find the way to use the rockets and pay back
the money. NASA should urgently search for alternative methods to tackle the
situation because some U.S. politicians believe that non-proliferation of
strategic arms is far more important than the future of the ISS. The case of
the ISS shows that interests common to all humankind failed to prevail over
the national interests. The participation in a space partnership can only be
justified if it proves profitable primarily to a participant.

The publication of Oldrich report fueled discontent of the
traditional American partners in the field of space exploration. A
representative of the French Aerospace Agency said that European
participation in the ISS project was not a positive experience and the EU
governments did not wish to repeat it. According to him, Europeans do not
want to play second fiddle to the USA. any more and they should have the
right to effortlessly back out of a project if cooperation goes sour. German
and Italian authorities also expressed their skepticism about the ISS
project and the latest plans of the Bush administration.

"Jim Oberg"

Russia and US space cooperation:
Who pays the bill?
04/14/2005 15:23
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/...288_space.html


The concrete plans of the Pentagon mirror
the intentions of Bush administration to
accelerate space exploration for the benefit of the
national security.

If you occupy space, possess smart weapons, and have total situational
awareness, then an opponent is either going to think twice about engaging
forces, or face a quick defeat when hostilities commence, without the US
having to resort to the nuclear option. So that leaves an adversary with
a couple of options... terror attack, or nuclear attack, neither of which
has a viable defense as far as I know. And then there also the political
environment in the US that insists on low-priced energy in large
quantities, and the concurrent erosion of cultural and economic strength
due to unregulated immiigration. The national security impact of these
last two items seems at least equal or of greater impact than the
possibility of external attack, in my opinion.

In sci.space.policy Revision wrote:

"Jim Oberg"

Russia and US space cooperation:
Who pays the bill?
04/14/2005 15:23
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/...288_space.html


The concrete plans of the Pentagon mirror
the intentions of Bush administration to
accelerate space exploration for the benefit of the
national security.

If you occupy space, possess smart weapons, and have total situational
awareness, then an opponent is either going to think twice about engaging

Except that the smart weapons are more or less anything but and
nobody cares for yet another inoperable satellite

forces, or face a quick defeat when hostilities commence, without the US

provided teh US forces didn't run out of ammo midway through,
didn't blow themselves up or coillapse from exhaution and
depresssion...

having to resort to the nuclear option. So that leaves an adversary with
a couple of options... terror attack, or nuclear attack, neither of which
has a viable defense as far as I know. And then there also the political

Neither of which is needed anyways.

environment in the US that insists on low-priced energy in large
quantities, and the concurrent erosion of cultural and economic strength
due to unregulated immiigration. The national security impact of these
last two items seems at least equal or of greater impact than the
possibility of external attack, in my opinion.

There is no need fopr an external attack - wave enough US foreign dept
before teh noses of the congressmen and they will bend over and do anything
you want.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

With the U.S.A. government have the debt of around 32.000 billions U.S.
Dollars, shouldn't the U.S.A. be concern on its spending habit and on
how it's gonna repay its debt?