|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
linked from http://www.spacetoday.net/ 2004-08-05 16:37 MOSCOW. August 3. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov.) It is becoming increasingly difficult to tally US declarations about the International Space Station (ISS) with reality. On the one hand, President Bush and NASA have given repeated assurances that the US still sees the ISS as a unique international project in manned space flight. On the other hand, words alone cannot make equipment, especially sophisticated space equipment, keep functioning. Money is needed for the final version of the space station to appear in all its beauty, complete with new Russian and US-Canadian elements, the European Columbus orbital facility and the Japanese Kibo module. However, are the requisite funds available? Until the US resumes shuttle flights, all the ISS can do is try to survive. No matter how great Russia's space capabilities may be, while the shuttles are grounded the station has to operate on a minimum skeleton crew of two. So, it appears that before the shuttles fly off into the sunset of a well-deserved retirement, a great deal of work will have been done. Firstly, this means enabling astronauts to live on the ISS on a permanent basis. Secondly, the further construction of the US and Canadian modules is pointless without the shuttles, as the entire orbital equipment was designed exactly for this transport system. When commenting on NASA plans for the old shuttles, Nikolai Moiseyev, deputy director of Russia's Federal Space Agency, quoted the US side as saying that "considerable funds would be required for this, but Congress has not yet approved them. The sum in question is about one billion dollars, which is an issue for even such a wealthy country as the United States." So, there may be some good intentions, but the cash is obviously a problem. Finally, it looks like the Americans simply fear the ISS. Here is just one example. A New York Times report featured a senior NASA official who preferred to remain anonymous categorically rejecting the idea of using the ISS as a shelter for shuttle crews in emergencies. The argument is based on expert conclusions that the space station's present life-support system could not cope with the increased demand for oxygen, water and food. The figures are as follows: the experience of servicing orbital stations shows that the average period a crew of nine can survive is 59.6 days. The conclusion was that there would still not be enough time for another shuttle to complete a rescue operation. Russian Soyuz rescue spaceships were totally ignored, as if the Russian partners simply did not exist. Perhaps the benchmark for NASA employees' qualifications has dropped? No, this is not true. Perhaps the shuttles have technical problems that make the experts wary about resuming flights? If this is the case, it should be stated openly and a solution should be found together. However, maybe the objectives have changed and NASA no longer cares about the space station or the old shuttles? After all, there is Russia, which alone carries the entire burden of the ISS programme, and has not intention of stopping midway. Moreover, it co-operates with the other ISS partners, i.e., the Europeans, who no longer want merely to watch the beautiful trails left by US spacecraft as they leave the Earth. A programme to launch European automatic transport ships has been completely coordinated between the European Space Agency and Russia's Federal Space Agency. The Arian-5 heavy carrier rocket, Europe's leading craft, will orbit the first such ship, the Jules Verne, in October 2005. Accordingly, with its growing scientific and technological capabilities, Europe intends to join the manned space flight programme. And Russia's position on the ISS is perfectly clear. "We have expressed our principled stand to our partners - the unconditional observance of our commitments to all the participants is a major task for Russia," Nikolai Moiseyev said recently. "At the same time, from 2005 it may be considered that all the commitments have been honoured. Therefore, the development of the Russian segment at the ISS and support for the activities of the Russian crew there is becoming a priority for us." It will be interesting to see if Houston reads this loud and clear. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT? linked from http://www.spacetoday.net/ I say GO FOR IT! While the US cuts our loosses and moves onto something better. Like a dramatic robotic program with a new crew vehicle. HAVE A GREAT DAY! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:31:52 GMT, "Jim Oberg"
wrote: the Japanese Kibo module. I'm tempted to ask.....Kibo... Am I wrong in thinking of the Kibo of alt.kibology and such, AKA the Internet's very own deity? Is there a relation? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
"Jim Oberg" wrote:
It will be interesting to see if Houston reads this loud and clear. I assume that Houston will see this for what it is; More Russian viewgraph dreams. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
"Jim Oberg"
It will be interesting to see if Houston reads this loud and clear. "Derek Lyons" I assume that Houston will see this for what it is; More Russian viewgraph dreams. "Jim Oberg" After all, there is Russia, which alone carries the entire burden of the ISS programme, and has not intention of stopping midway. Wow....I tend to agree with Derek for once. This is one of those times that I need H. Spencer's view....heh heh. After arguing ad infinitum that space is worth the investment, I have to admit that a billion bucks is a thousand million dollars, and is more than the GNP of many countries on the planet. Plus the really great $12/hr jobs that are in Mexico now. Yeah sure space flight is worth the investment but NASA does not operate in a vacuum, no pun intended. Call it the Enron syndrome, a viewgraph dream, whatever, it is real only as long as you believe in it. We all know subconsciously that if the US hits a wall that NASA is gone. The way we hit the wall is by spending huge sums on each head of the hydra while the social and financial viability of taxpayer base declines. And the Russians are surely the last ones to be teaching us a damned thing. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
Correction: Words attributed to Jim Oberg belong to Andrei Kislyakov, if
that is his real name. After all, we *are* all Oberg. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
"Jim Oberg" wrote in message ... COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT? (Snipped most of a good article. See Oberg's post) Accordingly, with its growing scientific and technological capabilities, Europe intends to join the manned space flight programme. And Russia's position on the ISS is perfectly clear. "We have expressed our principled stand to our partners - the unconditional observance of our commitments to all the participants is a major task for Russia," Nikolai Moiseyev said recently. "At the same time, from 2005 it may be considered that all the commitments have been honoured. Therefore, the development of the Russian segment at the ISS and support for the activities of the Russian crew there is becoming a priority for us." It will be interesting to see if Houston reads this loud and clear. I doubt that it matters a much whether Houston reads this loud and clear as whether Washington hears it and makes its own commitments. Right now neither the U.S. budgeting or the expressed willingness of either the Russians or the Europeans to pay money on space efforts matches funding required to continue the ISS and bring it up to its planned final status. Congress takes a beating for dragging their feet on the NASA budget, but I don't believe NASA has presented them with a completely coherent plan that brings the Shuttle back to flight status, completes the U.S. commitments to the ISS and also goes ahead with a lunar-Mars program. My own opinion is that the ISS and the Shuttle are most essential for maintaining U.S. credibility. Mike Walsh |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
Mike Walsh wrote:
My own opinion is that the ISS and the Shuttle are most essential for maintaining U.S. credibility. And in my opinion, finally admitting that they were disastrous decisions, and promising to learn from them, and not do things like that any more are most essential for *reestablishing* U.S. credibility. How does continuing a failed policy maintain credibility (assuming, of course that the U.S. has any residual credibility in space to maintain)? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ink.net... Mike Walsh wrote: My own opinion is that the ISS and the Shuttle are most essential for maintaining U.S. credibility. And in my opinion, finally admitting that they were disastrous decisions, and promising to learn from them, and not do things like that any more are most essential for *reestablishing* U.S. credibility. How does continuing a failed policy maintain credibility (assuming, of course that the U.S. has any residual credibility in space to maintain)? I am somewhat bemused by the views of some people in these newsgroups that something good will happen if we abandon a working space station and the only personnel carrying orbital vehicle the U.S. has and expect something good to happen. What are the lessons you would expect to be learned? 1. Never build a recoverable and reusable spacecraft. 2. Never build a space station. Mike Walsh |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?
Mike Walsh wrote:
I am somewhat bemused by the views of some people in these newsgroups that something good will happen if we abandon a working space station and the only personnel carrying orbital vehicle the U.S. has and expect something good to happen. And I am more than somewhat bemused by the view of some people who think that the space station is "working" in any other than a rudimentary sense, and that abandoning a failure of a launch system would somehow be a disaster. What are the lessons you would expect to be learned? 1. Never build a recoverable and reusable spacecraft. 2. Never build a space station. Those are lessons that would only be learned by ignorant idiots. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Proposed Theoretical Adjustments to Project Orion | Diginomics | Policy | 4 | April 21st 04 01:25 AM |
Shenzhou has landed | Rick DeNatale | History | 74 | October 25th 03 07:23 PM |
News: Blue Streak Rocket history project gets cash boost | Rusty B | History | 0 | August 6th 03 11:17 PM |
The Little Engineer That Could--Humor | Karl Gallagher | Policy | 0 | July 23rd 03 08:13 PM |