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.

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!

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?

"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.

"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.

Correction: Words attributed to Jim Oberg belong to Andrei Kislyakov, if
that is his real name. After all, we *are* all Oberg.

"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

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)?

"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

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.