COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?

Revision wrote:

What would you propose as non-NASA development group?


Teams put together for the purpose of tackling markets.


In other words, there isn't group that can replace NASA.

??

Can you describe the thought process (to use the phrase generously, and
ignoring the lack of knowledge of english grammar) that would result in
such a statement, based on mine?

That's a rhetorical question, of course.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
During the Shuttle-Mir program, many, many people talked about how bad
Mir
was and how little science was actually performed. Now along comes ISS,
which is being operated in a manner very similar to Mir. That is to say,
ISS is being run by two to three permanent crew members which spend most
of
their waking moments doing maintenance on the station so it can remain
operating.

That's a trifle misleading. Yes, ISS is being operated 'MIR-style'
now, but that is a result of many missteps, problems, etc... It is
not the planned style of operations. (Though it appears likely that
it will remain the style for the near future.)

To be fair, there isn't even a very credible plan for increasing the crew
size beyond 3. The US was originally committed to providing a CRV (or
CRV's) at ISS which would allow crew sized beyond 3 and would relieve Russia
of providing Soyuz for this purpose. As we can all see by recent press
releases, this date for this "handoff" is fast approaching and the US has no
CRV to replace Soyuz!

Furthermore, the US HAB module was cancelled long ago as well, making it
even more difficult to expand the crew size beyond 3.

It's largely the fault of the US that the crew size may never exceed 3.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Rand Simberg" wrote earlier:
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)?

"Mike Walsh" replied:
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.

I don't know about point 1, but I think we can rescue point 2:
We can admit we were too optimistic about the ability of STS to fly
safely and frequently, and that we may or may not be able to ever get
it back to safe-enough condition to ever fly again. We can admit the
ISS-completion depends on STS, hence might never get finished.
Accordingly we can make the best of what we've already invested in ISS
by switching to a fully tele-operated situation there in the
foreseeable future (until STS is flying again, or something else turns
up). We can use our various expendable unmanned rockets to launch cargo
and equipment to ISS, developing expertise at automated rendezvous and
docking which may prove useful for the HST repair. The equipment we
deliver to ISS in this way can be for tele-operated experiments. For
example, we might create a folding mock-up of the general shape of HST,
fly it to ISS, tele-unfold it, attach it to some truss, and then
practice HST tele-repairs on it.

Jim Oberg wrote:

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.

Since there wouldn't need to be nine crew if the shuttle ended up at the
ISS, but instead nine minus the three who could go home right away on
the Soyuz capsule, the math on the total time they could stay needs to
be redone.

Since there wouldn't need to be nine crew if the shuttle ended up at the
ISS, but instead nine minus the three who could go home right away on
the Soyuz capsule, the math on the total time they could stay needs to
be redone.

nasa appeared reluctant to return 3 on soyuz, I guess vbecause in a medical
emergency there wouldnt be a way to get a sick crew person home.

but they would likely do what had to be done with a failing overcrowded
station....

not wanting to admit it in advance

HAVE A GREAT DAY!