COULD THE ISS BECOME A RUSSO-EUROPEAN PROJECT?

HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote:

why would anyone ever again collaborate with NASA?

Hopefully, no one would, and we'd have no more of these costly
international extravaganzas that serve little value in terms of opening
up space.


So you think Hubble was meaningless? What about Jason? Cassini?....etc

No, by "international space extravaganzas," I was referring to the
expensive manned space programs, not space science.

I don't believe that the ISS agreement is a treaty.


At a minimum it is a MoU between government, but I think it went more formal
than this. As an aside, I think JSF also is a MoU, as is MEADS.

Right. But not treaty level.

We already have a
track record of reneging on space agreements (e.g., Spacelab), so this
would be nothing new. It doesn't mean that our word couldn't be taken
on things that are important and truly treaty level.


Your word is your word. If you do not hold to it, what worth is your
signature on a piece of paper?

Do you really believe that abandoning ISS will result in other countries
being unwilling to engage in treaties with the U.S.? Seriously?

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 10:44:37 -0400, "Terrell Miller"
wrote:


Before Columbia
NASA's manned spacecraft arm was intent on completing ISS and repairing
Hubble, all by trying to maintain fundamentally unsafe and unreachable
shuttle production rates.

What's "fundamentally unsafe" about six flights per year?

Brian

HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote:

Charles Buckley a écrit dans le message :
...

The thing is, the US is moving towards a non-collaborative
approach. Multinationalism with partners is really not the
direction the US is going with the new strategic outlook in it's
space program.



ACtually, I hears the US is looking for funding partners, on the JSF model.
The problem is that not even Uk considers JSF a model to follow in
international projects.



The US is more approaching this from a "we're going to do this. If you
want in, this is the way to do it". We're really not that worried about
others coming in, or not. The overall plan for development is based upon
the US carrying the full load. We do have a pretty good chance that a
country like Italy will buy onto it. It's a no-go with anyone wanting
a significant partnership.

we're looking for junior - very junior - partners.


why would anyone ever trust the US signed word on ANY internation

treaty?


A question of which the ISS is only a minor issue. Are other countries
still willing to cut deals with the US after they left the ABM and
Test Ban treaty?


AFAIK, the way the US actually pulled out of ABM ( as opposed to the way the
administration first amonced ) was actually allowed under the treaty.

And ISS may be a minor point, but it is all cumulative. ONE mishap may be
forgiven in international diplomacy ( esp. toward a 800-lb gorilla ). A
succession of them, on several unrelated subjects is something else


I am still not seeing it. There are simply too many major issues
happening in terms of unilateral and multilateral perceptions for ISS
to really be a make-or-break deal. The US will be still be able to get
Russian subcontractors - but only on a strictly cash basis. Business
and the like is a completely different issue than Treaties.

The US was hurt more by pushing the Kyoto Treaty for years, then dumping
it. ISS did serve its primary purpose.

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 10:44:37 -0400, "Terrell Miller"
wrote:



Before Columbia
NASA's manned spacecraft arm was intent on completing ISS and repairing
Hubble, all by trying to maintain fundamentally unsafe and unreachable
shuttle production rates.


What's "fundamentally unsafe" about six flights per year?



The vehicle used for those 6 flights...

Rand Simberg a écrit dans le message :
t...
HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote:

why would anyone ever again collaborate with NASA?

Hopefully, no one would, and we'd have no more of these costly
international extravaganzas that serve little value in terms of opening
up space.


So you think Hubble was meaningless? What about Jason? Cassini?....etc

No, by "international space extravaganzas," I was referring to the
expensive manned space programs, not space science.

Since, IIRC, there were only 2 manned international space program ( 3 at a
stretch ) - ISS, Appollo-Soyouz, and Maybe Spacelab -, I think we have too
few sample to be able to judge.


I don't believe that the ISS agreement is a treaty.


At a minimum it is a MoU between government, but I think it went more
formal
than this. As an aside, I think JSF also is a MoU, as is MEADS.

Right. But not treaty level.

We already have a
track record of reneging on space agreements (e.g., Spacelab), so this
would be nothing new. It doesn't mean that our word couldn't be taken
on things that are important and truly treaty level.


Your word is your word. If you do not hold to it, what worth is your
signature on a piece of paper?

Do you really believe that abandoning ISS will result in other countries
being unwilling to engage in treaties with the U.S.? Seriously?

All by itself? No. As part of a disturbing trend? Yes. The question is what
worth is the US' word? if it is binding only when it is in the US interest
to do so, then the US is by definition not to be trusted.

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 10:44:37 -0400, "Terrell Miller"
wrote:


Before Columbia
NASA's manned spacecraft arm was intent on completing ISS and repairing
Hubble, all by trying to maintain fundamentally unsafe and unreachable
shuttle production rates.

What's "fundamentally unsafe" about six flights per year?

Indeed, from 1992 to 1997 the shuttle flew 50 times, an average of over
seven per year.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Charles Buckley a écrit dans le message :
...
HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote:

Charles Buckley a écrit dans le message :
...

The thing is, the US is moving towards a non-collaborative
approach. Multinationalism with partners is really not the
direction the US is going with the new strategic outlook in it's
space program.



ACtually, I hears the US is looking for funding partners, on the JSF
model.
The problem is that not even Uk considers JSF a model to follow in
international projects.



The US is more approaching this from a "we're going to do this. If you
want in, this is the way to do it". We're really not that worried about
others coming in, or not. The overall plan for development is based upon
the US carrying the full load. We do have a pretty good chance that a
country like Italy will buy onto it. It's a no-go with anyone wanting
a significant partnership.

we're looking for junior - very junior - partners.

Which are still willing to pay a part of the bill but have no say in the use
of their investment or even if there is going to be a return. How long do
you think other nations will be willing to go this way? At one point,
everyone will say 'enough is enough'. At that point US will truly be a rogue
nation ( in the same sense a rogue bull elephant ). This is not a space
specific problem, BTW.

And ISS may be a minor point, but it is all cumulative. ONE mishap may
be
forgiven in international diplomacy ( esp. toward a 800-lb gorilla ). A
succession of them, on several unrelated subjects is something else


I am still not seeing it. There are simply too many major issues
happening in terms of unilateral and multilateral perceptions for ISS
to really be a make-or-break deal. The US will be still be able to get
Russian subcontractors - but only on a strictly cash basis. Business
and the like is a completely different issue than Treaties.

Unless there are laws ( in the US or in Russia ) forbidding said business.
We are very near that point, in some cases.


The US was hurt more by pushing the Kyoto Treaty for years, then dumping
it.

True, but it's part and parcel of the same problem.

ISS did serve its primary purpose.

Which was, in your opinion?

Beside gelding EU/Japan/Russia manned space flight programs.

HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote:

Do you really believe that abandoning ISS will result in other countries
being unwilling to engage in treaties with the U.S.? Seriously?


All by itself? No. As part of a disturbing trend? Yes. The question is what
worth is the US' word? if it is binding only when it is in the US interest
to do so, then the US is by definition not to be trusted.

Again, there are different levels of the US' "word." If someone says
they'll meet you for dinner, and fail to show up a couple times due to
unforeseen circumstances, does that mean that you won't sign a legally
binding contract with them?

Life may not be fair, but it's absurd to think that other countries will
suddenly cease to engage the US in treaties because of ISS. But they
should think twice before participating in any more boondoggles like
ISS. You would have thought they'd have learned from the supercollider,
but they act like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football. "*This*
time, they'll keep their word."

Charles Buckley wrote:

What's "fundamentally unsafe" about six flights per year?



The vehicle used for those 6 flights...

But that's true at any flight rate. To use the words of Ralph Nader in
a different (and more true) context, it's unsafe at any speed.

HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote:

ISS did serve its primary purpose.

Which was, in your opinion?

Beside gelding EU/Japan/Russia manned space flight programs.

That was one of them. Another was keeping the pork flowing to Houston,
Huntsville and the Cape, and California. And of course, in the 1990s,
it was midnight basketball for the Russians. But it was never to build
a space station.