Mantsov: "Dordain attacks negative media"

Another unique and interesting piece on space politics:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4347

Jim Oberg wrote:

Another unique and interesting piece on space politics:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4347

I'd still like the various partners to provide a list of what they'd
do, what research they'd do, what benefits they might get if ISS were
to be built out to the end, or various points short of the end. ("End"
might be defined as what ISS would look like if the currently planned
Shuttle program/manifest were carried out successfully.)

I.e., what do the relevant people think ISS is for?

"dan" wrote in news:1141489912.081014.38960
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Surely ESA, Russia, and Japan would have a larger role in
decision-making if the Shuttle program ends. The additional modules are
of little use until the crew can be increased to at least six, since
little or no science can be done even with a crew of three. If ESA is
in a position to transport supplies to ISS they would presumably have a
larger role in determining what will be done with them.

It depends on who pays for it. ESA is obligated to provide one ATV per year
for ISS resupply once the Columbus module is launched. If the US relies on
those ESA-funded ATVs for resupply in the post-shuttle era, that would
indeed require the ISS agreements to be renegotiated to give ESA more of a
decision-making role. But if the US were to pay ESA for extra ATVs, that
would still be US-provided resupply capability and the US would have the
same decision-making power they do now.


--
JRF

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